title: Case C-485/04: Action brought on 25 November 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
               5.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/8

         Action brought on 25 November 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
   (Case C-485/04)
   (2005/C 31/17)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 25 November 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by G. Valero Jordana and D. Recchia, acting as Agents.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/17/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 March 2003 amending Directive 98/70/EC (2) relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels and, in any event, by not notifying the Commission of those provisions, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that directive;

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

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

      (1)  OJ L 76 of 22.03.2003, p. 10.

      (2)  OJ L 350 of 28.12.1998, p. 58.


title: Case T-903/16: Action brought on 19 December 2016 — RE v Commission

text:
               20.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 53/41

         Action brought on 19 December 2016 — RE v Commission
   (Case T-903/16)
   (2017/C 053/50)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: RE (Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               order the annulment of the decision SEC 10.20/06/15 of the European Commission of 12 October 2016 for the part pertaining to Regulation 45/2001, and order the defendant to pay to the applicant ten thousand euros (EUR 10 000) as fair and equitable compensation for non-material damages from the unlawful refusal for access to his personal data;

               —

               order the defendant to produce a document relating to the applicant’s recruitment, pursuant to Article 91 (c) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court or, alternatively, to communicate this document to the Court pursuant to Article 104 of the above Rules and order the defendant to pay to the applicant thirty thousand euros (EUR 30 000) in compensation for non-material damages from the unethical and unlawful processing of his personal data during the investigation;

               —

               order the defendant to bear its own costs as well as the costs of the applicant in the current proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its action for annulment, the applicant alleges that the contested decision is vitiated by a complete lack of reasoning as regards data for which no exception was invoked that would justify the refusal to grant the applicant access to these personal data.
   Moreover, the applicant puts forward that as far as it precluded the applicant from accessing his personal data invoking an exception pertinent to the protection of investigations under Article 20(1)(a) of Regulation 45/2001 (1), the contested decision must be considered unlawful as it failed to demonstrate how such an exception continued to apply after the closing of the investigation involving the applicant.
   The applicant further submits that the contested decision’s rejection of his specific request to obtain access in an expunged/redacted form, submitted for the first time with his application of 21 September 2016, must be considered unlawful as far as it did not provide any reasons as to why disclosure of the applicant’s personal data in an expunged form was not possible in this case, particularly after the closing of the investigation.
   In support of his action for damages, the applicant alleges that he suffered moral damage stemming from the Directorate-General Human Resources and Security’s unlawful refusal of access to his personal data, that he incurred significant damage to his professional advancement from the unlawful processing of his personal data by the said Directorate and more specifically from the unlawful dissemination of information regarding the investigation with the intent of harming the development of his career, which damage cannot be remedied solely by the annulment of the contested decision. In this context, the applicant asks the Court to take into consideration two documents so as to examine the applicant’s claim for reparation of the non-material harm incurred due to the administration’s conduct and order the award of compensation for non-material damages.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ L 8, p. 1)


title: Case T-636/11: Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2013 — Hostel drap v OHIM — Aznar Textil (MY drap) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark MY drap — Earlier Community figurative mark BON DRAP — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/74

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2013 — Hostel drap v OHIM — Aznar Textil (MY drap)
   (Case T-636/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark MY drap - Earlier Community figurative mark BON DRAP - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 225/164
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Hostel drap, SL (Monistrol de Montserrat, Spain) (represented by: C. Prat, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: O. Mondéjar Ortuño, agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Aznar Textil, SL (Paterna, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 September 2011 (Case R 2127/2010-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Aznar Textil, SL and Hostel drap, SL.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Hostel drap, SL to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 65, 3.3.2012.


title: Action brought on 21 December 1995 by 'T' against the European Parliament (Case T-233/95)

