title: Case C-233/05: Order of the Court of 1 June 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling of Gerechtshof te 's-Hertogenbosch (Netherlands)) — V.O.F. Dressuurstal Jespers v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Zuidwest/kantoor Breda van de rijksbelastingdienst (Sixth VAT Directive — Supplies under a contract to make up work — Concept of 'good produced' — Training of a horse — Whether or not tax is chargeable)

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/16

         Order of the Court of 1 June 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling of Gerechtshof te 's-Hertogenbosch (Netherlands)) — V.O.F. Dressuurstal Jespers v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Zuidwest/kantoor Breda van de rijksbelastingdienst
   (Case C-233/05) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Supplies under a contract to make up work - Concept of 'good produced' - Training of a horse - Whether or not tax is chargeable)
   (2006/C 224/28)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   National court
   Gerechtshof te 's-Hertogenbosch
   Parties

      Applicant: V.O.F. Dressuurstal Jespers

      Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Zuidwest/kantoor Breda van de rijksbelastingdienst
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Gerechtshof te 's-Hertogenbosch — Interpretation of Article 5(7)(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member State relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Horse that has not been broken trained to make it suitable for a specific use — Horse trained for use as a riding horse capable, following training, of participating in competitions at a higher level — In both cases: new good produced? — Importance of a change which can be measured objectively in the horse and the attainment or non-attainment of the objective — Tax paid according to periodic declarations
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               Article 5(5)(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member State relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 94/76/EC of 22 December 1994 by the introduction of transitional measures applicable, in the context of the enlargement of the European Union on 1 January 1995, as regards value added tax, is to be interpreted as meaning that there is no supply under a contract to make up work when a horse is trained to make it suitable for use as a riding horse or trained so as to make it capable of participating in (dressage) competitions and that a horse, in such circumstances, cannot be regarded as being a good produced.

               2.

               Whether or not value added tax is to be charged on amounts collected periodically as payment for the provision of services comprising the training of horses is to be determined according to the conditions laid down in Article 10(2) of the Sixth Directive.

      (1)  OJ C 205 of 20.8.2005.


title: Case F-101/15: Action brought on 9 July 2015 — ZZ v EEAS

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/70

         Action brought on 9 July 2015 — ZZ v EEAS
   (Case F-101/15)
   (2015/C 302/86)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

      Defendant: European External Action Service (EEAS)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the decision of the EEAS not to promote the applicant to grade AD 13 under the 2014 promotion procedure.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decision of 29 October 2014 drawing up the list of officials promoted under the 2014 promotion procedure in so far as it does not include his name;

               —

               order the EEAS to pay the costs.


title: Case C-361/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Diikitiko Efetio, Piraeus by judgment of that Court of 28 June 2002 in the case of Ellenikon Dimosion against Nikolaos Tsapalos

text:
C 305/14               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        7.12.2002
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Diikitiko Efetio,            The question in this case is identical to the question in Case
Piraeus by judgment of that Court of 28 June 2002 in the               C-361/02.
    case of Ellenikon Dimosion against Nikolaos Tsapalos
                         (Case C-361/02)
                         (2002/C 305/23)
                                                                       Action brought on 9 October 2002 by the Commission
                                                                       of the European Communities against the Portuguese
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                                Republic
European Communities by order of the Diikitiko Efetio
(Administrative Court of Appeal), Piraeus of 28 June 2002,
received at the Court Registry on 8 October 2002, for a                                          (Case C-363/02)
preliminary ruling in the case of Ellenikon Dimosion (Greek
State) against Nikolaos Tsapalos on the following question:
                                                                                (2002/C 305/25)
Is Article 1 of  Council Directive 76/308/EEC (1) to be interpret-
ed as meaning that the provisions of the directive also cover
claims which arose in a Member State before entry into force
of the directive under a document whose issuance by the                An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
competent authorities of that State also predated entry into           before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
force of the directive, such as the document issued by the             on 9 October 2002 by the Commission of the European
Italian authorities in the present case and that, accordingly,         Communities, represented by António Caeiros, acting as
following the entry into force of the directive, the end of the        Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
relevant transitional period and compliance by the other
Member States with the duty to enact the provisions required
for application of the directive, recovery may henceforth lie,
on request to the competent authority by the applicant                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
authority as mentioned in Article 3 of the directive, in respect
of pending claims for which recovery had not hitherto been             —     Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
available in the other Member State?                                         within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
                                                                             administrative provisions necessary to comply with Com-
                                                                             mission Directive 2001/8/EC of 8 February 2001 replac-
( 1) OJ L 73 of 19.3.1976.                                                   ing Annex I to Council Directive 92/109/EEC on the
                                                                             manufacture and placing on the market of certain sub-
                                                                             stances used in the illicit manufacture of narcotic drugs
                                                                             and psychotropic substances ( 1), the Portuguese Republic
                                                                             has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) of the
                                                                             directive;
                                                                       —     In the alternative, declare that, by failing to inform the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Diikitiko Efetio,                  Commission of such provisions, the Portuguese Republic
Piraeus by judgment of that Court of 28 June 2002 in                         failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) of the
the case of Ellenikon Dimosion against Konstantinos                          directive;
                           Diamantakis
                                                                       —     Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
                         (Case C-362/02)
                         (2002/C 305/24)                               Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                       The period prescribed for transposition expired on 1 March
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 2001.
European Communities by order of the Diikitiko Efetio
(Administrative Court of Appeal), Piraeus of 28 June 2002,
received at the Court Registry on 8 October 2002, for a                (1 ) OJ 2001 L 39, p. 31.
preliminary ruling in the case of Ellenikon Dimosion (Greek
State) against Konstantinos Diamantakis on the following
question:


title: Case T-32/08: Action brought on 18 January 2008 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/32

         Action brought on 18 January 2008 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission
   (Case T-32/08)
   (2008/C 92/66)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Commission to evaluate the applicant's bid as not successful and award the contract to the successful contractor;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant's damages suffered on account of the tendering procedure in question for an amount of EUR 65 565;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant's legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application, even if the current application is rejected.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of its claims the applicant argues that, in the framework of the tendering procedure ENV.A.1/SER/2007/0032 for the ‘Market analysis in view of developing a new approach for the “Environment for Young Europeans” website’ (OJ 2007/S 83-100898) the European Commission failed to comply with its obligations foreseen in the Financial Regulation (1), its Implementing Rules and Directive 2004/18/EC (2).
   The applicant moreover submits that the contracting authority committed several manifest errors of assessment which resulted in the rejection of its bid. Furthermore, the contracting authority allegedly infringed its obligation to state reasons for its decision and, in particular, to inform the applicant on the relative merits of the successful tenderer.
   The applicant requests, hence, that the decision of the European Commission to reject its bid and to award the contract to the successful tenderer be annulled and that the defendant is ordered to pay all legal expenses related to the proceedings even in case the application is rejected. In the alternative, since the contract will most probably have been fully executed by the time the Court reaches its decision or if it is no longer possible to annul the decision, the applicant requests monetary compensation (damages) in accordance with Articles 235 and 288 EC.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ L 248, p. 1).

