title: Case T-410/13: Action brought on 6 August 2013 — Bitiqi and Others v Commission and Others

text:
               9.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 325/33

         Action brought on 6 August 2013 — Bitiqi and Others v Commission and Others
   (Case T-410/13)
   2013/C 325/55
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Burim Bitiqi (London, United Kingdom); Arlinda Gjebrea (Prishtina, Republic of Kosovo); Anna Gorska (Warsaw, Poland); Agim Hajdini (London); Josefa Martínez Estéve (Valencia, Spain); Denis Vasile Miron (Bucharest, Romania); James Nicholls (Swindon, United Kingdom); Zornitsa Popova Glodzhani (Varna, Bulgaria); Andrei Mihai Popovici (Bucharest); and Amaia San José Ortiz (Llodio, Spain) (represented by: A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal and D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

      Defendants: European Commission, Eulex Kosovo and the European External Action Service (EEAS)

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the decisions of 27 May and 2 July 2013 not to renew their contracts;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle that staff representatives should be consulted, since the staff was not informed of the consequences of the decision to restructure the Eulex Kosovo Mission until after that decision had been taken, and the hierarchy refused to consult with a trade union representative.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the protection of workers in the context of a mass redundancy, in so far as each of the workers made redundant must have the law in force in her/his Member State of origin applied to her/him, resulting in significant differences in the rules applied and the protection granted to each worker.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging misuse of the right to use successive fixed-term contracts.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination between ‘seconded’ and ‘contracted’ workers, in so far as only those workers who were ‘contracted’ staff will actually be made redundant, whereas ‘seconded’ members of staff have been offered the opportunity to be deployed elsewhere.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, concerning one of the applicants, alleging a breach of Article 8 of the European Social Charter, since that applicant was informed of the contested decision while she was pregnant and on maternity leave.


title: Case C-275/04: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — External Community transit — Regulations (EEC) No 2913/92 and No 2454/93 — Communities' own resources — Making available — Time-limits — Default interest — Failure to keep and communicate supporting documents relating to the establishment and making available of own resources)

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/6

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-275/04) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - External Community transit - Regulations (EEC) No 2913/92 and No 2454/93 - Communities' own resources - Making available - Time-limits - Default interest - Failure to keep and communicate supporting documents relating to the establishment and making available of own resources)
   (2006/C 294/09)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Giolito and G. Wilms, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: E. Dominkovits and M. Wimmer, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by C. Jackson, Agent, and M. Angiolini and R. Anderson, Barristers
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 6, 9, 10 and 11 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities' own resources (OJ 2000 L 130, p. 1), which, as from 31 May 2000, repealed and replaced Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities' own resources (OJ 1989 L 155, p. 1) — Anomalies and delays found in the accounting entries of own resources.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that by failing to enter in the accounts referred to in Article 6(3)(a) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities' own resources the entitlements established within the prescribed periods,
               by failing to verify whether, since 1 January 1995, other delays in making own resources available occurred following a late entry in the accounts referred to in Article 6(3)(a) of Regulation No 1150/2000, by destroying the records covering that period and by failing to inform the Commission of those delays in order to enable it to calculate the default interest owing in terms of Article 11 of that regulation due to a delay in making own resources available,
               the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3, 6, 9, 10 and 11 of Regulation No 1150/2000 which, with effect from 31 May 2000, repealed and replaced Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities' own resources, the purpose of which is the same, and Article 10 EC;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs;

               3.

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

      (1)  OJ C 217, 28.08.2004.


title: Case C-283/15: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tax legislation — Income tax — National of a Member State receiving income in that Member State and in a non-Member State, and residing in another Member State — Tax advantage to take account of his personal and family circumstances)

text:
               3.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/15

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-283/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Tax legislation - Income tax - National of a Member State receiving income in that Member State and in a non-Member State, and residing in another Member State - Tax advantage to take account of his personal and family circumstances))
   (2017/C 104/22)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: X

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a Member State, the tax legislation of which permits the deduction of ‘negative income’ relating to a dwelling, from refusing the benefit of that deduction to a self-employed non-resident where that person receives, within that Member State, 60 % of his total income and does not receive, within the Member State where his dwelling is located, income that enables him to qualify for an equivalent right to deduct.

               2.

               The injunction imposed by the answer to the first question concerns any Member State of activity within which a self-employed person receives income enabling him to claim there an equivalent right of deduction, in proportion to the share of that income received within each Member State of activity. In that regard, a ‘Member State of activity’ is any Member State that has the power to tax such income from the activities of a non-resident as is received within its territory, irrespective of where the activities are actually performed.

               3.

               The fact that the non-resident taxpayer concerned receives part of his taxable income not within a Member State, but within a non-Member State, is of no relevance to the answer to the second question.

      (1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.


title: Case C-314/07: Action brought on 6 July 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/24

         Action brought on 6 July 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-314/07)
   (2007/C 199/38)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Rozet and P. Costa de Oliveira, Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 39 EC and Article 3(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council (1) on freedom of movement for workers within the Community by providing that for the purposes of determining the ranking of candidates in external competitions for teaching staff in the Autonomous Region of the Azores priority is to be given to candidates who fall under Article 25(7)(a) of the Regulamento de Concurso (Competition regulation) adopted by Decreto Legislativo Regional (Regional Legislative Decree) No 27/2003/A of 9 June 2003;

               —

               Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The criteria for priority laid down in Article 25(7) of the Regional Legislative Decree No 27/2003/A of 9 June 2003 in order to determine the ranking of the candidates to be appointed to posts in schools and teaching establishments in the Autonomous Region of the Azores for a period of not less than 3 years constitute discrimination on grounds of nationality, contrary to the provisions of Community law on freedom of movement for workers, irrespective of the fact that they apply also to Portuguese citizens resident in other areas of Portugal. The concept of discrimination covers not only manifest discrimination on grounds of nationality, but also all measures which by applying other differentiating criteria lead in fact to the same result.
   The Commission submits that the argument of the Portuguese authorities, that if the candidate has a connection to the Autonomous Region of the Azores the candidate may be thought inclined to remain in the region, cannot be considered an objective factor which justifies the restriction in question on the appointment of candidates in external competitions.