text:
30 . 3 . 96          | EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 95/ 15
2 . orders the parties to bear their own costs, including              Hoskins, Barrister, of the Bar of England and Wales, with an
      those incurred in the procedure for interim measures.            address for service at Brick Court Chambers, 8 Avenue de la
                                                                       Joyeuse Entree, Brussels, against Council of the European
(M OJ No C 43 , 12 . 2 . 1994 .                                        Union ( Agents: Jürgen Huber and Guus Houttuin ) and
                                                                       Commission of the European Communities ( Agents: Frank
                                                                       Benyon and Lucio Gussetti ) — application for suspension of
                                                                       the operation of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3254/91 of
                                                                       4 November 1991 prohibiting the use of leghold traps in the
                                                                       Community and the introduction into the Community of
                                                                       pelts and manufactured goods of certain wild animal species
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               originating in countries which catch them by means of
                      of 15 February 1996                              leghold traps or trapping methods which do not meet
                                                                       international humane trapping standards ( OJ No L 308 ,
in Case T-125/95 : Hassan Belhanbel v. Commission of the
                                                                       p. 1 ) — the President of the Court of First Instance made an
                   European Communities ( 1 )                          order on 12 February 1996 , the operative part of which is as
(Official — Competition — Decision of the selection board              follows :
that a candidate has failed the oral test — Scope of the
                  obligation to state reasons)
                                                                       1 . the application for interim measures is dismissed;
                             ( 96/C 95/29 )
                                                                       2.   costs are reserved.
                (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-125/95 , Hassan Belhanbel, a former member of
the temporary staff of the Commission of the European
Communities, residing at Namur ( Belgium ), represented by
Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of               Action brought on 21 December 1995 by 'T' against the
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg                                 European Parliament
at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 1 Rue Glesener, v.
Commission of the European Communities ( Agent: Ana                                           Case T-233/95 )
Maria Alves Vieira ) — application for the annulment of the                                     ( 96/C 95/31 )
decision of the selection board in competition COM/B/765
awarding the applicant, in the oral test, a lower mark than
the minimum required and refusing to enter his name on the                             (Language of the case: Greek)
reserve list — the Court of First Instance ( Third Chamber ),
composed of: C.P. Briët, President, and B. Vesterdorf and              An action against the European Parliament was brought
A. Potocki, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment           before the Court of First Instance on 21 December 1995 by
on 15 February 1996, in which it:                                      'T', represented by Harisios Tagaras, of the Thessaloniki
                                                                       Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
1 . dismisses the action;                                              Chambers of Evelyne Korn, 21 Rue de Nassau.
2 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.                        The applicant claims that the Court should :
( ! ) OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .                                    — annul the staff report on the applicant for the period
                                                                           1 January 1993 to 1 January 1995 , in particular heading
                                                                           10 . 1 ,
                                                                       — annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the
                                                                           Parliament of 19 September 1995 confirming the above
                                                                           staff report,
               ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
          OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               — order the Parliament to pay the costs .
                      of 12 February 1996
in Case T-228/95 R: S. Lehrfreund Ltd v. Council of the                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
European Union and Commission of the European
                             Communities
                                                                       The applicant, an official of the Parliament in Grade A 5
                             ( 96/C 95/30 )                            serving in the Legal Service, states that, for the purpose of
                                                                       promoting another candidate, the detailed part of his staff
                                                                       report for the period 1 January 1993 to 1 January 1995 was
               (Language of the case: English)                         decided in advance and did not correspond to reality . In
                                                                       support of that claim he relies on the lack of consistency
In Case T-228/95 R: S. Lehrfreund Ltd, established in                  between the detailed report and the general assessment
London, represented by Nicholas Forwood QC and Mark                    contained in the report. In his view the huge improvement
 ---pagebreak--- No C 95/ 16           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      30 . 3 . 96
in the general assessment in comparison with the previous           that report, which was drawn up without involving all the
two-year period was not reflected in the detailed marking.          parties concerned, as all such investigations, if properly
Accordingly the staff report was drawn up in infringement           conducted, should, contains several inaccuracies from the
of the relevant rules and the principle of sound                    technical point of view. On 21 April 1994 Somagaz
administration and there was a misuse of powers . Further,          unilaterally terminated the contract, despite having used the
the applicant relies on the one hand on infringement of his         bottles in first as well as the second batch .
rights of defence, since he was not given the opportunity of
defending his interests, and, on the other hand, of                 The applicant claims that the Commission's staff have not
infringement of the duty to state reasons, in view of the fact      taken any steps to authorize payment for the goods
that the Secretary-General of the Parliament to whom the            consigned, causing the applicant significant damage, which
applicant appealed, did not give reasons for his negative           is not only economic; Itamsider has had to bear the costs of
decision .                                                          production and dispatch to Mauritania, without being paid,
                                                                    and as a result finds itself in an extremely difficult financial
                                                                    position, to the extent of suffering an action for the
                                                                    commencement of bankruptcy proceedings .
                                                                    The applicant considers that the Commission's conduct in
                                                                    the matter entails liability on the part of the Community, in
Action brought on 17 January 1996 by Francesco Perillo              accordance with Article 178 and the second paragraph of
  against the Commission of the European Communities                Article 215 of the EC Treaty, and requests that the
                                                                    Commission be ordered to pay him compensation to make
                         ( Case T-7/96 )
                                                                    good the loss he has suffered.
                           ( 96/C 95/32
                (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                    Action brought on 24 January 1996 by Europeenne
Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                    Automobile SARL against the Commission of the European
Instance of the European Communities on 17 January 1996                                      Communities
by Francesco Perillo, residing at Altamura ( Italy ),
represented by Mario Spandre, of the Brussels Bar, with an                                   Case T-9/96 )
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Pierre                                  ( 96/C 95/33 )
Thielen, 21 Rue de Nassau .
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                    An action against the Commission of the European
— order the defendant to pay compensation of ECU                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
    1 338 775 , subject to increase or decrease during the          Instance of the European Communities on 24 January 1996
    proceedings,                                                    by Europeenne Automobile SARL, established at
                                                                    Carcassonne ( France ), represented by Jean Claude
— order the defendant to pay interest calculated on the             Fourgoux, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in
    amounts due as from 14 April 1994,                              Luxembourg at the Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4 Rue
                                                                    Beatrix de Bourbon .
— order the defendant to pay all the costs .
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                   — order the Commission to pay to it the sum of
                                                                        ECU 200 000 as damages for the Commission's
The applicant, who manufactures gas-bottles under the                   non-contractual liability,
name of Itamsider, states that when tenders were invited
under call No 3605 of the Regional Gas Programme,
financed by the European Development Fund, he secured              — order the Commission to pay the costs .
the contract to supply 40 000 empty gas-bottles to Societe
Mauritanienne de Gaz ( Somagaz ). To fulfil its duties under        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
contract, Itamsider sent the goods to Mauritania in four
batches : 7 007 bottles on 5 October 1993 , 24 381 on              The applicant, an undertaking carrying on business as an
1 December 1993 , 6 779 on 7 February 1994 and 1 889 on             intermediary in the distribution of motor vehicles by means
14 February 1994; the goods were stored in the port and             of parallel imports made by it as agent for the final consumer
subsequently removed by Somagaz . Somagaz was critical of           in accordance with the provisions of Commission
the quality of the bottles but without giving much detail . On      Regulation ( EEC ) No 123/85 , criticizes the failure of that
1 March 1994, on the initiative of the Commission's                 institution to respond, first, to the complaint submitted by it
representative in Mauritania , an expert's report on the first     to DG IV on 27 July 1994 criticizing the steps taken by the
batch of bottles was drawn up . The applicant maintains that        PSA Group in relation to the Peugeot concessionaires of its


title: Case T-53/08: Action brought on 31 January 2008 — Italy v Commission

text:
               29.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/33

         Action brought on 31 January 2008 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-53/08)
   (2008/C 79/64)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: S. Fiorentino, Avvocato dello Stato)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul Commission decision C(2007) 5400 final of 20 November 2007, notified on 21 November 2007, concerning State aid No C 36/A/2006 (ex NN 38/2006) which Italy paid to ThyssenKrupp, Cementir and Nuova Terni Industrie Chimiche.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the contested decision, the State aid paid by Italy to ThyssenKrupp, Cementir and Nuova Terni Industrie Chimiche, and that granted but not yet paid to the same beneficiaries, in the form of favourable tariff conditions for the supply of electricity, were declared incompatible with the common market.
   In support of its claims, the applicant relies on the following pleas:

               (1)

               Infringement of Articles 87(1) and 88(3) EC and erroneous reconstruction of the facts. In its decision the Commission failed to consider that the contested measure adopted by the Italian State did not constitute State aid since it did not confer an economic advantage. In fact the measure extending the preferential electricity tariffs to be applied to the companies in the proceedings, the assignee of Terni SpA, was owing as a supplement to the expropriation compensation granted previously to Terni SpA on account of the fact that legal provisions adopted subsequently involved a longer term in respect of the concession for the production of the expropriated energy.

               (2)

               Infringement of Articles 87 and 88(3) EC and erroneous reconstruction of the facts. In its decision the Commission failed to consider that the contested measure adopted by the Italian State did not constitute State aid since the aid was not granted through State resources. In fact the cost of the measure is borne by the other users of the energy supply service.