      (2)  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ L 134, p. 114).


title: Case T-381/06: Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2011 — FRA.BO v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Copper and copper alloy fittings sector — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Fines — Leniency Notice — Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Attenuating circumstances — Immunity from fines — Legitimate expectations — Equal treatment)

text:
               14.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/21

         Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2011 — FRA.BO v Commission
   (Case T-381/06) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Copper and copper alloy fittings sector - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Fines - Leniency Notice - Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Attenuating circumstances - Immunity from fines - Legitimate expectations - Equal treatment)
   2011/C 145/31
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: FRA.BO SpA (Bordolano, Italy) (represented initially by R. Celli, Solicitor, and F. Distefano, lawyer, and subsequently by F. Distefano)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Nijenhuis and V. Bottka, acting as Agents, and by S. Kinsella, Solicitor, and K. Nordlander, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2006) 4180 of 20 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F-1/38.121 — Fittings), and also, in the alternative, for a reduction in the fine imposed on the applicant in that decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders FRA.BO SpA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.


title: Case C-236/04: Action brought on 7 June 2004 against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg by the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               24.7.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/11

         Action brought on 7 June 2004 against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg by the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-236/04)
   (2004/C 190/19)
   An action was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 7 June 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by M. Shotter, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               Declare that, by not taking the legislative, regulatory and administrative measures necessary to comply with:

                           —

                           Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (‘Access Directive’); (1)

                           —

                           Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (‘Authorisation Directive’); (2)

                           —

                           Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (‘Framework Directive’); (3)

                           —

                           Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (‘Universal Service Directive’); (4)

                     or, in any event, by not communicating those provisions to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 18 of the Access Directive, Article 18 of the Authorisation Directive, Article 28 of the Framework Directive and Article 38 of the Universal Service Directive.

               2.

               Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and principal arguments:
   The time-limit given for transposition of the directives was 24 July 2003.

      (1)  OJ L 108 of 24.4.2002, p. 7.

      (2)  OJ L 108 of 24.4.2002, p. 21.

      (3)  OJ L 108 of 24.4.2002, p. 33.

      (4)  OJ L 108 of 24.4.2002, p. 51.


title: Case T-382/14: Action brought on 19 May 2014 — Rintisch v OHIM — Compagnie laitière européenne (PROTICURD)

text:
               25.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/39

         Action brought on 19 May 2014 — Rintisch v OHIM — Compagnie laitière européenne (PROTICURD)
   (Case T-382/14)
   2014/C 282/51
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Bernhard Rintisch (Bottrop, Germany) (represented by: A. Dreyer, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Compagnie laitière européenne SA (Conde Sur Vire, France)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 March 2014 given in Case R 609/2011-4;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

      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 word mark ‘PROTICURD’ for goods in Classes 5 and 29 — International Registration No 9 81  041 designating the European Union

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: German trademarks Nos 3 9 7 02  429, 3 9 5 49  559 and 3 9 6 08  644

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Granted the appeal in part

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8 (1)(b) CTMR.


title: Case T-31/09: Judgment of the General Court of 10 March 2010 — Baid v OHIM (LE GOMMAGE DES FACADES) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark LE GOMMAGE DES FACADES — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009) — Duty to state reasons — First sentence of Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 (now the first sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/44

         Judgment of the General Court of 10 March 2010 — Baid v OHIM (LE GOMMAGE DES FACADES)
   (Case T-31/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark LE GOMMAGE DES FACADES - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009) - Duty to state reasons - First sentence of Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 (now the first sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))
   2010/C 113/70
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Baid SARL (Paris, France) (represented by: M. Grasset, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 October 2008 (Case R 963/2008-1), concerning an application to register the word sign LE GOMMAGE DES FACADES as a Community trade mark

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Baid SARL to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 69, 21.3.2009.


title: Case T-285/08: Order of the Court of First Instance of 30 June 2009 — Securvita v OHIM (Natur-Aktien-Index) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark Natur-Aktien-Index — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Request for an amendment — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/38

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 30 June 2009 — Securvita v OHIM (Natur-Aktien-Index)
   (Case T-285/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark Natur-Aktien-Index - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Request for an amendment - Manifest inadmissibility)
   2009/C 205/71
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Securvita — Gesellschaft zur Entwicklung alternativer Versicherungskonzepte mbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: M. van Eendenburg, C. Uhlig and J. Nabert, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 May 2008 (Case R 525/2007-4), concerning an application for the registration of the word sign Natur-Aktien-Index as a Community trade mark

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the action as manifestly inadmissible;

               2.

               orders Securvita Gesellschaft zur Entwicklung alternativer Versicherungskonzepte mbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 247, 27.9.2008.


title: Case C-92/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 25 February 2015 — Sven Mathys v De Grave Antverpia NV

text:
               11.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/15

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 25 February 2015 — Sven Mathys v De Grave Antverpia NV
   (Case C-92/15)
   (2015/C 155/16)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hof van beroep te Antwerpen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sven Mathys

      Defendant: De Grave Antverpia NV

      Question referred

   Is Article 3 of the Belgian Law of 5 May 1936 on inland waterway chartering compatible with Articles 1 and 2 of Directive 96/75/EC (1), in so far as a person who is not the owner or operator of an inland waterway vessel concludes a contract for the carriage of goods on inland waterways as carrier and is not acting as an agent (‘charterer’) within the meaning of Article 3 WBB?

      (1)  Council Directive 96/75/EC of 19 November 1996 on the systems of chartering and pricing in national and international inland waterway transport in the Community (OJ 1996, L 304, p. 12).


               14.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 115/40

         Removal from the Register of Case T-412/03 (1)

   (2005/C 115/73)

      (Language of the case: German)

   By order of 25 February 2005, the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-412/03, Angelo Wille v European Parliament.

      (1)  OJ C 94 of 17.4.2004.


title: Case T-562/10: Judgment of the General Court of 7 December 2011 — HTTS v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Actions for annulment — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based — Procedure by default — Application to intervene — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/50

      Judgment of the General Court of 7 December 2011 — HTTS v Council
      (Case T-562/10) (1)

      (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Actions for annulment - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Procedure by default - Application to intervene - No need to adjudicate)
      (2012/C 25/96)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: HTTS (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: J. Kienzle and M. Schlingmann, lawyers)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and Z. Kupčová, Agents)

         Re:

      Partial annulment of Council Regulation (EU) 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), in so far as the applicant’s name was included on the list of persons, entities and bodies whose funds and economic resources are to be frozen.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Decides that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene submitted by the European Commission and the Federal Republic of Germany;

                  2.

                  Annuls Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 in so far as it concerns HTTS Hanseatic Trade Trust & Shipping GmbH;

                  3.

                  Maintains the effects of Regulation No 961/2010 in so far as it concerns the applicant for a period of no more than two months from the date of delivery of this judgment;

                  4.

                  Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by HTTS Hanseatic Trade Trust & Shipping.