      (1)  OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475.


title: Case C-477/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 May 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) — United Kingdom) — Pillbox 38 (UK) Ltd v The Secretary of State for Health (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Directive 2014/40/EU — Article 20 — Electronic cigarettes and refill containers — Validity — Principle of equal treatment — Principles of proportionality and legal certainty — Principle of subsidiarity — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Articles 16 and 17)

text:
               4.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/9

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 May 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) — United Kingdom) — Pillbox 38 (UK) Ltd v The Secretary of State for Health
   (Case C-477/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Directive 2014/40/EU - Article 20 - Electronic cigarettes and refill containers - Validity - Principle of equal treatment - Principles of proportionality and legal certainty - Principle of subsidiarity - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 16 and 17))
   (2016/C 243/07)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Pillbox 38 (UK) Ltd

      Defendant: The Secretary of State for Health

      Operative part of the judgment

   Consideration of the question referred has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 20 of Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products and repealing Directive 2001/37/EC.

      (1)  OJ C 7, 12.1.2015.


title: Case T-71/07 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 4 May 2007 — Icuna.Com v Parliament (Public procurement — Community tendering procedure — Procedure for interim relief — No urgency)

text:
               23.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 140/24

         Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 4 May 2007 — Icuna.Com v Parliament
   (Case T-71/07 R)
   (Public procurement - Community tendering procedure - Procedure for interim relief - No urgency)
   (2007/C 140/43)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Icuna.Com SCRL (Braine-le-Château, Belgium) (represented by: J. Windey and P. de Bandt, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: O. Caisou-Rousseau and M. Ecker, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for suspension of the operation of the decision of the European Parliament of 31 January 2007 annulling invitation to tender EP/DGINFO/WEBTV/2006/0003, in so far as concerns lot No 2, pending the decision of the Court of First Instance in the main action.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-70/12: Order of the General Court of 17 June 2013 — Divandari v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Plea of inadmissibility — Lis pendens — Plea of illegality — Removal of the persons concerned from the list — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/79

         Order of the General Court of 17 June 2013 — Divandari v Council
   (Case T-70/12) (1)

   (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Plea of inadmissibility - Lis pendens - Plea of illegality - Removal of the persons concerned from the list - No need to adjudicate)
   2013/C 225/176
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Ali Divandari (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: S. Zaiwalla, P. Reddy and F. Zaiwalla, Solicitors, M. Brindle QC, and R. Blakeley, Barrister)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and I. Rodios, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for (i) annulment of Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11), and Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1), in so far as those measures concern the applicant, and (ii) a declaration that Article 20(1)(b) of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39) and Article 16(2) of Council Regulation No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1) are not to apply to the applicant.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as being inadmissible in so far as it seeks a declaration that Article 20(1)(b) of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP and Article 16(2) of Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 are not to apply to the applicant.

               2.

               The remainder of the plea of inadmissibility is rejected.

               3.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the action in so far as it seeks the annulment of Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation No 961/2010, and Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010, in so far as those measures concern the applicant.

               4.

               The Council shall bear, in addition to its own costs, the applicant’s costs relating to the application for annulment of Decision 2011/783, Implementing Regulation No 1245/2011 and Regulation No 267/2012.

               5.

               The applicant shall bear his own costs relating to (i) the application for a declaration of inapplicability regarding Article 20(1)(b) of Decision 2010/413 and Article 16(2) of Regulation No 961/2010 and (ii) the objection of inadmissibility.

      (1)  OJ C 109, 14.4.2012.


20150731033616912015/C 270/294892013TC27020150817EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20150630242411Case T-489/13: Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2015 — La Rioja Alta v OHIM — Aldi Einkauf (VIÑA ALBERDI) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark VIÑA ALBERDI — Earlier national figurative mark VILLA ALBERTI — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — No coexistence of the marks — Likelihood of confusion)
 ---documentbreak--- C2702015EN2410120150630EN0029241241Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2015 — La Rioja Alta v OHIM — Aldi Einkauf (VIÑA ALBERDI)
   (Case T-489/13) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark VIÑA ALBERDI — Earlier national figurative mark VILLA ALBERTI — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — No coexistence of the marks — Likelihood of confusion)’2015/C 270/29Language of the case: Spanish
      Parties

      Applicant: La Rioja Alta, SA (Haro, Spain) (represented by: F. Pérez Álvarez, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG (Essen, Germany)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 July 2013 (Case R 1190/2011-4), concerning invalidity proceedings between Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG and La Rioja Alta, SA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Dismisses the action;

            2.

            Orders La Rioja Alta, SA to pay the costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 282, 25.8.2014.


title: Case C-476/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 19 September 2011 — HK Danmark acting on behalf of Glennie Kristensen v Experian A/S

text:
               19.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 340/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 19 September 2011 — HK Danmark acting on behalf of Glennie Kristensen v Experian A/S
   (Case C-476/11)
   2011/C 340/20
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Vestre Landsret

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: HK Danmark acting on behalf of Glennie Kristensen

      Defendant: Experian A/S

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the exception in Article 6(2) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC (1) concerning the determination of age limits for admission to occupational social security schemes be interpreted as authorisation for the Member States to be able generally to except occupational social security schemes from the prohibition in Article 2 of the directive of direct or indirect discrimination on grounds of age in so far as that does not bring about discrimination on grounds of sex?

               2.

               Must the exception in Article 6(2) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC concerning the determination of age limits for admission to occupational social security schemes be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from maintaining a legal situation in which an employer can pay, as part of pay, age-graded pension contributions, implying for example that the employer pays a pension contribution of 6 % for employees under 35, 8 % for employees from 35 to 44 and 10 % for employees over 45, in so far as that does not bring about discrimination on grounds of sex?

      (1)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).


title: Case F-107/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 5 February 2016 — Fedtke v EESC (Civil Service — Officials — Automatic retirement — Retirement age — Application to remain in service beyond the age limit — Second paragraph of Article 52 of the Staff Regulations — Interest of the service — Article 82 of the Rules of Procedure — Absolute bar to proceeding — Irregularity of the pre-litigation procedure)

text:
               21.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/50

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 5 February 2016 — Fedtke v EESC
   (Case F-107/15) (1)

   ((Civil Service - Officials - Automatic retirement - Retirement age - Application to remain in service beyond the age limit - Second paragraph of Article 52 of the Staff Regulations - Interest of the service - Article 82 of the Rules of Procedure - Absolute bar to proceeding - Irregularity of the pre-litigation procedure))
   (2016/C 106/61)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Ingrid Fedtke (Wezembeek-Oppen, Belgium) (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Economic and Social Committee (represented by: K. Gambino, A. Carvajal, L. Camerena Januzec and X. Chamodraka, acting as Agents, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision placing the applicant in retirement with effect from 31 December 2014 and the decision rejecting her application for an extension of her service.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Ms Fedtke shall bear her own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the European Economic and Social Committee.