               (3)

               Infringement of essential procedural requirements in relation to absence of preliminary enquiries and infringement of the rights of the defence. In its decision the Commission stated that the results of an economic study to assess all the sacrifices imposed on Terni in consequence of the expropriation and all the benefits obtained by that company by way of compensation were irrelevant because the suitability of the compensation mechanism can be assessed only ex ante, namely, at the time of the expropriation. The study was carried out in accordance with previous Commission guidance. The Commission, taking the view that in the abstract a study requested by it previously was irrelevant, should have carried out further preliminary enquiries, reopening the discussion concerning the methods of carrying out the study.


title: Case C-285/10: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain)) — Campsa Estaciones de Servicio SA v Administración del Estado (Sixth VAT Directive — Articles 11A(1) and 27 — Taxable amount — Extension of the rules on application for private use to transactions between connected parties where prices are patently lower than open market prices)

text:
               30.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/7

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain)) — Campsa Estaciones de Servicio SA v Administración del Estado
   (Case C-285/10) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Articles 11A(1) and 27 - Taxable amount - Extension of the rules on application for private use to transactions between connected parties where prices are patently lower than open market prices)
   2011/C 226/11
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Campsa Estaciones de Servicio SA

      Defendant: Administración del Estado

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Supremo — Interpretation of Articles 6, 11 and 27 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 (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Extension of rules on application of goods and services for private use to transactions between connected parties where the price is patently lower than the open market value

      Operative part of the judgment

   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 as precluding a Member State from applying to transactions, such as those in the main proceedings, effected between connected parties having agreed a price which is patently lower than the open market price, a rule for determining the taxable amount other than the general rule laid down in Article 11A(1)(a) of that directive, by extending the scope of the rules for determining the taxable amount on the application of goods and services for private use by a taxable person, within the meaning of Articles 5(6) and 6(2) of that directive, when the procedure provided for in Article 27 of that directive to obtain authorisation for such derogation from that general rule has not been followed by that Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 246, 11.9.2010.


title: Case C-485/06: Order of the President of the Court of 13 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               24.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 128/27

         Order of the President of the Court of 13 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-485/06) (1)

   (2008/C 128/50)

      Language of the case: German

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

      (1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 November 2004 in Case T-360/03: Frischpack GmbH & Co. KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Three-dimensional mark — Shape of a cheese box — Absolute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Distinctive character)

text:
               5.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/21

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 23 November 2004
   in Case T-360/03: Frischpack GmbH & Co. KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Three-dimensional mark - Shape of a cheese box - Absolute ground for refusal - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Distinctive character)
   (2005/C 31/41)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case T-360/03: Frischpack GmbH & Co. KG, established in Mailling bei Schönau (Germany), represented by P. Bornemann, lawyer, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: U. Pfleghar and G. Schneider) – appeal against Decision R 236/2003-2 of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 September 2003 concerning the registration of a three-dimensional mark (cheese box) – the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of P. Lindh, President, R. García-Valdecasas and D. Šváby, Judges; I. Natsinas, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 November 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 304 of 13.12.2003.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 2004 in Case T-50/00: Dalmine SpA v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Cartels — Markets for seamless steel pipes and tubes — Duration of the infringement — Fines)

text:
               25.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/13

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 8 July 2004
   in Case T-50/00: Dalmine SpA v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Competition - Cartels - Markets for seamless steel pipes and tubes - Duration of the infringement - Fines)
   (2004/C 239/26)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case T-50/00: Dalmine SpA, established in Dalmine (Italy), represented by M. Siragusa and F. Moretti, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: M. Erhart and A. Whelan, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for annulment of Commission Decision 2003/382/EC of 8 December 1999 relating to a procedure under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case IV/E-1/35.860-B — Seamless steel tubes) (OJ 2003 L 140, p. 1) or, alternatively, for a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of N.J. Forwood, President, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 8 July 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Annuls Article 1(2) of Commission Decision 2003/382/EC of 8 December 1999 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case IV/E–1/35.860-B Seamless steel tubes) in so far as it finds that the infringement imputed to the applicant by that provision existed before 1 January 1991;

               2.

               Fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant in Article 4 of Decision 2003/382 at EUR 10,080,000;

               3.

               Dismisses the remainder of the application;

               4.

               Orders the applicant and the Commission to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.


title: Case T-353/06: Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2012 — Vermeer Infrastructuur v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Netherlands market in road pavement bitumen — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Existence and classification of an agreement — Restriction of competition — Guidelines on the applicability of Article 81 EC to horizontal cooperation agreements — Calculation of the amount of the fines — Gravity and duration of the infringement — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence)

text:
               17.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2012 — Vermeer Infrastructuur v Commission
   (Case T-353/06) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Netherlands market in road pavement bitumen - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Existence and classification of an agreement - Restriction of competition - Guidelines on the applicability of Article 81 EC to horizontal cooperation agreements - Calculation of the amount of the fines - Gravity and duration of the infringement - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence)
   2012/C 355/29
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Vermeer Infrastructuur BV (Hoofddorp, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Slotboom, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by A. Bouquet and A. Nijenhuis, Agents, and by F. Wijckmans, F. Tuytschaever and L. Gyselen, lawyers, and subsequently by A. Bouquet, A. Nijenhuis and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, Agents, and by F. Wijckmans and F. Tuytschaever)

      Re:

   Application, principally, for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 4090 final of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.456 — Bitumen (Netherlands)), in particular in so far as it concerns the applicant, and, in the alternative, for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Vermeer Infrastructuur BV to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 20, 27.1.2007.


title: Case C-547/15: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — Interservice d.o.o. Koper v Sándor Horváth (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Community Customs Code — Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Article 96 — External transit procedure — Definition of ‘carrier’ — Failure to produce goods at the customs office of destination — Liability — Transport subcontractor who has handed the goods over to the main carrier in the car park of the customs office of destination and subsequently again assumed responsibility for the goods in order to continue with the transport)

text:
               20.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 53/17

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — Interservice d.o.o. Koper v Sándor Horváth
   (Case C-547/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Community Customs Code - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Article 96 - External transit procedure - Definition of ‘carrier’ - Failure to produce goods at the customs office of destination - Liability - Transport subcontractor who has handed the goods over to the main carrier in the car park of the customs office of destination and subsequently again assumed responsibility for the goods in order to continue with the transport))
   (2017/C 053/20)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Kúria

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Interservice d.o.o. Koper

      Defendant: Sándor Horváth

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The concept of a ‘carrier’ under an obligation to produce goods intact at the customs office of destination in Article 96(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 648/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005, is to be interpreted as referring to any person, including a transport subcontractor, who actually transports the goods moving under the external Community transit procedure and has agreed to transport the goods knowing that they are moving under that procedure.

               2.

               Article 96(2) of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 648/2005, is to be interpreted as meaning that a transport subcontractor, such as the subcontractor in the main proceedings, who has, first, handed over the goods to the main carrier, together with the transit document, at the car park of the customs office of destination and, second, assumed responsibility for the goods once again in order to continue with the transport, was under an obligation to ensure that the goods were produced at the customs office of destination and may be held liable for any failure to ensure that the goods were thus produced only if he was aware, when he again assumed responsibility for the goods, that the transit procedure had not been properly completed, which is a matter to be determined by the national court.

      (1)  OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 July 2005 in Case C-114/04: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 28 EC — Measures having equivalent effect — Withdrawal of a marketing authorisation for a phytopharmaceutical reference product — Lack of transition period for parallel importers with a view to liquidation of their stocks)

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/17

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 14 July 2005
   in Case C-114/04: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 28 EC - Measures having equivalent effect - Withdrawal of a marketing authorisation for a phytopharmaceutical reference product - Lack of transition period for parallel importers with a view to liquidation of their stocks)
   (2005/C 217/32)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-114/04: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: B. Schima) v Federal Republic of Germany (Agent: W.-D. Plessing and M. Lumma) — ACTION under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 3 March 2004 — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, M. Ilešič and E. Levits (Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 July 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to grant parallel importers a reasonable period in which to liquidate their stocks following withdrawal of a marketing authorisation for a phytopharmaceutical reference product, the Federal Republic of Germany failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC;

               2.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 30.4.2004.