         (1)  OJ C 46, 12.2.2011.


title: Case C-355/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 13 July 2015 — Bietergemeinschaft: Technische Gebäudebetreuung GesmbH and Caverion Österreich GmbH

text:
               28.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 320/17

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 13 July 2015 — Bietergemeinschaft: Technische Gebäudebetreuung GesmbH and Caverion Österreich GmbH
   (Case C-355/15)
   (2015/C 320/24)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Bietergemeinschaft: Technische Gebäudebetreuung GesmbH and Caverion Österreich GmbH

      Other parties: Universität für Bodenkultur Wien, VAMED Management und Service GmbH & Co KG in Vienna

      Questions referred

               1.

               In the light of the principles established in the judgment of the Court of Justice of 4 July 2013 in Case C-100/12 (1)
                  Fastweb SpA, is Article 1(3) of Directive 89/665/EEC on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts (2), in the version amended by Directive 2007/66/EC amending Council Directives 89/665/EEC and 92/13/EEC with regard to improving the effectiveness of review procedures concerning the award of public contracts (3) (‘Directive 89/665’), to be interpreted as meaning that a tenderer whose bid was definitively excluded by the contracting authority and who is therefore not a tenderer concerned within the meaning of Article 2a of Directive 89/665 may be refused access to a review of the award decision (decision on the conclusion of a framework agreement) and of the conclusion of the contract (including the award of damages required under Article 2(7) of the Directive), even where only two tenderers submitted bids and the bid submitted by the successful tenderer, to whom the contract was awarded, should, in the submission of the tenderer not concerned, also have been excluded?
               If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative:

               2.

               In the light of the principles established in the judgment of the Court of Justice of 4 July 2013 in Case C-100/12 Fastweb SpA, is Article 1(3) of Directive 89/665 to be interpreted as meaning that the tenderer not concerned (within the meaning of Article 2a of the Directive) must be granted access to a review only:

                           (a)

                           where it is apparent from the documents forming part of the review procedure that the successful tenderer’s bid is not valid; or

                           (b)

                           where the successful tenderer’s bid is not valid on identical grounds?

      (1)  ECLI:EU:C:2013:448.

      (2)  OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33.

      (3)  OJ 2007 L 335, p. 31.


title: Case C-412/05 P: Appeal brought on  23 November 2005  by Alcon, INC against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of  22 September 2005  in Case T-130/03: Alcon, INC v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/15

         Appeal brought on 23 November 2005 by Alcon, INC against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 22 September 2005 in Case T-130/03: Alcon, INC v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-412/05 P)
   (2006/C 60/32)
   Language of the case: English
   An appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 22 September 2005 in Case T-130/03: Alcon, INC v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 November 2005 by Alcon, INC, Hünenberg (Switzerland) represented by Garrett Breen, Solicitor, Landwell Solicitors.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               annul the contested decision;

               2.

               if necessary, remit the case back to the Court of First Instance, and

               3.

               order Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and /or the intervener to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant submits that there has been an error of law by the Court of First Instance and an infringement of Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation No 40/94 (1) on the following grounds:

               1.

               The Court of First Instance erred in concluding that the submission of the Applicant alleging an infringement of Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation No 40/94 relating to compliance with the conditions concerning genuine use of the earlier mark on the part of the Intervener was inadmissible as being a new plea within the meaning of Article 48(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance. The Applicant had always contested the prior use made by the Intervener of its mark and the distinction between the context of the use and the genuineness of the use is a distinction without a difference. It was not therefore a new plea.

               2.

               If, contrary to the foregoing, it was a new plea, it was justified as being based on matters of law which came to light in the course of the procedure, in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 48(2) of the Rules of Procedure.

               3.

               The Court of First Instance further erred in law in concluding that even if the plea were admissible, the Court of First Instance was confined to reviewing the legality of the decision of the Board of Appeal of OHIM on the basis of the factual and legal decision as it was before the Board of Appeal. The Applicant contends that this is a misapplication of the legal position and that the Court of First Instance has in effect refused to apply its own jurisprudence concerning genuineness of use.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark OJ L 11, 14.01.1994, p. 1-36.


title: Case C-647/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Lille (France) lodged on 15 December 2016 — Adil Hassan v Préfet du Pas-de-Calais

text:
               6.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 70/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Lille (France) lodged on 15 December 2016 — Adil Hassan v Préfet du Pas-de-Calais
   (Case C-647/16)
   (2017/C 070/17)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal administratif de Lille

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Adil Hassan

      Defendant: Préfet du Pas-de-Calais

      Question referred

   Do the provisions of Article 26 of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 (1) preclude the competent authorities of the Member State which has submitted, to a Member State which it, by application of the criteria set out in the Regulation, considers to be the State responsible, a request to take charge or take back a third-country national or a stateless person who has submitted an application for international protection in respect of which a final decision has not yet been taken, or another person referred to in Article 18(1)(c) or (d) of the Regulation, from taking a transfer decision and notifying it to the person concerned before the requested State has accepted that request to take charge or to take the person back?

      (1)  Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 31).


title: Case T-364/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 22 March 2007 — Saint-Gobain Pam v OHIM — Propamsa (PAM PLUVIAL) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark PAM PLUVIAL — Earlier national figurative marks PAM — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Proof of use — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 43 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/40

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 22 March 2007 — Saint-Gobain Pam v OHIM — Propamsa (PAM PLUVIAL)
   (Case T-364/05) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark PAM PLUVIAL - Earlier national figurative marks PAM - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Proof of use - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 43 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2007/C 95/80)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Saint-Gobain Pam SA (Nancy, France) (represented by: J. Blanchard and G. Marchais, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Propamsa, SA (Barcelona, Spain)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 April 2005 (Case R 414/2004-4) concerning registration of the word mark PAM PLUVIAL and relating to opposition proceedings between Propamsa, SA and Saint-Gobain Pam SA.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant, Saint-Gobain Pam SA, to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 315, 10.12.2005.


title: Case C-335/08 P: Appeal brought on 21 July 2008 by Transports Schiocchet — Excursions SARL against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 19 May 2008 in Case T-220/07 Transports Schiocchet — Excursions v Commission

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/17

         Appeal brought on 21 July 2008 by Transports Schiocchet — Excursions SARL against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 19 May 2008 in Case T-220/07 Transports Schiocchet — Excursions v Commission
   (Case C-335/08 P)
   (2008/C 285/28)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Transports Schiocchet — Excursions SARL (represented by: D. Schönberger, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the order of the Court of First Instance of 19 May 2008;

               —

               Decide the case definitively by granting the applications sought at first instance;

               —

               In the alternative, remit the case to the Court of First Instance;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appellant puts forward three pleas in law in support of its appeal.
   In its first plea, the appellant claims that the Court of First Instance infringed the principle of legal certainty which applies to decisions of the Community judicature, Article 235 EC, the second paragraph of Article 288 EC and Article 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms inasmuch as, in paragraph 39 of the contested order, the Court of First Instance that the commencement of the appellants actions before the national courts neither suspended nor interrupted the limitation period, whereas in its earlier decisions, which are now res judicata, the Court encouraged it to continue its action before the national courts.
   In its second plea, the appellant complains of several errors committed by the Court of First Instance in assessing the conditions for non-contractual liability concerning distortion of the facts and the forms of order sought in the appellant's application, the second paragraph of Article 288 EC and Article 230 EC with regard, in particular to the alleged confirmation of the Commission's position by the national courts and the assessment made of the period in which the damage was suffered.
   In its third and final plea, the appellant invokes an infringement of Article 4(2) and Article 2(1)(3) of Regulation No 684/92 (1) inasmuch as the Court of First Instance erroneously accepted the Commission's interpretation and wrongly characterised the activities of the appellant's competitors as ‘special regular services’ (Article 4(2)) and therefore exempt from authorisation, whereas they are in fact parallel or temporary services (Article 2(1)(3)), subject to the same rules as the regular services operated by the appellant.