      (1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2015, p. 53.


title: Case F-40/06: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 6 December 2007 — Marcuccio v Commission (Staff cases — Officials — Request for information on personal effects dispatched from the place of employment to the place of residence — No need to adjudicate — Application for damages manifestly unfounded)

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/55

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 6 December 2007 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case F-40/06) (1)

   (Staff cases - Officials - Request for information on personal effects dispatched from the place of employment to the place of residence - No need to adjudicate - Application for damages manifestly unfounded)
   (2008/C 22/105)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant:Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: V. Messa, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)
   Re:
   First, application for annulment of the implied decision rejecting the applicant's request for a copy of the consignment note relating to the dispatch of his personal effects from Angola to Italy and, second, an application for damages.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the claims for annulment;

               2.

               The claims for compensation are rejected as manifestly unfounded;

               3.

               Mr Marcuccio shall bear his own costs and all the costs incurred by the Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 143, 17.6.2006, p. 37.


title: Case C-587/11 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 18 September 2012 — Omnicare Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Astellas Pharma GmbH (Appeal — Community trade mark — Application for registration of the word sign ‘OMNICARE CLINICAL RESEARCH’ — Opposition — Decision of the Board of Appeal rejecting the application — Action — Judgment of the General Court dismissing that action — Withdrawal of the opposition — Appeal — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               12.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/24

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 18 September 2012 — Omnicare Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Astellas Pharma GmbH
   (Case C-587/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Application for registration of the word sign ‘OMNICARE CLINICAL RESEARCH’ - Opposition - Decision of the Board of Appeal rejecting the application - Action - Judgment of the General Court dismissing that action - Withdrawal of the opposition - Appeal - No need to adjudicate)
   2013/C 9/40
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Omnicare Inc. (represented by: M. Edenborough, QC)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent), Astellas Pharma GmbH (represented by: M.L. Polo Carreño, abogada)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 9 September 2011 in Case T-289/09 Omnicare v OHIM — Astellas Pharma (OMNICARE CLINICAL RESEARCH), in which the General Court dismissed an action, brought by the applicant for the word mark ‘OMNICARE CLINICAL RESEARCH’ for services in Class 42, for the annulment of Decision R 401/2008-4 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 14 May 2009 annulling the Opposition Division’s decision rejecting the opposition brought by the proprietor of the national mark ‘OMNICARE’ for services in Classes 35, 41 and 42 — Interpretation and application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Concept of genuine use of an earlier mark — Mark used for services provided free of charge

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the appeal brought by Omnicare Inc.

               2.

               Omnicare Inc. shall pay the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) in the course of the present proceedings and the proceedings for interim measures.

               3.

               Omnicare Inc. and Astellas Pharma GmbH shall each bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 June 2002 in Case C-158/00: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg v Commission of the European Communities (Clearance of accounts — EAGGF — 1996 to 1998 financial years — Arable crops — Procedure to be followed by the Commission)

text:
C 180/4                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          27.7.2002
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                                             (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 6 June 2002
                           of 13 June 2002
                                                                            in Case C-159/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
in Case C-158/00: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg v Com-                          the Cour de cassation): Sapod Audic v Eco-Emballages
           mission of the European Communities (1)                                                           SA (1)
(Clearance of accounts — EAGGF — 1996 to 1998 financial                     (Directive 83/189/EEC — Procedure for the provision of
years — Arable crops — Procedure to be followed by the                      information in the field of technical standards and regu-
                             Commission)                                    lations — Obligation to communicate draft technical regu-
                                                                            lations — Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/156/EEC — Waste
                                                                            — Obligation to make notification of planned measures —
                           (2002/C 180/06)                                  National regulations on disposal of packaging waste —
                                                                            Obligation on producers or importers to identify packaging
                                                                            to be disposed of by an approved undertaking — Obligation
                     (Language of the case: French)                         on the approved undertaking to ensure that packaging for
                                                                                which it is responsible meets technical requirements)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                                                     (2002/C 180/07)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
In Case C-158/00, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent:                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
M. F. Hoffstetter, assisted by R. Nothar) v Commission of the                                   in the European Court Reports)
European Communities (Agents: P. Oliver and G. Berscheid):
Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision
2000/216/EC of 1 March 2000 excluding from Community
financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States                 In Case C-159/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural                    EC by the Cour de Cassation (France) for a preliminary ruling
Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2000 L 67, p. 37),                  in the proceedings pending before that court between Sapod
in so far as it excluded from Community financing, for the                  Audic and Eco-Emballages SA on the interpretation of
1996 to 1998 ;financial years, expenditure of LUF 56 106 800                Articles 1 and 10 of Council Directive 83/189/EEC of 28 March
;incurred by the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg in the arable                    1983 laying down a procedure for the provision of information
crops sector, the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann,              in the field of technical standards and regulations (OJ 1983
President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur),                         L 109, p. 8), as amended by Council Directive 88/182/EEC of
D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola and M. Wathelet, Judges;                       22 March 1988 (OJ 1988 L 81, p. 75), Article 3(2) of Council
A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a              Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975
judgment on 13 June 2002, in which it:                                      L 194, p. 39), as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC
                                                                            of 18 March 1991 (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32), and Article 30 of
                                                                            the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC), the
1.    Annuls Commission Decision 2000/216/EC of 1 March                     Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the
      2000 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure           Chamber, S. von Bahr and C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur),
      incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of          Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy
      the European Agricultural Guidance Fund (EAGGF), in so far            Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 June 2002, in which it
      as it excludes from Community financing expenditure incurred          has ruled:
      by the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg in the arable crops sector
      prior to 26 May 1996;
                                                                            1.    A provision of national law such as the second paragraph of
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;                                 Article 4 of Decree No 92-377 of 1 April 1992 implementing,
                                                                                in respect of packaging waste, Law No 75-633 of 15 July
                                                                                1975 relating to the disposal of waste and the recovery of
3.    Orders each of the parties to bear its own costs.                           materials, as amended, could constitute a technical regulation
                                                                                within the meaning of Council Directive 83/189/EEC of
                                                                                28 March 1983 laying down a procedure for the provision of
(1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.                                                        information in the field of technical standards and regulations,
                                                                                as amended by Council Directive 88/182/EEC of 22 March
                                                                                1988, only if the national court were to hold that it had to be
                                                                                interpreted as requiring a mark or label to be applied.