               22.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/34

         Action brought on 23 February 2016 by Dr. Gerhard Spitzer against the EFTA Surveillance Authority
   (Case E-2/16)
   (2016/C 347/06)
   An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 23 February 2016 by Dr. Gerhard Spitzer, represented by Antonius Falkner, Attorney-at-law, Lettstrasse 18, FL-9490 Vaduz.
   The applicant claims that the EFTA Court should:

               1.

               Annul EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision 425/15/COL of 25 November 2015, and

               2.

               Order the EFTA Surveillance Authority to bear the costs of the proceedings.

      Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               The applicant, Dr Gerhard Spitzer, is an Austrian citizen, domiciled in South Africa, which has been a customer of LLB AG, a company under majority ownership of the Principality of Liechtenstein, since the early 1990s.

               —

               The case concerns an application for annulment of a decision by the EFTA Surveillance Authority to close a case regarding a complaint against Liechtenstein concerning a failure to observe and correctly apply Directive 2002/47/EC.

               —

               The applicant claims that the EFTA Surveillance Authority was under the duty to initiate a formal investigation procedure concerning a failure by Liechtenstein to observe and correctly apply Directive 2002/47/EC, and by failing to do so, the EFTA Surveillance Authority has infringed the rights of the applicant.


title: Case T-227/14: Judgment of the General Court of 7 October 2015 — CBM v OHIM — Aeronautica Militare (Trecolore) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark Trecolore — Earlier Community and national word and figurative marks FRECCE TRICOLORI — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/47

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 October 2015 — CBM v OHIM — Aeronautica Militare (Trecolore)
   (Case T-227/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark Trecolore - Earlier Community and national word and figurative marks FRECCE TRICOLORI - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 398/59)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: CBM Creative Brands Marken GmbH (Zurich, Switzerland) (represented by: U. Lüken, M. Grundmann and N. Kerger, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Aeronautica Militare — Stato Maggiore (Rome, Italy)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 January 2014 (Case R 253/2013-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Aeronautica Militare — Stato Maggiore and CBM Creative Brands Marken GmbH.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders CBM Creative Brands Marken GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 245, 28.7.2014.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 5 March 1998 in Case C-347/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid): Solred SA v. Administración General del Estado (Directive 69/355/EEC - Duty charged on documents recording the contribution of a part of the share capital)

text:
C 137/2               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       2.5.98
territory but residing in another Member State to                    1. Article 73 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71
contribute to a social security scheme covering the risk of               of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security
reliance on care, although Articles 19(1), 25(1) and 28(1)                schemes to employed persons, to self-employed
of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June                         persons and to members of their families moving
1971 on the application of social security schemes to                     within the Community, as amended and updated by
employed persons, to self-employed persons and to                         Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 (4), as amended by
members of their families moving within the Community,                    Regulation (EEC) No 3427/89, then by Regulation
as amended and updated by Regulation (EEC) No 2001/                       (EEC) No 1247/92, read in conjunction with Point
83, do prevent entitlement to an allowance such as the                    I.C of Annex I to the same Regulation, is to be
care allowance, which constitutes a sickness benefit in                   interpreted, for the purpose of payment of child
cash, from being subject to the condition that the insured                allowance under German legislation, as not applying
person resides in the territory of the Member State where                 to a national of that Member State who receives,
he is insured.                                                            under its legislation, an old-age benefit as a retired
                                                                          civil servant, where that person has worked only in
                                                                          the Member State of which he is a national and his
(1) OJ C 197, 6.7.1996.
                                                                          dependent child has moved within the Community
                                                                          with his former spouse.
                                                                     2. Article 77(2)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, as
                                                                          amended, is to be interpreted as not covering the
                                                                          situation of a person who draws a pension only under
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      a special scheme for civil servants and persons treated
                                                                          as such.
                        (Fifth Chamber)
                       of 5 March 1998                               (1 ) OJ C 233, 10.8.1996.
                                                                     (2 ) OJ L 230, 22.8.1983, p. 6.
in Case C-194/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                     (3 ) OJ L 331, 16.11.1989, p. 1.
    the Bundessozialgericht): Hilmar Kulzer v. Freistaat             (4 ) OJ L 136, 19.5.1992, p. 1.
                            Bayern (1)
(Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 Ð Worker who has not
exercised the right to freedom of movement Ð Retired
civil servant Ð Article 73 Ð Family benefits Ð German
institution competent Ð Article 77 Ð National
                           legislation)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         (98/C 137/03)
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 5 March 1998
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                     in Case C-347/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                     the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid): Solred SA v.
                                                                                Administración General del Estado (1)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                     (Directive 69/355/EEC Ð Duty charged on documents
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                       recording the contribution of a part of the share capital)
                                                                                (98/C 137/04)
In Case C-194/96: reference to the Court pursuant to
Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Bundessozialgericht
(Federal Social Court), Germany, for a preliminary ruling                            (Language of the case: Spanish)
in the proceedings pending before that court between
Hilmar Kulzer und Freistaat Bayern (Free State of Bavaria)
Ð on the interpretation of Articles 2(3), 73 and 77 of                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971                            published in the European Court Reports)
on the application of social security schemes to employed
persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their
families moving within the Community, as amended and                 In Case C-347/96: reference to the Court pursuant to
updated by Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 (2), as amended               Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Tribunal Superior
by Regulation (EEC) No 3427/89 of 30 October 1989,                   de Justicia de Madrid (High Court of Justice, Madrid), for
then by Regulation (EEC) No 1247/92 (3) Ð the Court                  a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of               that court between Solred SA and Administración General
the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, D. A. O.                     del Estado Ð on the interpretation of Articles 4(1)(a),
Edward (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet and P. Jann, Judges;           5(1)(a), 7 and 10(a) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of
N. Fennelly, Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl, Principal                 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on            capital (2), as amended by Directive 85/303/EEC (3) Ð the
5 March 1998, in which it has ruled:                                 Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: H. Ragnemalm
 ---pagebreak--- 2.5.98                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 137/3
(Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen,                    the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann,
G. F. Mancini, P. J. G. Kapteyn and G. Hirsch, Judges; G.                President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet, J. C. Moitinho de
Tesauro, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for                Almeida (Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward and J.-P.
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 5 March 1998, in                  Puissochet, Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate-General; R.
which it has ruled:                                                      Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 5 March 1998,
                                                                         in which it:
1. properly construed, Article 10 of Council Directive 69/
     335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on                1. declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
     the raising of capital, as amended by Directive 85/303/                  time limit the laws, regulations and administrative
     EEC, precludes the levying of 0,5 % duty on the                          provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
     notarial deed recording the contribution of part of the                  93/89/EEC of 25 October 1993 on the application by
     share capital paid up after the formation of a capital                   Member States of taxes on certain vehicles used for
     company, where duty of 1 % has already been charged                      the carriage of goods by road and tolls and charges for
     on the whole of the nominal value of the share capital.                  the use of certain infrastructures, the French Republic
                                                                              has failed to fulfil its obligations within the meaning
                                                                              of the first subparagraph of Article 13(1) of that
2. Article 10 of Directive 69/335/EEC, as amended, gives                      Directive;
     rise to rights on which individuals may rely before
     national courts. Those courts are obliged to leave                  2. orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
     unapplied provisions of national law incompatible
     therewith.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 199, 28.6.1997.
                                                                         (2) OJ L 279, 12.11.1993, p. 32.
(1) OJ C 370, 7.12.1996.
(2) OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412.
(3) OJ L 156, 15.6.1985, p. 23.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 10 March 1998
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                    in Joined Cases C-364/95 and C-365/95 (references for
                                                                         a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg):
                         (Fifth Chamber)                                  T. Port GmbH & Co. v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (1)
                        of 5 March 1998                                  (Bananas Ð Common organisation of the market Ð
in    Case    C-175/97: Commission of the European                       Import regime Ð Framework Agreement on bananas Ð
              Communities v. French Republic (1)                                    GATT Ð Article 234 of the EC Treaty)
(Directive 93/89/EEC on the application by Member                                                 (98/C 137/06)
States of taxes on certain vehicles used for the carriage of
goods by road and tolls and charges for the use of certain                              (Language of the case: German)
             infrastructures Ð Non-transposition)
                          (98/C 137/05)                                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         In Joined Cases C-364/95 and C-365/95: references to the
                                                                         Court pursuant to Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be           Finanzgericht (Finance Court), Hamburg, Germany, for a
          published in the European Court Reports)                       preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
                                                                         court between T. Port GmbH & Co. and Hauptzollamt
                                                                         Hamburg-Jonas Ð on the interpretation of Article 234 of
In Case C-175/97: Commission of the European                             the EC Treaty, on the validity of Commission Regulation
Communities (Agents: Michel Nolin and Laura Pignataro)                   (EC) No 478/95 of 1 March 1995 on additional rules for
v. French Republic (Agents: Kareen Rispal-Bellanger and                  the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 as
Gautier Mignot) Ð application for a declaration that, by                 regards the tariff quota arrangements for imports of
failing to adopt, or in any event failing to notify, within              bananas into the Community and amending Regulation
the prescribed time limit, the laws, regulations and                     (EEC) No 1442/93 (2) and on the direct effect of the
administrative provisions necessary to comply with                       provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
Council Directive 93/89/EEC of 25 October 1993 on the                    (GATT) Ð the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez
application by Member States of taxes on certain vehicles                Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, M. Wathelet, R.
used for the carriage of goods by road and tolls and                     Schintgen (Rapporteur), (Presidents of Chambers), G. F.
charges for the use of certain infrastructures (2), the                  Mancini, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward,
French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations within              J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann, Judges; M. B.
the meaning of the EC Treaty and under that Directive Ð                  Elmer, Advocate-General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Admini-