      (1)  OJ 1992 L 74, p. 1.


title: Case T-429/16: Action brought on 29 July 2016 — Martín Osete v EUIPO — Rey (AN IDEAL HUSBAND)

text:
               19.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/48

         Action brought on 29 July 2016 — Martín Osete v EUIPO — Rey (AN IDEAL HUSBAND)
   (Case T-429/16)
   (2016/C 343/65)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Isabel Martín Osete (Paris, France) (represented by: V. Wellens, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Daniella Rey (Toulouse, France)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘AN IDEAL HUSBAND’ — EU trade mark No 5 231 808

      Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 April 2016 in Case R 1526/2015-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 55(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009.


C 372/18              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                 23.12.2000
      Removal from the Register of Case T-121/98 (1)                          Removal from the Register of Case T-232/99 (1)
                       (2000/C 372/35)                                                         (2000/C 372/37)
                  (Language of the case: German)                                          (Language of the case: English)
By order of 29 September 2000, the President of the Second              By order of 6 September 2000, the President of the Third
                                                                        Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities ordered the removal from the Register of Case               Communities ordered the removal from the Register of Case
                                                                        T-232/99, Margaret McKenzie-Campbell v Commission of the
T-121/98, Taurus Beteiligungs-GmbH & Co. KG v Commission
                                                                        European Communities.
of the European Communities.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.
(1) OJ C 312 of 10.10.1998.
     Removal from the Register of Case T-204/98 R (1)
                                                                               Removal from the Register of Case T-39/00 (1)
                       (2000/C 372/36)
                                                                                (2000/C 372/38)
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
By order of 11 October 2000, the President of the Chamber of
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                 By order of 27 September 2000, the President of the Fifth
ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-204/98 R,               Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
British Sugar plc v Commission of the European Communities.             Communities ordered the removal from the Register of
                                                                        Case T-39/00, PlantaVet Vertrieb biologischer Tierarzneimittel
                                                                        GmbH v the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal
(1) OJ C 48 of 20.2.1999.                                               Products.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.


title: Case T-48/13: Action brought on 30 January 2013 — Out of the Blue KG v OHIM — Mombauer (REFLEXX)

text:
               23.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/25

         Action brought on 30 January 2013 — Out of the Blue KG v OHIM — Mombauer (REFLEXX)
   (Case T-48/13)
   2013/C 86/42
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Out of the blue KG (Lilienthal, Germany) (represented by: G. Hasselblatt and I. George, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Meinhard Mombauer (Cologne, Germany)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 November 2012 in Case R 1656/2011-4;

               —

               Order OHIM to bear its own costs and those of the applicant;

               —

               Were Meinhard Mombauer to participate as intervener in the proceedings, order him to bear his own costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Out of the blue KG

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘REFLEXX’ for goods in Class 9 — Application for Community trade mark No 7 239 511

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Meinhard Mombauer

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative mark, containing the word element ‘RELFECTS’, for goods in Class 9

      Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in Law: Infringement of Article 42(5) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case T-233/17: Action brought on 20 April 2017 — Portugal v Commission

text:
               3.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/32

         Action brought on 20 April 2017 — Portugal v Commission
   (Case T-233/17)
   (2017/C 213/44)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, M. Figueiredo, P. Estêvão and J. Saraiva de Almeida, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul Commission implementing decision C(2017) 766 of 14 January 2017, excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far it excludes from financing the expenditure declared by Portugal under the ‘POSEI — specific supply arrangements’ (EUR 1 288 044,79), and ‘direct payments pertaining to the 2010 marketing year’ (EUR 830 326,12);

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the provision in Article 11 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 of 21 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 as regards the accreditation of paying agencies and other bodies and the clearance of the accounts of the EAGF and of the EAFRD (OJ 2006 L 171, p. 90), relating to the substantive requirements for formal communication laid down in that article.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 8 of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ 2009, L 30, p. 16).

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 23 of Council Regulation (EC) No 247/2006 of 30 January 2006 laying down specific measures for agriculture in the outermost regions of the Union (OJ 2006, L 42, p. 1).


title: Case C-281/06: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 December 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)) — Hans-Dieter Jundt, Hedwig Jundt v Finanzamt Offenburg (Freedom to provide services — Secondary teaching activity — Concept of remuneration — Allowances for professional expenses — Legislation concerning tax exemption — Conditions — Remuneration paid by a national university)

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/17

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 December 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)) — Hans-Dieter Jundt, Hedwig Jundt v Finanzamt Offenburg
   (Case C-281/06) (1)

   (Freedom to provide services - Secondary teaching activity - Concept of ‘remuneration’ - Allowances for professional expenses - Legislation concerning tax exemption - Conditions - Remuneration paid by a national university)
   (2008/C 51/28)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesfinanzhof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Hans-Dieter Jundt, Hedwig Jundt

      Defendant: Finanzamt Offenburg
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Articles 49 EC and 149 EC — Teaching activity carried on as a secondary professional activity for a public-law legal person (a university) for remuneration which may be regarded as an expense allowance — National legislation restricting the tax exemption laid down for such remuneration to that paid by public-law legal persons established in the Member State
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               A teaching activity carried out by a taxpayer of one Member State for a legal person established under public law, in the present case a university, situated in another Member State comes within the scope of Article 49 EC, even if it is carried out on a secondary basis and in a quasi-honorary capacity.

               2.

               The restriction on the freedom to provide services constituted by the fact that national legislation confines the application of an exemption from income tax to remuneration paid by universities, that is to say, public-law legal persons, established on national territory, in return for teaching activities carried out on a secondary basis, and refuses to apply that exemption where that remuneration is paid by a university established in another Member State, is not justified by overriding reasons relating to the public interest.

               3.

               The fact that the Member States are themselves competent to organise their respective education systems is not such as to render compatible with Community law national legislation which confines the benefit of a tax exemption to taxpayers carrying out activities for or on behalf of national public universities.

