title: Case T-153/15: Judgment of the General Court of 26 October 2016 — Hamcho and Hamcho International v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Syria — Freezing of funds — Annulment of the earlier measures by a judgment of the General Court — New measures including the names of the applicants on the lists — Action for annulment — Article 76(d) of the Rules of Procedure — Content of the application — Admissibility — Obligation to state reasons — Burden of proof — Right to property — Freedom to conduct business)

text:
               12.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 26 October 2016 — Hamcho and Hamcho International v Council
   (Case T-153/15) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Syria - Freezing of funds - Annulment of the earlier measures by a judgment of the General Court - New measures including the names of the applicants on the lists - Action for annulment - Article 76(d) of the Rules of Procedure - Content of the application - Admissibility - Obligation to state reasons - Burden of proof - Right to property - Freedom to conduct business))
   (2016/C 462/20)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Mohamed Hamcho (Damascus, Syria) and Hamcho International (Damascus) (represented by: A. Boesch, D. Amaudruz and M. Ponsard, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: G. Étienne and S. Kyriakopoulou, acting as agents)

      Re:

   Action brought on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/117/CFSP of 26 January 2015 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2015 L 20, p. 85) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/108 of 26 January 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2015 L 20, p. 2), in that the names of the applicants have been included on the list of persons and bodies subject to restrictive measures.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Mohamed Hamcho and Hamcho International to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union in the proceedings at first instance and in the proceedings for interim measures.

      (1)  OJ C 190, 8.6.2015.


title: Action brought on 11 February 1997 by Alain Liberos against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-29/97)