title: Case C-498/06: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 February 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social Único de Algeciras (Spain)) — Maira María Robledillo Núñez v Fondo de Garantía Salarial (Fogasa) (Social policy — Protection of workers in the event of insolvency of the employer — Directive 80/987/EEC amended by Directive 2002/74/EC — First paragraph of Article 3 and Article 10(a) — Compensation for unfair dismissal agreed under an extra-judicial conciliation procedure — Payment guaranteed by the guarantee institution — Payment conditional upon the adoption of a judicial decision — Principles of equality and non-discrimination)

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/6

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 February 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social Único de Algeciras (Spain)) — Maira María Robledillo Núñez v Fondo de Garantía Salarial (Fogasa)
   (Case C-498/06) (1)

   (Social policy - Protection of workers in the event of insolvency of the employer - Directive 80/987/EEC amended by Directive 2002/74/EC - First paragraph of Article 3 and Article 10(a) - Compensation for unfair dismissal agreed under an extra-judicial conciliation procedure - Payment guaranteed by the guarantee institution - Payment conditional upon the adoption of a judicial decision - Principles of equality and non-discrimination)
   (2008/C 92/10)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Referring court
   Juzgado de lo Social Único de Algeciras
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Maira María Robledillo Núñez

      Defendant: Fondo de Garantía Salarial (Fogasa)
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado de lo Social Único de Algeciras — Interpretation of Article 3 of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (OJ 1980 L 283, p. 23), as amended by Directive 2002/74/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 (OJ 2002 L 270, p. 10) — Scope of the guarantee offered by the guarantee institution — Compensation in the event of termination of the employment relationship — National rules which require judgment or administrative decision for such compensation — Principles of equality and non-discrimination
   Operative part of the judgment
   The first paragraph of Article 3 of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, as amended by Directive 2002/74/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002, is to be interpreted as meaning that a Member State has the power to exclude compensation granted for unfair dismissal from the payment guarantee of the guarantee institutions pursuant to that provision where they have been recognised by an extra-judicial conciliation settlement and such exclusion, objectively justified, constitutes a measure necessary to avoid abuses within the meaning of Article 10(a) of that directive.

      (1)  OJ C 56, 10.3.2007.