      (1)  OJ C 224, 16.9.2006.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber) of 11 June 1998 in Case T-173/97, Augusto Fichtner v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Late staff report - Promotion - Comparative examination of the merits - Compensation for damage - Application manifestly inadmissible or entirely unfounded)

text:
5.9.98               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 278/37
García-Valdecasas and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung,                  Instance of the European Communities on 26 May 1998
Registrar, made an order on 25 June 1998, the operative            by EugeÂnio Branco L.da, whose registered office is at
part of which is as follows:                                       Lisbon, represented by Bolota Belchior, of the Vila Nova
                                                                   de Gaia Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
1. The applications are dismissed as inadmissible.                 the Chambers of Faltz & AssocieÂs, 6 rue Heine,
                                                                   Luxembourg.
2. The applicants shall bear their own costs and shall be
    jointly and severally liable to pay the costs of the
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
    Council. The Commission shall bear its own costs.
(1) OJ C 94, 22.3.1997.                                            Ð annul the decision of the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities, dated 17 February 1998, communicated
                                                                       and notified to the applicant on 17 March 1998 by
                                                                       the Departamento para os Assuntos do Fundo Social
                                                                       Europeu (Department of European Social Fund
                                                                       Affairs, the DAFSE') by letter sent on 16 March
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              1998, to suspend payment of the ESF contribution in
                      (Fourth Chamber)                                 respect of files No 87301 P1 (PTE 43 550 366) and
                                                                       No 870302 P3 (PTE 5 809 712) granted to the
                        of 11 June 1998                                applicant by Commission Decision C(87) 860 of
in Case T-173/97, Augusto Fichtner v. Commission of the                30 April 1987,
                  European Communities (1)
(Officials Ð Late staff report Ð Promotion Ð                       Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
Comparative examination of the merits Ð Compensation
for damage Ð Application manifestly inadmissible or
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                     entirely unfounded)
                         (98/C 278/82)
                                                                   Ð Breach of the principles of the protection of legitimate
               (Language of the case: Italian)                         expectations and of legal certainty:
In Case T-173/97: Augusto Fichtner, an official of the                 Although the Commission's Decision does not lay
Commission of the European Communities, residing at                    down a time limit, it should nevertheless be adopted
Besozzo (Varese, Italy), represented by Vincenzo Salvatore,            within a reasonable period.
of the Pavía Bar, against Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: Gianluigi Valsesia) Ð application
for (1) annulment of the Commission decision published                 It is clear that the period of 10 years which has
on 13 September 1996 in so far as it refused to place the              elapsed between the relevant date and the present is
applicant on the list of officials most deserving of                   excessive and far exceeds the limits dictated by
promotion under the 1996 promotions procedure and (2)                  common sense and normal expectations.
damages together with interest Ð the Court of First
Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of P. Lindh,                       The effluxion of that period engendered and
President, K. Lenaerts and J. D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung,               reinforced the applicant's legitimate expectation that it
Registrar, made an order on 11 June 1998, the operative                would adopt a decision approving the certificates
part of which is as follows:                                           issued by the DAFSE approving the claim for final
                                                                       payment submitted by the applicant.
1. The application is dismissed.
2. Each party is to bear its own costs.                                Since the Commission should have adopted its
                                                                       decision immediately after certification by the DAFSE
                                                                       had come to its knowledge, it is evident that the
(1) OJ C 271, 6.9.1997.
                                                                       period of 10 years (1988 to 1998) is excessive and
                                                                       exceeds the limits dictated by common sense and
                                                                       normal expectations.
                                                                       The Commission overstepped the rules of sound
Action brought on 26 May 1998 by EugeÂnio Branco L.da                  administration.
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                        (Case T-83/98)                                 If Member States are required to submit to the
                         (98/C 278/83)                                 Commission applications for payment within 10
                                                                       months from the end of programmes, failing which
             (Language of the case: Portuguese)                        they may not receive payment of the contribution
                                                                       concerned, then the Commission should issue its
An action against the Commission of the European                       decision approving that application for final payment
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      at least within as many months.


title: Case T-365/16: Action brought on 8 July 2016 — Portigon v SRB

text:
               19.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/38

         Action brought on 8 July 2016 — Portigon v SRB
   (Case T-365/16)
   (2016/C 343/52)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Portigon AG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: D. Bliesener and V. Jungkind, lawyers)

      Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the defendant’s decisions underpinning the notices by which, on 22 April 2016 (Ref: 2208101-2016-JB) and on 10 June 2016 (Ref: 2208102-2016-JB2), the German Federal Agency for Financial Market Stabilisation (Bundesanstalt für Finanzmarktstabilisierung) requested payment by the applicant of annual contributions to the Single Resolution Fund for the year 2016;

               —

               order the defendant to produce the decisions referred to in the first paragraph;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the first, second and third subparagraphs of Article 70(2) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(a) of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/81 (2) in conjunction with Article 103(7) of Directive 2014/59/EU (3)

                           —

                           The applicant claims that the defendant was wrong to make the applicant subject to an obligation to pay a contribution to the Fund, as the institution has no risk exposure, there is no prospect of the institution entering into resolution in accordance with the rules of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, and the institution is of no importance to the stability of the financial system.

                           —

                           The applicant is no longer operationally active on the market. Since the beginning of 2012 it no longer engages in any new business and it is under resolution as a result of an aid decision by the Commission. It holds the majority of its remaining liabilities on trust for another entity, which has taken over the opportunities and risks from that business.

                           —

                           Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63, (4) which makes no provision for exceptions for institutions such as the applicant, itself infringes Article 103(7) of Directive 2014/59/EU.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 16 and Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’)
               In view of the special situation of the applicant in comparison with other credit institutions liable to pay contributions, the decisions are contrary to the general principle of equality. Further, they interfere disproportionately with the applicant’s freedom to conduct a business.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, infringement of the first, second and third subparagraphs of Article 70(2) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 in conjunction with Article 8(1)(a) of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/81 in conjunction with Article 103(7) of Directive 2014/59/EU
               In calculating the amount of the contribution, the defendant wrongly failed to exclude the applicant’s risk-free on-balance sheet fiduciary business from the liabilities relevant to collection of the contribution.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, infringement of Article 70(6) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 in conjunction with Article 5(3) and (4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63
               In calculating the amount of the contribution, the defendant wrongly failed to adopt a risk-appropriate net approach in relation to the applicant’s derivative contracts, adopting instead a gross approach.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, infringement of Article 70(6) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 in conjunction with Article 6(8)(a) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63
               In calculating the amount of the contribution, the defendant wrongly regarded the applicant as an institution undergoing restructuring. The risk indicator under Article 6(5)(c) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 should have taken the minimum value.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41(1) and (2)(a) of the Charter, as the defendant should have given the applicant a hearing before adopting its decisions.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41(1) and (2)(c) of the Charter, as the defendant did not give adequate reasons for its decisions.

      (1)  Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 225, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/81 of 19 December 2014 specifying uniform conditions of application of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (OJ 2015 L 15, p. 1).