text:
  No C 131 /20           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   26 . 4 . 97
  Action brought on 11 February 1997 by Agnes Hubert                   The    material   harm     liable to   occur is harm  to    the
     against the Commission of the European Communities                applicant's career, there being a risk that the disputed
                           ( Case T-28/97)                             decisions will prevent or delay her promotion to duties at
                                                                       A 3 level . The non-material harm stems from the fact that
                            ( 97/C 131 /47)                            she has been removed from her duties without that being
                                                                       justified in the interest of the service and the fact that
                                                                       doubt has been cast on her professional abilities.
                  (Language of the case: French)
  An action against the Commission of the European
  Communities was brought before the Court of First
  Instance of the European Communities on 11 February
  1997 by Agnes Hubert, resident in Brussels, represented
  by Marc-Albert Lucas of the Liege Bar, with an address               Action brought on 11 February 1997 by Alain Liberos
  for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Evelyne                    against the Commission of the European Communities
  Korn, 21 Rue de Nassau.
                                                                                ( Case T-29/97)
  The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                    ( 97/C 131 /48 )
  — annul the decision of the appointing authority, notified                           (Language of the case: French)
       to her by a memorandum of 27 March 1996,
       transferring her, or changing her post or duties as
       Head of Unit V.A.3 (Equal Opportunities ) to a post or          An action against the Commission of the European
       duties as Adviser in Directorate E ( Social Policy and
                                                                       Communities was brought before the Court of First
       Action ), and all related decisions,
                                                                       Instance of the European Communities on 11 February
                                                                       1997 by Alain Liberos, residing in Brussels, represented by
  — order the Commission to pay her the provisional sum                Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Liege Bar, with an address for
       of one Belgian franc in damages for the material harm           service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Evelyne Korn,
                                                                       21 Avenue de Nassau .
       liable to be occasioned to her by the contested
       decisions, subject to subsequent increase depending on
       how that harm develops,
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
  — order the Commission to pay her BFR 300 000 in
       damages for the non-material harm occasioned to her
       by the contested decisions,                                     — annul the Commission 's decision definitively placing
                                                                            the applicant in Grade 7 of Category A, Step 3 , by an
                                                                            agreement supplementary to his contract of service,
  — order the Commission to pay the costs .
                                                                       — annul the Commission 's decision of 5 November 1996
  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       rejecting the applicant's administrative complaint of
                                                                            28 March 1996 ,
  By a memorandum of 27 March 1996, the appointing
  authority informed the applicant, an official in Grade A 4,
  Step 2, that it had been decided to change her posting as            — order the Commission to pay the costs.
  Head of Unit V.A.3 and to assign her to the post of
  Adviser to the Director of Directorate E of DG V. That
' decision took effect on 1 April 1996 .                               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
  The applicant considers that Articles 4 and 29 of the Staff
  Regulations have been infringed since, according to the              The applicant is a member of the temporary staff of the
  case-law of the Court of First Instance, a decision to               Commission of the European Communities in Grade A 7,
  transfer an official is subject to the requirements of those         Step 3 . On 1 July 1995 he was appointed to Grade A 7,
  articles. She also alleges that Article 25 of the Staff              Step 1 . By an agreement of 15 March 1996 ,
  Regulations was infringed because no reasons were given              supplementary to his contract of service, he was
  in the memorandum informing her of the disputed                      definitively classed in his current grade .
  decision, and that Article 7 thereof was infringed because,
  according to the case-law of the Court of Justice and of
  the Court of First Instance, decisions to transfer officials         The applicant maintains that his specific professional
  against their will are permissible only if they are based on         training and experience should be given due recognition as
  the interest of the service, which is not the case with the          of 1 July 1995 , the date when his contract took effect.
  disputed decision.                                                   Since, having gained his Maitrise during June 1983 , he
 ---pagebreak--- 26 . 4 . 97            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                              No C 131 /21
had 12 years and several days' specific professional                  Action brought on 24 February 1997 by Deborah Gabriel
experience, he should have been classed in Grade A 5 in                  against the Commission of the European Communities
accordance with Article 2, second paragraph, of the                                             ( Case T-32/97)
Commission's decision of 1 September 1983 , in the
appropriate step.                                                                                ( 97/C 131/50 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
In support of his application he argues, alternatively, that
the decision was unlawful in so far as it states that
                                                                      An action against the Commission of the European
Article 2, first paragraph, thereof applies to members of             Communities was brought before the Court of First
the temporary staff recruited under Article 2 ( a ) of the            Instance of the European Communities on 24 February
Regulations applicable to Other Servants; that it fails to            1997 by Deborah Gabriel, residing in Brussels, represented
fulfil the obligation to state reasons; that it infringes             by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations; and that the               service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
Commission committed a manifest error of assessment.
                                                                      Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange.
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                      — annul the Commission's decision of 20 June 1996
                                                                          rejecting the applicant's request that it give
Action brought on 24 February 1997 by Francisco                           consideration to the possible application of
Fernandez Ruiz against the Commission of the European                     Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
                           Communities
                         (Case T-31/97)                               — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision
                                                                           adopted by the Commission on 22 November 1996
                          ( 97/C 131 /49 )                                expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,
                (Language of the case: French)                        — order the defendant to pay all the costs.
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 24 February                   The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
                                                                      Case T-16/97 O.
1997 by Francisco Fernandez Ruiz, residing in Waterloo
( Belgium), represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                 (') OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p. 27.
offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                      Action brought on 24 February 1997 by Luc Jacobs
— annul the Commission's decision of 17 June 1996                        against the Commission of the European Communities
     rejecting the applicant's request that it give
     consideration to the possible application of                                               (Case T-33/97)
     Article 31 (2 ) of the Staff Regulations,                                                     97/C 131/51 )
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision                                  (Language of the case: French)
     adopted by the Commission on 22 November 1996
     expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,                   An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                      Instance of the European Communities on 24 February
— order the defendant to pay all the costs.                           1997 by Luc Jacobs, residing in Koekelberg ( Belgium ),
                                                                      represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an
                                                                      address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange, L-1320 Lux
                                                                      embourg.
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
Case T-16/97 t 1 ).                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
 H OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.                                  — annul the Commission's decision of 20 June 1996
                                                                           rejecting the applicant's request that it give
                                                                           consideration to the possible application of
                                                                           Article 31 (2 ) of the Staff Regulations,