title: Case T-65/01: Action brought on 19 March 2001 by Internationale Fruchtimportgesellschaft Weichert & Co. against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
16.6.2001               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 173/35
The applicant claims that those three special features have                 Action brought on 19 March 2001 by Internationale
resulted in the applicant and operators in a similar position               Fruchtimportgesellschaft Weichert & Co. against the
being granted lower reference quantities than they would have               Council of the European Union and the Commission of
received if the rules governing the organisation of the market                                 the European Communities
had continued to be applied without being changed.
                                                                                (Case T-65/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 173/63)
The applicant seeks, by way of compensation, to be placed in
the position in which it would have been had its reference
quantity for 1999 been calculated in accordance with the                                        (Language of the case: German)
unchanged rules governing the organisation of the market.
                                                                            An action against the Council of the European Union and the
                                                                            Commission of the European Communities was brought
                                                                            before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
In support of its claims, it asserts that the Community has                 on 19 March 2001 by Internationale Fruchtimportgesellschaft
infringed Article 6 of Regulation No 1924/95 (2) and the                    Weichert & Co., established in Hamburg (Germany), represent-
principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, by failing          ed by Gerrit Schohe, Rechtsanwalt, with an address for service
to determine the applicant’s rights of access to the market in              in Luxembourg.
1999 in accordance with Articles 3 and 5 of Regulation
No 1442/93. In addition, it maintains that the Community has                The applicant claims that the Court should:
failed, in its formulation of the prohibition of retroactive effect,
to respect the requirement of legal certainty, in that it has               —     order the defendants to pay to the applicant
retroactively applied the distribution formula prescribed by                      EUR 3 604 232 together with interest thereon at the rate
Regulation No 2362/98 (3) to reference quantities from the                        of 2,9 % from the date of pronouncement of judgment
years 1994 to 1996.                                                               and reasonable compensation for the inflation which has
                                                                                occurred since 1 January 1999, at the further rate of at
                                                                                least 1,1 % per annum on EUR 3 604 232 ;
                                                                            —     declare that the defendants are obliged to compensate the
In addition, the special rules applying to operators in the new
                                                                                applicant for all further loss and damage suffered or to be
Member States infringe the prohibition of discrimination laid
                                                                                suffered by it as a result of Regulations (EC)
down in the second subparagraph of Article 34(2) EC;
                                                                                Nos 1637/98 and 2362/98 and, in particular, the rules
moreover, no adequate statement of reasons has been given.
                                                                                contained therein;
                                                                            —     reserve its decision as to costs.
Lastly, the Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade
Organisation has declared that the system for the allocation of             Pleas in law and main arguments
import licences, as laid down in Regulations Nos 1637/98 and
2362/98, is incompatible in certain essential respects with the             The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
law governing the World Trade Organisation. In the applicant’s              advanced in Case T-64/01 (Afrikanische Frucht-Compagnie
view, the Community has failed to respect the fact that it is               GmbH v Council and Commission).
bound by that decision.
(1) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1442/93 of 10 June 1993
    laying down detailed rules for the application of the arrangements
    for importing bananas into the Community (OJ 1993 L 142, p. 6).         Action brought on 23 March 2001 by Carmine Salvatore
(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1924/95 of 3 August 1995                             Tralli against the European Central Bank
    laying down transitional measures for the application of the tariff
    quota arrangements for imports of bananas as a result of the                                      (Case T-69/01)
    accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden (OJ 1995 L 185, p. 24).
(3) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2362/98 of 28 October 1998                                         (2001/C 173/64)
    laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council
    Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 regarding imports of bananas into
    the Community (OJ 1998 L 293, p. 32).
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                                                                            An action against the European Central Bank was brought
                                                                            before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                            on 23 March 2001 by Carmine Salvatore Tralli, of Nidderau
                                                                            (Germany), represented by Norbert Pflüger, Regina Steiner and
                                                                            Silvia Mittländer, Rechtsanwälte.


title: Case C-235/09: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 April 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — DHL Express France SAS, formerly DHL International SA v Chronopost SA (Intellectual property — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 98(1) — Prohibition against infringement, issued by a Community trade mark court — Territorial scope — Coercive measures attached to such a prohibition — Effect in the territory of Member States other than the Member State of the court seised)

text:
               18.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 April 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — DHL Express France SAS, formerly DHL International SA v Chronopost SA
   (Case C-235/09) (1)

   (Intellectual property - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 98(1) - Prohibition against infringement, issued by a Community trade mark court - Territorial scope - Coercive measures attached to such a prohibition - Effect in the territory of Member States other than the Member State of the court seised)
   2011/C 179/02
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: DHL Express France SAS, formerly DHL International SA

      Defendant: Chronopost SA

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation — Interpretation of Article 98 of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1), in conjunction with Articles 1, 14 and 94 of that regulation — Trade mark infringement action — Territorial scope of a prohibition issued by a Community trade mark court — Whether such a court may attach coercive measures to that prohibition that are applicable on the territory of all the Member States in which the injunction prohibiting the infringing acts takes effect

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 98(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 3288/94 of 22 December 1994, must be interpreted as meaning that the scope of the prohibition against further infringement or threatened infringement of a Community trade mark, issued by a Community trade mark court whose jurisdiction is based on Articles 93(1) to (4) and 94(1) of that regulation, extends, as a rule, to the entire area of the European Union.

               2.

               Article 98(1), second sentence, of Regulation No 40/94, as amended by Regulation No 3288/94, must be interpreted as meaning that a coercive measure, such as a periodic penalty payment, ordered by a Community trade mark court by application of its national law, in order to ensure compliance with a prohibition against further infringement or threatened infringement which it has issued, has effect in Member States to which the territorial scope of such a prohibition extends other than the Member State of that court, under the conditions laid down, in Chapter III of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, with regard to the recognition and enforcement of judgments. Where the national law of one of those other Member States does not contain a coercive measure similar to that ordered by the Community trade mark court, the objective pursued by that measure must be attained by the competent court of that other Member State by having recourse to the relevant provisions of its national law which are such as to ensure that the prohibition is complied with in an equivalent manner.

      (1)  OJ C 205, 29.8.2009.


title: Case F-38/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 30.9.2013 BP v FRA (Civil service — Staff of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights — Member of the contract staff — Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract for an indefinite period — Reassignment to another department until expiry of the contract — Action for annulment — Action for damages)

text:
               8.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/32

      Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 30.9.2013 BP v FRA
      (Case F-38/12) (1)

      (Civil service - Staff of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights - Member of the contract staff - Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract for an indefinite period - Reassignment to another department until expiry of the contract - Action for annulment - Action for damages)
      (2014/C 71/60)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: BP (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) (represented by: M. Kjærum, acting as Agent, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action for annulment of the decision of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights not to renew the applicant’s contract as a member of the contract staff and of the decision to transfer the applicant to another department of the Agency, and a claim for damages for the material and non-material damage allegedly suffered.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Tribunal:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Declares that BP shall bear all her own costs and orders her to pay all costs incurred by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights.

         (1)  OJ C 138, 12.5.2012 p. 37.


title: Case T-190/12: Judgment of the General Court of 22 April 2015 — Tomana and Others v Council and Commission (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures imposed on certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Zimbabwe — Restrictions on entry into and transit through the European Union — Freezing of funds — Legal basis — Manifest error of assessment — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Fundamental rights — Proportionality)

text:
               8.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/10

         Judgment of the General Court of 22 April 2015 — Tomana and Others v Council and Commission
   (Case T-190/12) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures imposed on certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Zimbabwe - Restrictions on entry into and transit through the European Union - Freezing of funds - Legal basis - Manifest error of assessment - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Fundamental rights - Proportionality))
   (2015/C 190/11)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Johannes Tomana (Harare, Zimbabwe) and the 120 other applicants named in the annex to the judgment (represented by: initially by D. Vaughan QC, M. Lester and R. Lööf, Barristers, and by M. O’Kane, Solicitor, and subsequently by D. Vaughan, M. Lester and M. Lööf)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen, M. Veiga and A. Vitro, Agents); European Commission (represented by M. Konstantinidis, T. Scharf and E. Georgieva, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: E. Jenkinson, C. Murrell and M. Holt, Agents, and by S. Lee, Barrister)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Council Decision 2012/97/CFSP of 17 February 2012 amending Decision 2011/101/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Zimbabwe (OJ 2012 L 47, p. 50), Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 151/2012 of 21 February 2012 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 concerning certain restrictive measures against Zimbabwe (OJ 2012 L 49, p. 2), and Council Implementing Decision 2012/124/CFSP of 27 February 2012 implementing Decision 2011/101/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Zimbabwe (OJ 2012 L 54, p. 20), in so far as those acts concern the applicants.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Johannes Tomana and the 120 other applicants listed in the annex hereto to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union and the European Commission;