      (3)  Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms and amending Council Directive 82/891/EEC, and Directives 2001/24/EC, 2002/47/EC, 2004/25/EC, 2005/56/EC, 2007/36/EC, 2011/35/EU, 2012/30/EU and 2013/36/EU, and Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010 and (EU) No 648/2012, of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2014 L 173, p. 190).

      (4)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 of 21 October 2014 supplementing Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ex ante contributions to resolution financing arrangements (OJ 2015 L 11, p. 44).


title: Case T-276/08: Order of the General Court of 9 April 2014  — Al-Aqsa v Council

text:
               24.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/37

         Order of the General Court of 9 April 2014 — Al-Aqsa v Council
   (Case T-276/08) (1)

   2014/C 194/48
   Language of the case: Dutch
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 236, 13.9.2008.


title: Case T-128/02: Action brought on 17 April 2002 by Papeteries Mougeot against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
15.6.2002              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 144/61
The applicant contests the fine imposed on it, and in particular        The applicant claims that the Court should:
its amount. It submits that the Commission ascertained the
facts erroneously and assessed incorrectly the facts ascertained        —     annul Decision R 0466/2000-2 of the Second Board of
by it, especially with respect to the applicant’s merely passive              Appeal of the Office of 18 February 2002;
participation in the cartel. The Commission further assessed
incorrectly the non-implementation or delayed implemen-
                                                                        —     order the Office to pay the costs.
tation of the agreements. The same applies to the considerable
price falls and fluctuations during the period of the infringe-
ment and to the influence of manufacturing costs on prices.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
With respect to the gravity of the infringement, the applicant
submits inter alia that the Commission failed to take appropri-         Community trade mark            The figurative mark ‘ECA’ —
ately into account, besides the minor effects of the cartel, the        sought:                         application No 1106442
poor economic situation of the sector and the early termination
of the infringement. The Commission also failed to take into            Goods or services:              Goods and services in classes 9,
account the purely passive role played by the applicant in the                                          41 and 42
cartel and its crucial importance for bringing the infringement
to an early end. It thereby infringed the principle of pro-             Decision        contested       Examiner’s refusal to register
portionality and Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 of the               before the Board of
Council.                                                                Appeal:
                                                                        Decision of Board of            Dismissal of appeal
The fine imposed on the applicant further discriminates against         Appeal:
it compared with much more active members of the cartel.
                                                                        Pleas in law:                   —     Incorrect application of
                                                                                Article 7(1)(h) of Regulation
The applicant submits, moreover, that the Commission                                                          (EC) No 40/94 (1) and Article
infringed the principle of careful and impartial investigation of                                             6 of the Paris Convention (2)
the aspects of relevance for the assessment of the fine, since it                                             because the figurative mark
failed to follow up numerous indications made by the appli-                                                   is not identical to the Euro-
cant. Finally, the decision infringes the requirement to state                                                pean emblem.
reasons under Article 253 EC.
                                                                        (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 december 1993 on the
                                                                            Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
                                                                        (2) Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property.
Action brought on 18 April 2002 by Concept-Anlagen u.
Geräte nach ‘GMP’ für Produktion u. Labor GmbH against
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
                  (Trade Marks and Designs)                             Action brought on 17 April 2002 by Papeteries Mougeot
                                                                          against the Commission of the European Communities
                         (Case T-127/02)
                                                                                (Case T-128/02)
                        (2002/C 144/118)
                                                                                (2002/C 144/119)
                  (Language of the case: German)                                           (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                  European Communities on 17 April 2002 by Papeteries
18 April 2002 by Concept-Anlagen u. Geräte nach ‘GMP’ für               Mougeot, established in Laval-sur-Vologne France, represented
Produktion u. Labor GmbH, Heidelberg (Germany), represent-              by Guy Barsi, Julien Baumgartner and Jean-Paul Hordies,
ed by G.J. Hodapp, lawyer.                                              lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- C 144/62               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     15.6.2002
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             explained the very difficult position in which it found itself to
                                                                        the Commission and the crisis situation should have induced
                                                                        the Commission to impose lower fines.
—     annul the Commission’s decision of 20 December 2001
      relating to a procedure under Article 81 of the EC Treaty
      and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COM P/E-1/
      36.212 — photocopying paper);                                     (1) OJ 1996 C 207, p. 4.
—     substantially reduce the amount of the fine imposed by
      the Commission;
—     order the Commission to pay all the costs.
                                                                        Action brought on 18 April 2002 by Distribuidora Vizcaı́-
                                                                        na de Papeles Sociedad Limitada against the Commission
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                         of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-132/02)
By the contested decision, the Commission found that the
applicant and 10 other undertakings had infringed Article
81(1) of the EC Treaty and Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement                                  (2002/C 144/120)
by taking part in a number of agreements and concerted
practices in the photocopying paper sector whereby they
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
agreed on price increases, allocated sales quotas and fixed
market shares, and put in place a mechanism enabling them
to monitor implementation of these restrictive agreements.
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
The applicant argues that the Commission made a manifest                European Communities on 18 April 2002 by Distribuidora
error of assessment in claiming that it participated in the cartel      Vizcaı́na de Papeles Sociedad Limitada established in Derio
from May 1992 to September 1995. The applicant accepts                  (Vizcaya, Spain), represented by Eduardo Pérez Medrano and
that it participated from October 1993 to July 1995 only. The           Ignacio Delgado González.
Commission has not shown that the applicant participated in
the cartel before October 1993 and after July 1995. The
decision should therefore be annulled.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
In the alternative, the applicant requests a reduction in the fine      —     annul Decision C(2001) 4573 final CORR of 20 Decem-
imposed. It argues that given that it only was a party to the                 ber 2001 in Case COMP/E-1/36.212 — carbonless copy
infringement during the abovementioned period, the amount                     paper, in so far as it imputes to the applicant, as well as
of the fine should be reduced by 48 %.                                        participation in collusive arrangements relating to the
                                                                              Spanish market, membership of a cartel which covered
                                                                              the whole of the common market and the EEA, and,
                                                                              in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed by the
Furthermore, it claims that the fine is disproportionate in                   Commission;
relation to its liability for the infringement, and that the
Commission misapplied the Commission notice on the non-                 —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
imposition or reduction of fines in cartel cases (1).
The applicant’s participation should have resulted in the               Pleas in law and main arguments
Commission proposing a 75 % reduction in the fine.
                                                                        This action is directed against the same Commission decision
Finally, the applicant argues that the Commission did not take          as that which is challenged in Case T-109/02 Bolloré v
into account the defensive nature of the cartel. The applicant          Commission (1).