title: Case T-711/13: Action brought on 20 December 2013 — Harrys Pubar v OHIM — Harry’s New York Bar (HARRY’S BAR)

text:
               14.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/37

         Action brought on 20 December 2013 — Harrys Pubar v OHIM — Harry’s New York Bar (HARRY’S BAR)
   (Case T-711/13)
   2014/C 112/49
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Harrys Pubar AB (Gothenburg, Sweden) (represented by: L.-E. Ström, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Harry’s New York Bar SA (Paris, France)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 October 2013 given in joined Cases R 946/2012-1 and R 995/2012-1;

               —

               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 ‘HARRY’S BAR’ for goods and services in Classes 25, 29, 30, 32, 33 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 3 378 031

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Swedish trade mark registrations Nos 356 009, 320 026, 315 142, 55 6513-1066 for goods and services in Classes 25 and 42

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Allowed the opposition in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Upheld the appeal in part in Case R 995/2012-1 and dismissed the appeal in Case R 946/2012-1

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and 4 CTMR.


title: Case T-431/15: Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2016 — Fruit of the Loom v EUIPO — Takko (FRUIT) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark FRUIT — Genuine use of a mark — Article 15 and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — External use of the mark)

text:
               22.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/33

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2016 — Fruit of the Loom v EUIPO — Takko (FRUIT)
   (Case T-431/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark FRUIT - Genuine use of a mark - Article 15 and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - External use of the mark))
   (2016/C 305/45)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Fruit of the Loom, Inc. (Bowling Green, Kentucky, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz QC, and V. Marsland, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Gája, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Takko Holding GmbH (Telgte, Germany)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 May 2015 (case R 1641/2014-2) relating to revocation proceedings between Takko Holding and Fruit of the Loom

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 12 May 2015 (Case R 1641/2014-2);

               2.

               Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those of Fruit of the Loom, Inc.

      (1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2015.


title: Case C-98/16: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber Chamber) of 4 May 2017 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Taxation — Free movement of capital — Article 63 TFEU — Article 40 of the EEA Agreement — Inheritance taxes — Bequest in favour of not-for-profit bodies — Application of a preferential rate to bodies existing or legally constituted in Greece and to similar bodies outside Greece on a reciprocal basis — Different treatment — Restriction — Justification)

text:
               3.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/14

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber Chamber) of 4 May 2017 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-98/16) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation - Free movement of capital - Article 63 TFEU - Article 40 of the EEA Agreement - Inheritance taxes - Bequest in favour of not-for-profit bodies - Application of a preferential rate to bodies existing or legally constituted in Greece and to similar bodies outside Greece on a reciprocal basis - Different treatment - Restriction - Justification))
   (2017/C 213/15)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Roels and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: M. Tassopoulou and V. Karra, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by adopting and maintaining in force legislation which provides for a preferential rate of inheritance tax for bequests made in favour of not-for-profit bodies which are established in other Member States of the European Union or the European Economic Area on a reciprocal basis, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63 TFEU and Article 40 of the European Economic Area Agreement of 2 May 1992;

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 145, 25.4.2016.


title: Case T-189/07: Action brought on 4 June 2007 — Frosch Touristik v OHIM — DSR touristik (FLUGBÖRSE)

text:
               4.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/34

         Action brought on 4 June 2007 — Frosch Touristik v OHIM — DSR touristik (FLUGBÖRSE)
   (Case T-189/07)
   (2007/C 183/66)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Frosch Touristik GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: H. Lauf, Rechtsanwalt)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: DSR touristik GmbH
   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 22 March 2007 — Case R 1084/2004-4 — in its entirety and refer the case back to the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) for a fresh decision;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The word mark ‘FLUGBÖRSE’ for goods and services in Classes 16, 39 and 42 (Community trade mark No 81 406).