               3.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 194, 30.6.2012.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 March 2003 in Case T-186/00: Conserve Italia Soc. Coop. rl v Commission of the European Communities (Agriculture — Guidance Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund — Discontinuance of financial aid — Article 24 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 — Principle of proportionality — Statement of reasons)

text:
C 112/26                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         10.5.2003
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 25 February 2003
                          of 6 March 2003
                                                                            in Case T-183/00, Strabag Benelux NV v Council of the
                                                                                European Union (1)
in Case T-57/00: Banan-Kompaniet AB and Skandinaviska
                                                                            (Public works contracts — Contested decision non-existent
Bananimporten AB v Council of the European Union and                        — Statement of reasons in the decision awarding the contract
        Commission of the European Communities ( 1)
                                                                            — Criteria for award — Application for annulment — Non-
                                                                                contractual liability of the Community)
(Bananas — Common organisation of the markets —                                                       (2003/C 112/48)
Decision 94/800/EC — Regulation (EC) No 478/95 —
          Export licence scheme — Action for damages)                                           (Language of the case: French)
                          (2003/C 112/47)                                   In Case T-183/00, Strabag Benelux NV, established in Stabroek
                                                                            (Belgium), represented by A. Delvaux and V. Bertrand, lawyers,
                                                                            with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Council of
                    (Language of the case: English)                         the European Union (Agents: F. van Craeyenest, M. Arpio
                                                                            Santacruz and J. Stuyck) — application for, first of all,
                                                                            annulment of the Decision of the Council of 12 April 2000 to
                                                                            award to Entreprises Louis de Waele the contract for invitation
                                                                            to tender No 107865 issued on 30 July 1999 (OJ S 146) for
                                                                            the refitting and general maintenance of the Council’s buildings
In Case T-57/00, Banan-Kompaniet AB, established in Stock-                  and, second, compensation for the damage allegedly suffered
holm (Sweden), Skandinaviska Bananimporten AB, established                  by the applicant as a result of the Council’s conduct — the
in Arsta (Sweden), represented by B. O’Connor, Solicitor, with              Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of
an address for service in Luxembourg, v Council of the                      J.D. Cooke, President, and R. García-Valdecases and P. Lindh,
European Union (Agents: S. Marquardt and J.-P. Hix) and                     Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: initially                   given a judgment on 25 February 2003, in which it:
P. Oliver and C. Van der Hauwaert, then L. Visaggio and K.
Fitch): Application for compensation for the damage allegedly               1.     Dismisses the application;
suffered by the applicants by reason of the introduction of the
export licence scheme by Council Decision 94/800/EC of                      2.     Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and those of the
22 December 1994 concerning the conclusion on behalf of                            Council.
the European Community, as regards matters within its
competence, of the agreements reached in the Uruguay Round                  (1 ) OJ C 273 of 23.9.00.
multilateral negotiations (1986-1994) (OJ 1994 L 336, p. 1)
and by Commission Regulation (EC) No 478/95 of 1 March
1995 on additional rules for the application of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 as regards the tariff quota
arrangements for imports of bananas into the Community and
amending Regulation (EEC) No 1442/93 (OJ 1995 L 49, p. 13),                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
J.D. Cooke, President, R. García-Valdecasas and P. Lindh,                                            of 11 March 2003
Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, Registrar,
has given a judgment on 6 March 2003, in which it:                          in Case T-186/00: Conserve Italia Soc. Coop. rl v Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities (1)
1.     Dismisses the application;                                           (Agriculture — Guidance Section of the European Agricul-
                                                                            tural Guidance and Guarantee Fund — Discontinuance of
                                                                            financial aid — Article 24 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88
2.     Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and to pay those           — Principle of proportionality — Statement of reasons)
       of the Council and the Commission.
                                                                                (2003/C 112/49)
( 1) OJ C 135 of 13.05.2000.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                            In Case T-186/00: Conserve Italia Soc. Coop. rl, established in
                                                                            San Lazzaro di Savena (Italy), represented by M. Averani,
 ---pagebreak--- 10.5.2003                EN                            Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 112/27
A. Pisaneschi and S. Zunarelli, lawyers, with an address for                   2.     Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: initially by L. Visaggio and subsequently
by C. Cattabriga, assisted by M. Moretto) — application for                    (1 ) OJ C 372 of 23.12.00.
annulment of Commission Decision C (2000) 1099 of 3 May
2000 discontinuing aid from the Guidance Section of the
European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund for
Project No 9 (beneficiary: Massalombarda Colombani SpA)
in the context of operational programme No 91.CT.IT.01,
approved by Commission Decision C (91) 2255/6 of 28 Octo-
ber 1991 — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber),
composed of R. García-Valdecasas, President, P. Lindh and
J.D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Adminis-                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 March
2003, in which it:
                                                                                of 26 February 2003
1.     Dismisses the application;
                                                                               in Cases T-344/00 and T-345/00: CEVA Santé animale SA
2.     Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and pay those of the         and Pharmacia Entreprises SA v Commission of the
       Commission.                                                                                European Communities (1)
( 1) OJ C 285 of 7.10.00.                                                      (Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 — Veterinary medicinal
                                                                               products — Application for the inclusion of ‘progesterone’
                                                                               in the list of substances for which it does not appear
                                                                               necessary to fix a maximum residue limit — Opinion of the
                                                                               Committee for Veterinary Medicinal Products (CVMP) —
                                                                               Re-examination by the CVMP — Failure by the Commission
                                                                               to adopt a draft of measures to be taken — Action for failure
                                                                               to act — Definition of a position putting an end to a failure
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   to act — No need to adjudicate — Actions in damages —
                                                                               Liability of the Community — Causal link — Interlocutory
                        of 27 February 2003                                                                judgment)
in Case T-329/00, Bonn Fleisch Ex- und Import GmbH v                                                   (2003/C 112/51)
         Commission of the European Communities ( 1)
(Customs duties — Imports of beef from South America —                                            (Language of the case: English)
Article 13(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 — Appli-
cation for recovery of import duties — Rights of the defence
                        — Special situation)
                                                                               In Joined Cases T-344/00 and T-345/00, CEVA Santé animale
                           (2003/C 112/50)                                     SA, established in Libourne (France), and Pharmacia Entreprises
                                                                               SA, formerly Pharmacia & Upjohn SA, established in Luxem-
                                                                               bourg, represented by D. Waelbroeck and D. Brinckman,
                    (Language of the case: German)                             lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, supported
                                                                               by Fédération européenne de la santé animale (Fedesa), estab-
                                                                               lished in Brussels, represented by A. Vandencasteele, lawyer,
                                                                               with an address for service in Luxembourg; Intervener: in Case
In Case T-329/00, Bonn Fleisch Ex- und Import Gmbh,                            T-345/00, Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
established in Troisdorf (Germany), represented by D. Ehle,                    T. Christoforou and M. Shotter): Application for (1) a declar-
lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against                     ation under Article 232 EC that, by failing to take the necessary
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: X. Lewis                       measures for the inclusion of progesterone in Annex II to
and Núñez-Müller) — application for annulment of the                           Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 of 26 June 1990 laying
Commission Decision of 25 July 2000 finding that the                           down a Community procedure for the establishment of
recovery of import duties is not justified in a special case (REM              maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in
49/99) — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber),                          foodstuffs of animal origin (OJ 1990 L 224, p. 1), the
composed of M. Jaeger, President and K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi,                 Commission has failed to comply with its obligations under
Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has                  Community law and (2) damages under Article 235 EC and
given a judgment on 27 February 2003, in which it:                             the second paragraph of Article 288 EC, the Court of First
                                                                               Instance (Second Chamber), composed of: R.M. Moura Ramos,
1.     Annuls the Decision of the Commission of 25 July 2000                   President, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; J. Plingers,
       finding that recovery of import duties is not justified in a special    Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
       case (REM 49/99);                                                       26 February 2003, in which it has ruled:


title: Case C-522/10: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Würzburg — Germany) — Doris Reichel-Albert v Deutsche Rentenversicherung Nordbayern (Social security for migrant workers — Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 — Article 44(2) — Examination of entitlement to old-age pension — Taking into account of child-raising periods completed in another Member State — Applicability — Article 21 TFEU — Free movement of citizens)

text:
               29.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 295/3

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Würzburg — Germany) — Doris Reichel-Albert v Deutsche Rentenversicherung Nordbayern
   (Case C-522/10) (1)

   (Social security for migrant workers - Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 - Article 44(2) - Examination of entitlement to old-age pension - Taking into account of child-raising periods completed in another Member State - Applicability - Article 21 TFEU - Free movement of citizens)
   2012/C 295/05
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Sozialgericht Würzburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Doris Reichel-Albert

      Defendant: Deutsche Rentenversicherung Nordbayern

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sozialgericht Würzburg — Interpretation of Article 44(2) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2009 L 284, p. 1) — Conditions for taking into account child-raising periods completed in another Member State for the purpose of examining entitlement to old-age pension — National legislation making the taking into account of such periods subject to the requirement that the person concerned, during the raising or immediately before the birth of the child, pursued employed or self-employed activity by way of compulsory contribution period, giving rise to the possibility that a child-raising period might not be taken into account either in the Member State of residence during the child-raising period or in the competent Member State

      Operative part of the judgment

   In a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, Article 21 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that it requires the competent institution of a first Member State, for the purposes of granting an old-age pension, to take account of child-raising periods completed in a second Member State as though those periods had been completed on its national territory by a person who pursued employed or self-employed activity only in that first Member State and who, at the time of the birth of his of her child, had temporarily stopped working and had, solely on family-related grounds, established his or her place of residence in the territory of the second Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.


title: Case C-355/11: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — G. Brouwer v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken, Landbouw en Innovatie (Directive 91/629/EEC — Minimum standards for the protection of calves — Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 — Common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy — National legislation transposing Directive 91/629/EEC and declaring the management requirements provided for by that directive to be applicable to, inter alia, calves which are kept confined in the context of a dairy farming operation)

text:
               28.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 227/6

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — G. Brouwer v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken, Landbouw en Innovatie
   (Case C-355/11) (1)

   (Directive 91/629/EEC - Minimum standards for the protection of calves - Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 - Common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy - National legislation transposing Directive 91/629/EEC and declaring the management requirements provided for by that directive to be applicable to, inter alia, calves which are kept confined in the context of a dairy farming operation)
   2012/C 227/08
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: G. Brouwer

      Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken, Landbouw en Innovatie

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven — Interpretation of Council Directive 91/629/EEC of 19 November 1991 laying down minimum standards for the protection of calves (OJ 1991 L 340, p. 28) and of Articles 4 and 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001 (OJ 2003 L 270, p. 1) — National legislation transposing the Directive by stating that the management requirements apply not only to calves confined for rearing and fattening, but also to calves confined for dairy farming

      Operative part of the judgment

   Council Directive 91/629/EEC of 19 November 1991 laying down minimum standards for the protection of calves, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 806/2003 of 14 April 2003, must be interpreted as meaning that the requirement, referred to in Article 4 of that directive, according to which the conditions relating to the rearing of calves must comply with the general provisions set out in the annex to that directive, including point 8 of that annex, which prohibits, subject to exceptions, the tethering of calves, applied to calves kept confined by a farmer in the context of a dairy farming operation for agricultural purposes.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 24.09.2011.


C 233/20               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    28.9.2002
        Removal from the register of Case C-289/00 ( 1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-210/01 ( 1)
                        (2002/C 233/32)                                                         (2002/C 233/35)
By order of 3 July 2002 the President of the Court of Justice of      By order of 15 July 2002 the President of the First Chamber of
the European Communities ordered the removal from the                 the Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
register of Case C-289/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling         removal from the register of Case C-210/01: Commission of
by the Corte d’appello di Genova): Fincantieri — Cantieri             the European Communities v Italian Republic.
Navali Italiani SpA and Finmeccanica SpA v Federico Bianchi
and Others.
                                                                      (1 ) OJ C 212 of 28.7.2001.
( 1) OJ C 285 of 7.10.2000.
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-458/01 ( 1)
        Removal from the register of Case   C-352/00 ( 1)
                                                                                (2002/C 233/36)
                        (2002/C 233/33)
                                                                      By order of 19 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
By order of 2 July 2002 the President of the Court of Justice of      of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
the European Communities ordered the removal from the                 register of Case C-458/01: Commission of the European
register of Case C-352/00: Italian Republic v Council of the          Communities v Italian Republic.
European Union.
                                                                      (1 ) OJ C 84 of 6.4.2002.
( 1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-50/02 (1)
        Removal from the register of Case C-86/01 (1)
                        (2002/C 233/34)                                                         (2002/C 233/37)
By order of 2 July 2002 the President of the Court of Justice of      By order of 11 July 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
the European Communities ordered the removal from the                 of the European Communities ordered the removal from
register of Case C-86/01: Commission of the European Com-             the register of Case C-50/02: Commission of the European
munities v Republic of Austria.                                       Communities v Italian Republic.
( 1) OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.                                           (1 ) OJ C 84 of 6.4.2002.


title: Case T-90/15: Judgment of the General Court of 16 March 2016 — Schoeller Corporation v OHIM — Sqope (SCOPE) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark SCOPE — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               2.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/40

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 March 2016 — Schoeller Corporation v OHIM — Sqope (SCOPE)
   (Case T-90/15) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark SCOPE - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 156/53)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Schoeller Corporation GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: D. van Ackeren, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Sqope SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented: M.-C. Simon, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 November 2014 (Case R 2381/2013-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Sqope SA and Schoeller Corporation GmbH.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 21 November 2014 (Case R 2381/2013-1);

               2.

               Orders OHIM and Sqope SA to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by Schoeller Corporation GmbH.

      (1)  OJ C 118, 13.4.2015.