title: Case T-202/02: Action brought on 3 July 2002 by the joint venture Makedoniko Metro, Mikhaniki A.E. and Others against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
9.11.2002             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 274/25
                                                       COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Action brought on 3 July 2002 by the joint venture                       (c)   order the European Commission to send a letter to all its
Makedoniko Metro, Mikhaniki A.E. and Others against                            departments in order to restore the name and reputation
      the Commission of the European Communities                               of Mikhaniki A.E. and its chairman Prodromos Emfietzog-
                                                                               los, and to lodge with the Court of Justice and to
                                                                               communicate to the applicant the minutes of the meet-
                        (Case T-202/02)                                        ings of 7 April 1998 and 27 August 1988 and the
                                                                               decisions which were adopted at those meetings, together
                                                                               with the originals of the letters of Mr Mogg, Mr Monti
                        (2002/C 274/45)                                        and the President, Mr Prodi;
                                                                         (d)   order the European Commission and its official organs to
                   (Language of the Case: Greek)
                                                                               pay all the legal costs and all the expenditure relating to
                                                                               conduct of the proceedings;
                                                                         (e)   the applicant proposes as witnesses:
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 3 July 2002 by the joint venture                       (i)   the European Ombudsman Jacob Söderman,
Makedoniko Metro, Mikhaniki A.E. and Others, established in
Thessaloniki, Greece, represented by Christos Gkonis, of the                   (ii) the European Ombudsman’s assistants I. Harden and
Athens Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                               O. Verheecke,
                                                                               (iii) the Chairman of Mikhaniki A.E., Prodromos Emfiet-
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                          zoglos and
(a)  allow the action in its entirety;                                         (iv) whomever may be considered necessary after the
                                                                                documents sought have been lodged by the Euro-
(b)  order the European Commission and its official organs                           pean Commission.
     against whom the action is directed as set out in the
     initial section ‘Individual allocation of responsibility of
     organs of the European Union’ jointly and severally to
     pay:
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
     (i)   to Mikhaniki A.E. EUR 23 578 050 with interest at
           the rate of 8 % from 29 November 1996, or
           otherwise from 27 August 1998, EUR 224 654 and
                                                                         The applicant submits that the decisions by which the
           EUR 60 000 000 with interest for late payment at
                                                                         European Commission resolved to take no further action on
           the rate of 8 % from the lodging of the action;
                                                                         the applicant’s complaints that the competent Greek auth-
                                                                         orities unlawfully failed to entrust the construction of the
     (ii) to Prodromos Emfietzoglos, Chairman of Mikhaniki               Thessaloniki Metro to it are unlawful.
           A.E., EUR 15 000 000 with interest for late payment
           at the rate of 8 % from the lodging of the action as
           compensation for non-material harm;
                                                                         In its submission, those decisions are the cause of the harm
                                                                         which it has suffered and infringe Community legislation on
     (iii) to Mikhaniki A.E. EUR 1 025 839 588 in respect of             public works. Furthermore, they infringe the principle that
           future loss with interest at the rate of 8 % from the         equal conditions of competition are to be ensured, the
           lodging of the present action;                                prohibition of discrimination and the principle of equal
                                                                         treatment, the principle of proportionality, the requirement to
     (iv) to the joint venture Makedoniko Metro, for the                 state reasons and the principle of good administration. By the
           benefit of ABB Daimler-Benz Transportation                    decisions, the Commission infringed the right to a hearing and
           (Deutschland) GmbH (Adtranz), at a proportion of              to assistance and misused its powers.
           20 %, and Belgian Transport and Urban Infrastruc-
           ture Consult (Transurb Consult), at a proportion of
           0,35 %, a total of EUR 110 754 352;


title: Case C-258/09: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 March 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2008/1/EC — integrated pollution prevention and control — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/14

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 March 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-258/09) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2008/1/EC - integrated pollution prevention and control - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   2010/C 113/20
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and A. Marghelis, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: T. Materne, Agent)

      Re:

   Failure to adopt or communicate, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply, in the Walloon Region, with Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (OJ 2008 L 24, p. 8) — Existing installations liable to have an effect on emissions into the air, water and soil and on pollution.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by authorising, in the Walloon Region, the operation of existing installations which do not comply with the requirements laid down in Articles 3, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14(a) and (b) and 15(2) of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control, despite the time-limit of 30 October 2007 as laid down in Article 5(1) of that directive, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 220, 12.9.2009.


title: Case T-353/03: Action brought on 14 October 2003 by Inge-Lise Nielsen against the Council of the European Union

text:
C 7/38                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                        10.1.2004
Action brought on 15 October 2003 by Giorgio Lebedef                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                          —     annul the decision of the Deputy Secretary General of the
                         (Case T-352/03)                                        Council of 29 November 2002 not to include her name
                                                                                on the list of officials promoted to Grade C 2 in the 2002
                          (2004/C 7/69)                                         promotions procedure;
                   (Language of the case: French)                         —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 15 October 2003 by Giorgio                        Pleas in law and main arguments
Lebedef, residing in Senningerberg (Luxembourg), represented
by Gilles Bounéou and Frédéric Frabetti, lawyers.
                                                                          In support of her application, the applicant relies on a plea of
                                                                          breach of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations in that the
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          defendant committed a manifest error of assessment by
—     award damages of 5 000 euros to the applicant as                    considering comparative merits without taking account of the
      compensation for the non-material damage suffered by                differences in marking between the different departments of
      him as a result of the delay in drawing up the final staff          the institution.
      report (delay in placing a document in his personal file)
      in respect of the period 1999-2001;
—     make an order as to costs, expenses and fees and order
      the Commission of the European Communities to pay
      them.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Action brought on 20 October 2003 by Gemma Reggi-
                                                                                menti against the European Parliament
In support of his application, the applicant alleges infringement
of the general instructions implementing Article 43 of the                                          (Case T-354/03)
Staff Regulations, breach of the principle of sound adminis-
tration and failure to fulfil the duty to have regard to the
welfare of officials. The applicant also claims to have suffered                                     (2004/C 7/71)
non-material damage as a result and that, moreover, he was
the victim of harassment aimed at curtailing his freedom of
association.                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          An action was brought before the Court of First Instance of
                                                                          the European Communities on 20 October 2003 against the
Action brought on 14 October 2003 by Inge-Lise Nielsen                    European Parliament by Gemma Reggimenti, residing in
         against the Council of the European Union                        Woluwé-Saint-Lambert (Belgium), represented by Claudine
                                                                          Junion, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                         (Case T-353/03)
                          (2004/C 7/70)                                   The applicant claims that Court of First Instance should:
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          —     annul the decision of the European Parliament of 17 July
                                                                                2003 in so far as it denies the applicant payment of travel
                                                                                expenses as from 6 August 1999;
An action against Council of the European Union was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                          —     order the European Parliament to pay the applicant travel
on 14 October 2003 by Inge-Lise Nielsen, residing in Villers-
                                                                                expenses for her daughter as from 6 August 1999;
la-Ville (Belgium), represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Albert
Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Étienne Marchal, lawyers, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.                                        —     order the European Parliament to pay the costs.


title: Case C-64/07: Order of the President of the Court of 8 October 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

text:
               22.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/32

         Order of the President of the Court of 8 October 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland
   (Case C-64/07) (1)

   (2007/C 315/58)

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 69, 24.3.2007.


title: Case C-352/09 P: Appeal brought on 2 September 2009 by ThyssenKrupp Nirosta AG, formerly ThyssenKrupp Stainless AG against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 1 July 2009 in Case T-24/07 ThyssenKrupp Stainless AG v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/27

         Appeal brought on 2 September 2009 by ThyssenKrupp Nirosta AG, formerly ThyssenKrupp Stainless AG against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 1 July 2009 in Case T-24/07 ThyssenKrupp Stainless AG v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-352/09 P)
   2009/C 282/47
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: ThyssenKrupp Nirosta AG, formerly ThyssenKrupp Stainless AG (represented by: M. Klusmann and S. Thomas, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought by the appellant

               1.

               Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fifth Chamber) of 1 July 2009 in Case T-24/07 ThyssenKrupp Stainless AG v Commission in its entirety;

               2.

               In the alternative, refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for fresh judgment;

               3.

               In the further alternative, reduce by an appropriate amount the fine imposed on the appellant in Article 2 of the contested decision of the Commission of 20 December 2006;

               4.

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The subject of the appeal is the judgment of the Court of First Instance, by which the appellant’s action seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision of 20 December 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 65 CS was dismissed. The present proceedings concern a cartel infringement in the market for special steel products which according to the Commission’s findings ended in January 1998. The infringement fell within the scope of Article 65 CS.
   The appellant bases its appeal on five pleas in law.
   By its first plea in law, the appellant alleges an infringement of the nulla poena sine lege principle, of Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 and of Articles 5 EC, 7(1) EC and 83 EC, and also claims that the sovereignty of the ECSC signatory States has been undermined, to the extent that the Court confirmed the legal basis relied upon by the Commission — consisting of Article 65(1) CS in conjunction with Article 23 of Regulation No 1/2003. Since the expiry of the ECSC Treaty, Article 65(1) CS has not been a valid basis for the imposition of penalties. Therefore the Commission acted upon the wrong legal basis. Nor can the imposition of a fine be based by extension on Article 23 of Regulation No 1/2003. According to the system of competences under the Treaty, that provision authorises the imposition of penalties only in respect of infringements of EC law, not of ECSC law.
   By its second plea in law, the appellant claims that the principles of res judicata and nulla poene sine lege have been infringed, and that Article 23 of Regulation No 1/2003 has been misapplied, in so far as the Court confirmed the Commission’s standpoint that the infringement by Thyssen Stahl AG can be imputed to the appellant in its place. Thyssen Stahl AG continues to exist as a solvent undertaking and could therefore have been called to account by the Commission. That was also the decision of the Court of Justice in 2005 in its judgment in Joined Cases C-65/02 P and C-73/02 P concerning the Commission’s original decision of 1998. Even if the Court proceeded in its judgment on the basis of a substantive imputation of liability to the appellant, that cannot be regarded as having finally decided the issue for the purposes of the present proceedings, since they are based on a new Commission decision. The appellant can moreover in no circumstances be held liable for the actions of Thyssen Stahl AG on the basis of its declaration, which is merely a declaration of the imputation of liability under private law, since a declaration by an undertaking can never lead to the imputation of an obligation to pay a fine.
   By its third plea in law, the appellant alleges an infringement of the principle of legal certainty. The legal basis on which the sanction was imposed, as confirmed by the Court, that is Article 23 of Regulation No 1/2003, does not indicate in a sufficiently clear or unambiguous way that it refers to infringements of Article 65(1) CS. Furthermore, the concept of ‘imputation of liability by declaration’ accepted by the Commission and the Court has not been clearly or unambiguously established by law, either with regard to the conditions for its application or its legal consequences.
   By its fourth plea in law, the appellant complains that there has been an infringement of the rules concerning time-bar. Since the appellant is merely to be fined for an infringement committed originally by Thyssen Stahl AG, the time-bar issue must also be considered in relation to the position of Thyssen Stahl AG. Since Thyssen Stahl AG did not bring any legal proceedings against the Commission’s original decision, the limitation period in respect of it was not suspended. In the meantime, legal proceedings have therefore become time-barred, meaning that any derived responsibility of the appellant for the actions of Thyssen Stahl AG is also ruled out.
   The fifth plea in law concerns an infringement of the principles governing the calculation of fines. The Court wrongly ruled out a reduction in the fine, even though the appellant in the present proceedings accepted all the facts on the basis of which the Commission found there to be an infringement of Article 65(1) CS. The rewarding of that cooperation should not have been denied on the basis that the appellant contested the application of Article 65(1) CS on legal grounds and also on legal grounds rejects the imputation of liability from Thyssen Stahl AG to itself. The reference to impermissible legal assessments does not devalue the cooperation, since legal questions must always be examined ex officio and — independently therefore of admissions by the parties — the authorities may never reach unlawful decisions.


title: Case T-14/10: Action brought on 18 January 2010 — CheckMobile v OHIM (carcheck)

text:
               27.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/35

         Action brought on 18 January 2010 — CheckMobile v OHIM (carcheck)
   (Case T-14/10)
   2010/C 80/59
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: CheckMobile GmbH — The Process Solution Company (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by K. Lodigkeit, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Fourth Board of Appeal) of 18. November 2009 (Case R 595/2009-4), in so far as it dismissed the application for registration of ‘carcheck’ in accordance with Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94,

               —

               order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘carcheck’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41, 42 and 45 (Application No 7 368 681)

      Decision of the Examiner: Partial refusal of registration

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partial annulment of the Examiner’s Decision

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 (1), since the Board of Appeal interpreted the absolute ground for refusal to register a mark, based on the exclusively descriptive character of the signs of which it consists, too broadly

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ L 11, 14.1.1994, p. 1)


title: Case T-395/11: Order of the General Court of 4 June 2012 — Elti v Delegation of the European Union to Montenegro (Actions for annulment — Public supply contracts — Tender procedure — Digitalisation of the Montenegrin Public Broadcasting — Decision awarding the contract taken by the Delegation of the European Union to Montenegro — No legal capacity to be a defendant — Inadmissibility)

text:
               28.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 227/21

         Order of the General Court of 4 June 2012 — Elti v Delegation of the European Union to Montenegro
   (Case T-395/11) (1)

   (Actions for annulment - Public supply contracts - Tender procedure - Digitalisation of the Montenegrin Public Broadcasting - Decision awarding the contract taken by the Delegation of the European Union to Montenegro - No legal capacity to be a defendant - Inadmissibility)
   2012/C 227/35
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Elti d.o.o. (Gornja Radgona, Slovenia) (represented by: N. Zidar Klemenčič, lawyer)

      Defendant: Delegation of the European Union to Montenegro (represented by: initially N. Bertolini, acting as Agent, subsequently J. Stuyck and A.-M. Vandromme, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application, principally, for annulment of the decision of the Head of the Delegation of the European Union to Montenegro of 21 March 2011 rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant in the public procurement procedure for the supply of equipment for the digitalisation of the Montenegrin Public Broadcasting and, by way of corollary claim, of the decision to award that contract to another undertaking and, in the alternative, for damages

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Elti d.o.o. shall pay the costs, including those of the interim proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.