title: Judgment of the court of first instance Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition 19 February 2004 InJoined Cases T-297/01 and T-298/01: SIC – Sociedade Independente de Comunicação,SA v Commission of the European Communities (State aid — Public television— Complaint — Action for failure to act — Definition of position by the Commission— Whether aid new or existing — Request for a ruling that there is no needto adjudicate — Dispute — Compliance with an annulling judgment — Commission'sobligation to make an investigation — Reasonable period)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/56

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE FOURTH CHAMBER, EXTENDED COMPOSITION

   19 February 2004
   In Joined Cases T-297/01 and T-298/01: SIC – Sociedade Independente de Comunicação, SA v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (State aid - Public television - Complaint - Action for failure to act - Definition of position by the Commission - Whether aid new or existing - Request for a ruling that there is no need to adjudicate - Dispute - Compliance with an annulling judgment - Commission's obligation to make an investigation - Reasonable period)
   (2004/C 106/109)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   In Joined Cases T-297/01 and T-298/01, SIC – Sociedade Independente de Comunicação, SA, established in Carnaxide (Portugal), represented by Mes C. Botelho Moniz and E. Maia Cadete, avocats, v Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. de Sousa Fialho Lopes and J. Buendía Sierra): Application for a declaration under Article 232 EC that the Commission has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty, by failing to adopt a decision in relation to the complaints lodged by the applicant on 30 July 1993, 22 October 1996 and 20 June 1997, against the Portuguese Republic for infringement of Article 87 EC, and by failing, in contravention of Article 232 EC and the principle of sound administration, to take the measures to comply with the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-46/97 [2000] ECR II-2125 and initiate the formal review procedure under Article 88(2) EC, the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of V. Tiili, President, J. Pirrung, P. Mengozzi, A.W.H. Meij and M Vilaras, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 February 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on Cases T-297/01 and T-298/01.

               2.

               Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 84 of 06.04.2002.


title: Case C-552/10 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 November 2012 — Usha Martin Ltd v Council of the European Union, European Commission (Appeal — Dumping — Regulation (EC) No 121/2006 — Imports of steel ropes and cables originating, inter alia, in India — Decision 2006/38/EC — Regulation (EC) No 384/96 — Article 8(9) — Undertakings offered in connection with anti-dumping proceedings)

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/2

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 November 2012 — Usha Martin Ltd v Council of the European Union, European Commission
   (Case C-552/10 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Dumping - Regulation (EC) No 121/2006 - Imports of steel ropes and cables originating, inter alia, in India - Decision 2006/38/EC - Regulation (EC) No 384/96 - Article 8(9) - Undertakings offered in connection with anti-dumping proceedings)
   2013/C 26/03
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Usha Martin Ltd (represented by: V. Akritidis and E. Petritsi, dikigoroï, and by F. Crespo, avocat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen, acting as Agent, G. Berrisch, Rechtsanwalt, and N. Chesaites, Barrister), European Commission (represented by T. Scharf and S. Thomas, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 September 2010 in Case T-119/06: Usha Martin Ltd v Council of the European Union and European Commission in which the General Court dismissed an action, on the one hand, for annulment of Commission Decision of 22 December 2005 amending Commission Decision 1999/572/EC accepting undertakings in connection with the anti-dumping proceedings concerning imports of steel wire rope and cables originating in, inter alia, India (OJ 2006 L 22, p. 54) and, on the other hand, for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 121/2006 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1858/2005 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of steel ropes and cables originating in, inter alia, India (OJ 2006 L 22, p. 1)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Usha Martin Ltd to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 19.2.2011.


title: Case T-560/15 P: Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2016 — LM v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Survivor’s pension — Articles 18 and 27 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Article 25 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Right of the divorced spouse of the deceased official — Maintenance paid by the deceased official)

text:
               22.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/33

         Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2016 — LM v Commission
   (Case T-560/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Survivor’s pension - Articles 18 and 27 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Article 25 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Right of the divorced spouse of the deceased official - Maintenance paid by the deceased official))
   (2016/C 305/46)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: LM (Ispra, Italy) (represented by: L. Ribolzi, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents, and by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal [confidential], and asking for annulment of that order.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2)

               Orders LM to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 414, 14.12.2015.


title: Case C-320/13: Order of the President of the Court of 30 March 2015 — European Commission v Republic of Poland, intervention: Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
               29.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/20

         Order of the President of the Court of 30 March 2015 — European Commission v Republic of Poland, intervention: Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-320/13) (1)

   (2015/C 213/30)
   Language of the case: Polish
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 226, 3.8.2013.


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 28 November 2003 in Case T-264/03 R: Jürgen Schmoldt and Others against the Commission of the European Communities (Application for interim measures — Admissibility — Urgency)

text:
C 85/26                 EN                            Official Journal of the European Union                                           3.4.2004
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                    established in Bremen (Germany), and Hauptverband der
                                                                              Deutschen Bauindustrie eV, established in Berlin (Germany),
                      of 18 December 2003                                     represented by Professor H.-P. Schneider, against the Com-
                                                                              mission of the European Communities (Agents: K. Wiedner
in Case T-215/02: Santiago Gómez-Reino v Commission                           and A. Böhlke) — application under Article 243 EC for interim
                of the European Communities (1)                               measures, seeking extension of the period of coexistence of
                                                                              national standards and European standards EN 13162:2001 to
(Officials — Investigation carried out by the European Anti-                  13171:2001 which is provided for by the Commission
Fraud Office (OLAF) — Duty to assist — Action for                             Communication of 22 May 2003 published in the framework
annulment and for damages clearly inadmissible and clearly                    of the implementation of Council Directive 89/106/EEC (OJ
                         unfounded in law)                                    2003 C 120, p. 17) — the President of the Court of First
                                                                              Instance made an order on 28 November 2003 the operative
                           (2004/C 85/50)                                     part of which is as follows:
                    (Language of the case: French)                            1.    The application for interim measures is dismissed.
                                                                              2.    The costs are reserved.
In Case T-215/02: Santiago Gómez-Reino, official of the
Commission of the European Communities, resident in Brus-
sels (Belgium), represented by M.-A. Lucas, lawyer, against the
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: H.-
P. Hartvig and J. Currall) — application, first, for annulment of
a series of measures relating to investigations carried out by
the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and to requests for                           ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
assistance under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of officials
of the European Communities and, second, for compensation                                            of 2 December 2003
in respect of the alleged damage — the Court of First
Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President,                 in Case T-334/02 Viomikhania Siskevasias Tipopiisis kai
A. W. H. Meij and N. J. Forwood, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,                  Sintirisis Agrotikon Proïonton AE against the Com-
made an order on 18 December 2003, the operative part of                                mission of the European Communities (1)
which is as follows:
                                                                              (FEOGA — Improvement of the conditions under which
1.    The action is dismissed as clearly inadmissible and as clearly          agricultural products are processed and marketed — Request
      unfounded in law.                                                       for abolition of Community financial assistance — Inaction
2.    The parties shall each bear their own costs, including those             on the part of the Commission — Action for failure to act)
      incurred in the proceedings for interim relief in Case T-215/02
      R and Case C-471/02 P(R).                                                                          (2004/C 85/52)
(1) OJ C 247, 12.10.2002.                                                                          (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                              In Case T-334/02: Viomikhania Siskevasias Tipopiisis kai
                                                                              Sintirisis Agrotikon Proïonton AE, established in Athens
                                                                              (Greece), represented by I. Stamoulis, lawyer, with an address
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                                  for service in Luxembourg, against the Commission of the
                             INSTANCE                                         European Communities (Agent: M. Kondou-Durande) — appli-
                                                                              cation for a declaration under Article 232 EC that the
                      of 28 November 2003                                     Commission failed to act in that, first, it did not initiate the
                                                                              procedure for failure to fulfil obligations in relation to the
in Case T-264/03 R: Jürgen Schmoldt and Others against                        Hellenic Republic for a breach of Community law which
       the Commission of the European Communities                             harmed the applicant’s economic interests and, second, it did
                                                                              not abolish ex tunc the financial assistance of the European
(Application for interim measures — Admissibility —                           Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) which
                              Urgency)                                        was granted for the purposes of the co-financing of the
                                                                              applicant’s investment project as approved by Decision
                           (2004/C 85/51)                                     No 324986/505 of the Greek authorities of 17 February 1994
                                                                              — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of
                   (Language of the case: German)                             J. Azizi, President, M. Jaeger and F. Dehousse, Judges; H. Jung,
                                                                              Registrar, made an order on 2 December 2003, the operative
                                                                              part of which is as follows:
In Case T-264/03 R: Jürgen Schmoldt, resident in Dallgow-
Döberitz (Germany), Kaefer Isoliertechnik GmbH & Co. KG,                      1.    The action is dismissed as clearly inadmissible.


title: Case T-168/00: Action brought on 16 June 2000 by Appel & Frenzel GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
C 259/26                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        9.9.2000
—     Is contrary to Article 253 EC.                                     (4) order the Commission to pay the costs.
—     Found a dumping margin of 7,6 % and imposed anti-
      dumping duties of EUR 5,19 per tonne on the Applicant.             Pleas in law and main arguments
      Had the above breaches of Community law not been
      made, only the minimis dumping would have been found               The pleas in law and principal arguments are the same as in
      and no duties should have been imposed.                            Case T-110/00 (2).
                                                                         (1) OJ L 56 of 1.3.2000, p. 39.
(1) OJEC L 75, of 24.3.2000, p. 3.
                                                                         (2) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000, p. 30.
(2) Council Regulation EC No 384/96, of 22 December 1996, on
    protection against dumping imports from countries not members
    of the European Community (OJEC L 56, of 6.3.1996, p. 1).
                                                                         Action brought on 16 June 2000 by Appel & Frenzel
                                                                         GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the
                                                                                Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Action brought on 14 June 2000 by Suproco NV against                                              (Case T-168/00)
       the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (2000/C 259/48)
                         (Case T-159/00)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                         (2000/C 259/47)
                                                                         An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                         Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                        Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                         16 June 2000 by Appel & Frenzel GmbH, of Düsseldorf
                                                                         (Federal Republic of Germany), represented by Johann-Chris-
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         toph Gaedertz, Rechtsanwalt, of Gaedertz Rechtsanwälte,
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         Bockenheimer Landstraße 98-100, Frankfurt (Federal Republic
European Communities on 14 June 2000 by Suproco NV,
                                                                         of Germany).
represented by R.J. van Agteren, of the Rotterdam Bar, and
M.M. Slotboom, of the Rotterdam and Brussels Bars, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
M. Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe.
                                                                         —     amend Decision R 263/1999-3 of the Third Board of
                                                                               Appeal, dated 13 April 2000, and order registration of
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    the mark ‘Tönnchen’ as a Community trade mark in
                                                                               accordance with the annexed illustration.
(1) declare the action brought by Suproco admissible;
(2) annul Regulation No 465/2000 (1) of 29 February 2000                 Pleas in law and main arguments
      introducing safeguard measures for imports from the
      overseas countries and territories of sugar sector products        The trade mark con-             ‘Tönnchen’      —      application
      with EC/OCT cumulation of origin;                                  cerned:                         No 624189
                                                                         Goods or service con-           Class 30 goods (mustard)
(3) rule that the Community is liable for the damage suffered
                                                                         cerned:
      by Suproco as a result of the safeguard measure and that
      the parties should seek to reach agreement on the extent           Decision         contested      Refusal of registration by the
      of the damage suffered by Suproco, and order that, if no           before the Board of             examiner
      such agreement is reached within a time-limit to be                Appeal:
      specified by the Court, the proceedings are to continue
      with a view to determining the quantum of the damage,              Grounds of claim:               — incorrect finding by the Board
      and order the Community in any event to pay the                                                        of Appeal that the mark has
      damages provisionally quantified and yet to be quantified,                                             no distinctive character
      alternatively to pay such compensation as the Court may
      deem fair and equitable, together with interest thereon
      from the date of the application until payment in full;


title: Case T-640/14: Action brought on 20 August 2014  — Beul v Parliament and Council

text:
               17.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 409/50

         Action brought on 20 August 2014 — Beul v Parliament and Council
   (Case T-640/14)
   2014/C 409/71
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Carsten René Beul (Neuwied, Germany) (represented by: H. Pott and T. Eckhold, lawyers)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union and European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Regulation (EU) No 537/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on specific requirements regarding statutory audit of public-interest entities and repealing Commission Decision 2005/909/EC.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies, in essence, on the following pleas in law.
   In the first place, the applicant alleges that Regulation (EU) No 537/2014 (1) is not covered by any enabling provision.
   In addition, the applicant takes the view that the provisions of Regulation No 537/2014 represent an unlawful infringement of the freedom to choose an occupation guaranteed in accordance with Article 6(1) TEU in conjunction with Article 15 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The applicant submits that the infringement of the freedom to choose an occupation is unjustified particularly on grounds of a lack of proportionality. Furthermore, the applicant claims infringement of the principle of subsidiarity.

      (1)  Regulation (EU) No 537/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on specific requirements regarding statutory audit of public-interest entities and repealing Commission Decision 2005/909/EC (OJ 2014 L 158, p. 77).


title: Case C-544/15: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — Sahar Fahimian v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Directive 2004/114/EC — Article 6(1)(d) — Conditions of admission of third country nationals — Refusal of admission — Concept of ‘threat to public security’ — Margin of discretion)

text:
               29.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 168/12

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — Sahar Fahimian v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
   (Case C-544/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Directive 2004/114/EC - Article 6(1)(d) - Conditions of admission of third country nationals - Refusal of admission - Concept of ‘threat to public security’ - Margin of discretion))
   (2017/C 168/14)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sahar Fahimian

      Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

      intervener: Stadt Darmstadt

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 6(1)(d) of Council Directive 2004/114/EC of 13 December 2004 on the conditions of admission of third-country nationals for the purposes of studies, pupil exchange, unremunerated training or voluntary service must be interpreted as meaning that the competent national authorities, where a third country national has applied to them for a visa for study purposes, have a wide discretion in ascertaining, in the light of all the relevant elements of the situation of that national, whether he represents a threat, if only potential, to public security. That provision must also be interpreted as not precluding the competent national authorities from refusing to admit to the territory of the Member State concerned, for study purposes, a third country national who holds a degree from a university which is the subject of EU restrictive measures because of its large scale involvement with the Iranian Government in military or related fields, and who plans to carry out research in that Member State in a field that is sensitive for public security, if the elements available to those authorities give reason to fear that the knowledge acquired by that person during his research may subsequently be used for purposes contrary to public security. It is for the national court hearing an action brought against the decision of the competent national authorities to refuse to grant the visa sought to ascertain whether that decision is based on sufficient grounds and a sufficiently solid factual basis.

      (1)  OJ C 429, 21.12.2015.


title: Judgment of the Court of 1 February 2016 in Case E-17/15 — Ferskar kjötvörur ehf. v The Icelandic State (Jurisdiction — Article 8 EEA — Import of raw meat — Directive 89/662/EEC — Harmonisation of the regulatory regime for veterinary checks)

text:
               19.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 18/25

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 1 February 2016
   in Case E-17/15
   Ferskar kjötvörur ehf. v The Icelandic State
   (Jurisdiction — Article 8 EEA — Import of raw meat — Directive 89/662/EEC — Harmonisation of the regulatory regime for veterinary checks)
   (2017/C 18/09)
   In Case E-17/15, Ferskar kjötvörur ehf. v The Icelandic State — REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by Reykjavík District Court (Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur) concerning the applicability of the provisions of the Agreement on the European Economic Area to the import to Iceland of raw meat products, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 1 February 2016, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The field of application of the EEA Agreement as defined in Article 8 EEA does not entail that an EEA State has discretion to set rules on the importation of raw meat products, since that discretion may be limited by provisions incorporated into an Annex to the EEA Agreement.

               2.

               It is not compatible with the provisions of Directive 89/662/EEC for an EEA State to enact rules demanding that an importer of raw meat products applies for a special permit before the products are imported, and requiring the submission of a certificate confirming that the meat has been stored frozen for a certain period prior to customs clearance.


title: Case T-692/14: Action brought on 22 September 2014 — Puma v OHIM — Sinda Poland (Representation of an imaginary animal)

text:
               17.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 409/55

         Action brought on 22 September 2014 — Puma v OHIM — Sinda Poland (Representation of an imaginary animal)
   (Case T-692/14)
   2014/C 409/76
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sinda Poland Corporation Sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision issued on 14 September 2012 (Case R 2214/2013-5) on the grounds that Article 8(1)(b) CTMR was not correctly applied, which resulted in the incorrect finding that the conflicting trade marks were not visually and conceptually similar;

               —

               Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and Sinda Poland Corporation Sp. z.o.o. to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and the Office.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the representation of an imaginary animal for goods in class 25 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 1 42  395

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The international registrations Nos 3 69  075 and 4 80  105 for goods in classes 18, 25 and 28, and the international registration No 5 93  987 for goods and services in all classes

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejected the appeal

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


title: Case C-238/13 P: Appeal brought on 29 April 2013 by Rialto Inn Srl against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 February 2013 in Joined Cases T-278/00 to T-280/00, T-282/00 to T-286/00 and T-288/00 to T-295/00 Albergo Quattro Fontane and Others v Commission

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/23

         Appeal brought on 29 April 2013 by Rialto Inn Srl against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 February 2013 in Joined Cases T-278/00 to T-280/00, T-282/00 to T-286/00 and T-288/00 to T-295/00 Albergo Quattro Fontane and Others v Commission
   (Case C-238/13 P)
   2013/C 207/36
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Rialto Inn Srl (represented by: A. Bianchini and F. Busetto, avvocati)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’, European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the order of the General Court under appeal

               —

               Uphold the forms of order sought at first instance and, accordingly,

                           —

                           annul, in so far as is reasonable and in so far as it concerns the appellant, European Commission Decision No 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995;

                           —

                           in the alternative, annul that decision in so far as it imposes an obligation to recover the relief granted and in so far as it requires interest to be added to the amount of relief to be recovered for the periods taken into consideration in the judgment;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs incurred both at first instance and on appeal.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant raises nine grounds of appeal:

                  First ground: the General Court erred in not taking into consideration the fact that the measures in question did not confer any advantage upon their beneficiaries given their compensatory nature.

                  Second ground: the Court erred in not excluding, or at least assessing, the likelihood that the measures in question would affect competition and intra-Community trade.

                  Third ground: the Court erred in holding that the derogations in Article 87(2)(b) EC (now Article 107(2)(b) TFEU) and Article 87(3)(b) EC (now Article 107(3)(b) TFEU) were inapplicable.

                  Fourth ground: the Court erred in holding that the derogation in Article 87(3)(c) EC (now Article 107(3)(c) TFEU) was inapplicable.

                  Fifth ground: the Court erred in holding that the derogations in Article 87(3)(d) and (e) EC (now Article 107(3)(d) and (e) TFEU) were inapplicable.

                  Sixth ground: the Court erred in holding that the derogation in Article 86(2) EC (now Article 106(2) TFEU) was inapplicable.

                  Seventh ground: the Court erred in not recognising the existence of the aid, thus infringing Article 88(3) EC (now Article 108(3) TFEU) and Article 15 of Regulation No 659/1999. (1)

                  Eighth ground: the Court erred in finding that Article 14(1) of Regulation No 659/1999 did not apply to the recovery order.

                  Ninth ground: the Court erred in finding that Article 14(1) of Regulation No 659/1999 did not apply to the addition of interest.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).


title: Case T-278/09: Judgment of the General Court of 15 November 2012 — Verband Deutscher Prädikatsweingüter v OHIM (GG) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community collective word mark GG — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               22.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 November 2012 — Verband Deutscher Prädikatsweingüter v OHIM (GG)
   (Case T-278/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for the Community collective word mark GG - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)
   2012/C 399/29
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Verband Deutscher Prädikatsweingüter eV, formerly Verband Deutscher Prädikats- und Qualitätsweingüter eV (Mainz, Germany) (represented by: N. Schindler, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially B. Schmidt, subsequently G. Schneider and lastly D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 April 2009 (Case R 1568/2008-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign GG as a Community trade mark

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Verband Deutscher Prädikatsweingüter eV to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 220, 12.9.2009.


title: Case T-199/12: Judgment of the General Court of 2 October 2014 — Euro-Link Consultants and European Profiles v Commission (Public service contracts — Tender procedure — Crimean tourism diversification and support project — Rejection of the applicants’ tender — Action for annulment — Measure not amenable to review — Confirmatory measure — Partial inadmissibility — Obligation to state reasons — Award criteria — Manifest error of assessment — Misuse of powers — Equal treatment)

text:
               10.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 395/38

      Judgment of the General Court of 2 October 2014 — Euro-Link Consultants and European Profiles v Commission
      (Case T-199/12) (1)

      ((Public service contracts - Tender procedure - Crimean tourism diversification and support project - Rejection of the applicants’ tender - Action for annulment - Measure not amenable to review - Confirmatory measure - Partial inadmissibility - Obligation to state reasons - Award criteria - Manifest error of assessment - Misuse of powers - Equal treatment))
      (2014/C 395/45)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: Euro-Link Consultants Srl (Bucharest, Romania); and European Profiles AE Meleton kai Symvoulon Epicheiriseon (Athens, Greece) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: S. Bartelt and A. Bordes, and subsequently by S. Bartelt and M. Konstantinidis, Agents)

         Re:

      Application for the annulment of the decision of 28 February 2012 of the European Union Delegation to Ukraine, in the restricted tender procedure EuropeAid/131567/C/SER/UA ‘Crimean tourism diversification and support project’, not to award the contract to the applicants’ consortium, and the subsequent decisions rejecting the applicants’ complaints made on 14 March 2012 by that authority and on 2 May 2012 by the Director of the Neighbourhood Directorate of the Commission’s Directorate General for Development and Co-operation — EuropeAid

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Euro-Link Consultants Srl and European Profiles AE Meleton kai Symvoulon Epicheiriseon to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 209, 14.7.2012.


title: Case T-761/14: Judgment of the General Court of 23 February 2016 — Consolidated Artists v OHIM — Body Cosmetics International (MANGO) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community figurative mark MANGO — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 52(2) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               4.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/30

         Judgment of the General Court of 23 February 2016 — Consolidated Artists v OHIM — Body Cosmetics International (MANGO)

   (Case T-761/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community figurative mark MANGO - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 52(2) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 118/33)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Consolidated Artists BV (Amstelveen, Netherlands) (represented by: B. Corne, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Body Cosmetics International GmbH (Willich, Germany) (represented by: M. Müller-Mergenthaler, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 September 2014 (Case R 2337/2013-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Body Cosmetics International GmbH and Consolidated Artists BV.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Consolidated Artists BV to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 7, 12.1.2015.


title: Case C-466/02: Action brought on 30 December 2002 by the Kingdom of Denmark against the Commission of the European Communities (received by fax on 23 December 2002)

text:
8.3.2003               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 55/11
Action brought on 30 December 2002 (faxed on                                    legislative provisions themselves and by the fact that the
27 December 2002) by the Federal Republic of Germany                            Community makes provision for the grant of aid for the
  against the Commission of the European Communities                            manufacture of Feta on the Aegean islands.
                                                                          —     Infringement of Council Regulation No 2081/92 and of
                         (Case C-465/02)                                        Article 253 EC.
                          (2003/C 55/19)                                  (1 ) OJ 2002 L 277, p. 10.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities by the Federal Republic of Germany on
30 December 2002 (faxed on 27.12.2002), represented by                    Action brought on 30 December 2002 by the Kingdom
Wolf-Dieter Plessing, Ministerialrat in the Bundesministerium             of Denmark against the Commission of the European
der Finanzen (Federal Finance Ministry), Alfred Dittrich, Minis-              Communities (received by fax on 23 December 2002)
terialrat in the Bundesministerium der Justiz (Federal Ministry
of Justice) and by Dr Michael Loschelder, c/o Loschelder                                           (Case C-466/02)
Rechtsanwälte, Hohenstaufenring 30-32 D-50674 Cologne.
                                                                                (2003/C 55/20)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
1.    Annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 1829/2002 (1) of                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      14 October 2002 amending the annex to Commission                    ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
      Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 in relation to the ‘Feta’                Communities on 30 December 2002 (received by fax on
      designation;                                                        23 December 2002) by the Kingdom of Denmark, represented
                                                                          by J. Molde and J.B. Liisberg, acting as Agents, with an address
2.    Order the Commission to pay the costs.                              for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           —     Annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 1829/2002 (1) of
                                                                                14 October 2002 amending the Annex to Regulation
—     Infringement of the rules of procedure of the Regulatory                  (EC) No 1107/96 (2) with regard to the name ‘Feta’.
      Committee and infringement of Regulation (EEC) No 1:
      the documents for the meeting on 20 November 2001 of
      the Regulatory Committee established under Article 15               Pleas in law and main arguments
      of Council Regulation No 2081/92 on the protection of
      geographical indications and designations of origin for
      agricultural products and foodstuffs did not reach the
      Federal German Government 14 calendar days before-                  (Main)
      hand nor were they in German.
                                                                          The Commission adopted Regulation No 1829/2002 in con-
—     Infringement of Article 2(3) of Council Regulation                  travention of Article 17(2), in conjunction with Article 3(1), of
      No 2081/92: The Commission erroneously examines in                  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 ( 3) (the basic regulation):
      the recitals in the preamble to the contested regulation
      whether ‘Feta’ has become a generic designation. Since              Denmark bases its arguments in this connection on the
      ‘Feta’ is first of all a non-geographical concept, the              following principles of interpretation:
      Commission ought first to have proved that it has
      acquired a geographical meaning and indeed one that                 —     The prohibition of registration of generic designations
      does not refer to the whole of a Member State. The area                   specifically reflects a number of fundamental principles
      indicated by the Greek Government in its application is                   of Community law.
      quite plainly an artificial construct; unsupported by either
      tradition or commercial conceptions. Nor does Feta owe              —     This prohibition cannot be construed restrictively and
      its quality or characteristics predominantly or exclusively               compliance with the prohibition must be subject to full
      to geographical conditions; the Commission’s statements                   review by the Court.
      in Recital 36 are supported neither by the Greek Govern-
      ment’s application nor by the findings of the Scientific            —     If a designation has become on one occasion/been from
      Committee. Finally, the areas of production and manufac-                  the outset a generic designation, then it is for all time —
      ture do not coincide, as is borne out both by the Greek                   and irreversibly — a generic designation.
 ---pagebreak--- C 55/12               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                              8.3.2003
—    If the applicant country has itself for a long time accepted         —      Lawful production and marketing of feta outside the area
     and benefited from the generic use of the designation, it                   of origin take place in a number of Member States and
     will have forfeited any right to argue that the designation                 non-member countries.
     is non-generic.
                                                                          —      Danish production and marketing of feta are in no wise
                                                                                contrary to fair custom and practice, nor do they give rise
—    Registration as a designation of origin at Community                        to any genuine risk of confusion, precisely because
     level is excluded if a designation is a generic designation                 Danish legislation has, since as far back as 1963, required
     in even only one Member State.                                              that such feta be designated as ‘dansk feta’.
                                                                          —      The Community legislature, including the Commission,
                                                                                has, in a number of legal provisions and measures,
—    Lawful production and marketing over a long period of
                                                                                proceeded on the basis that ‘feta’ is a generic designation.
     time in other Member States are central factors in the
     evaluation of a generic designation. Lawful marketing of
     this kind may be suppressed only if it is contrary to fair
     custom and practice or gives rise to a genuine risk of               (Alternative)
     confusion.
                                                                          The Commission adopted Regulation No 1829/2002 in con-
                                                                          travention of the basic regulation inasmuch as feta does not
—    Lawful production in non-member countries and their                  satisfy the conditions governing registration as a traditional
     trade with the EU also argue in favour of treating a                 non-geographical name laid down in Article 2(3) of the basic
     designation as being covered by the prohibition of                   regulation.
     registration of generic designations, inter alia in the light
     of the Community’s obligations under the WTO.
                                                                          (1 ) OJ L 277 of 15.10.2002, p. 10.
                                                                          (2 ) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 of 12 June 1996 on
                                                                               the registration of geographical indications and designations of
—    There is a presumption that non-geographical indications                  origin under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of Council
     are generic designations, in particular where an indication               Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 (OJ L 148 of 21.6.1996, p. 1).
     is derived from a language other than that of the applicant          (3 ) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the
     country.                                                                  protection of geographical indications and designations of origin
                                                                               for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 208 of 24.7.1992,
                                                                               p. 1).
—    The applicant country and, secondly, the Commission
     have the onus of establishing that a non-geographical
     indication is not a generic designation and that lawful
     marketing over a long period in other countries is
     contrary to fair custom and practice and gives rise to a
     genuine risk of confusion.
                                                                          Action brought on 31 December 2002 by Kingdom of
                                                                          Spain against Commission of the European Communities
Denmark attaches particular importance to the following
specific factors:                                                                                (Case C-468/02)
                                                                                (2003/C 55/21)
—    Whether as a designation or a product, feta does not
     have its origin specifically in Greece. The traditional
     consumption and production area covers a number of
     Balkan lands, including several non-member countries                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
     due shortly to join the EU.                                          ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                          Communities on 31 December 2002 by the Kingdom of
                                                                          Spain, represented by Lourdes Fraguas Gadea, Abogado del
                                                                          Estado, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
—    Up until 15 years ago, Greece itself imported, produced,             Luxembourg.
     consumed and exported feta, including feta made from
     cow’s milk. Consumers in Greece must, for a number of
     years, have regarded the designation as being generic.               The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          1.     annul Decision 2002/881/EC (1) so far as concern the
—    In other countries, both within and outwith the EU, in                      financial corrections imposed on the Kingdom of Spain
     which it is consumed and produced in large quantities,
     consumers also regard feta as being a generic designation.           2.     order the defendant institution to pay the costs.