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant.

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: DSR touristik GmbH.

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Partial declaration of invalidity of the trade mark concerned.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

      Pleas in law: Incorrect application of Article 51(1)(a), of Article 7(1)(c) and of Article 51(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1).

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).


title: Case C-570/12 P: Appeal brought on 29 November 2012 by Alexandru Octavian Concal against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 25 September 2012 in Case T-320/12: Concal v Commission

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/53

         Appeal brought on 29 November 2012 by Alexandru Octavian Concal against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 25 September 2012 in Case T-320/12: Concal v Commission
   (Case C-570/12 P)
   2013/C 225/98
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Alexandru Octavian Concal (represented by: R. Neagu, avocat)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
   By order of 27 June 2013 the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


title: Case T-575/08: Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2010 — 4care v OHIM — Laboratorios Diafarm (Acumed) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark Acumed — Earlier national word mark AQUAMED ACTIVE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Similarity of the goods — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/37

      Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2010 — 4care v OHIM — Laboratorios Diafarm (Acumed)
      (Case T-575/08) (1)

      (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark Acumed - Earlier national word mark AQUAMED ACTIVE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Similarity of the goods - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
      (2010/C 288/70)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: 4care AG (Kiel, Germany) (represented by: S. Redeker and M. Diesbach, lawyers)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Laboratorios Diafarm, SA (Barberà del Vallès, Spain) (represented by: E. Sugrañes Coca, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 October 2008 (Case R 1636/2007-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Laboratorios Diafarm, SA and 4care AG.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders 4care AG to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.


title: Case C-413/07: Order of the President of the Court of 4 December 2007 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Mecklenburg-Vorpommern — Germany) — Kathrin Haase, Adolf Oberdorfer, Doreen Kielon, Peter Schulze, Peter Kliem, Dietmar Bössow, Helge Riedel, André Richter, Andreas Schneider v Superfast Ferries SA, Superfast OKTO Maritime Company, Baltic SF VIII LTD

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/40

         Order of the President of the Court of 4 December 2007 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Mecklenburg-Vorpommern — Germany) — Kathrin Haase, Adolf Oberdorfer, Doreen Kielon, Peter Schulze, Peter Kliem, Dietmar Bössow, Helge Riedel, André Richter, Andreas Schneider v Superfast Ferries SA, Superfast OKTO Maritime Company, Baltic SF VIII LTD
   (Case C-413/07) (1)

   (2008/C 51/74)

      Language of the case: German

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

      (1)  OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.


title: Case T-489/13: Action brought on 16 September 2013 — La Rioja Alta v OHIM — Aldi Einkauf (VIÑA ALBERDI)

text:
               16.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 336/27

         Action brought on 16 September 2013 — La Rioja Alta v OHIM — Aldi Einkauf (VIÑA ALBERDI)
   (Case T-489/13)
   2013/C 336/58
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

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

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

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM in Case R 1190/2011-4 of 9 July 2013;

               —

               declare valid Community trade mark No 3 189 065‘VIÑA ALBERDI’ for ‘Alcoholic beverages (except beers), except wines from Italy’ in Class 33 of the International Nice Classification;

               —

               order OHIM and the other parties before the Court to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Word mark ‘VIÑA ALBERDI’ for goods in Classes 30, 32 and 33 — Community trade mark registration No 3 189 065

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Applicant

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Article 53(1)(a) and (b) of the same regulation — Figurative mark with the word elements ‘VILLA ALBERTI’

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Application upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Article 53(1)(a) and (b) of the same regulation


title: Case T-395/12: Judgment of the General Court of 11 February 2015  — Fetim v OHIM — Solid Floor (Solidfloor The professional’s choice) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark Solidfloor The professional’s choice — Earlier national figurative mark SOLID floor, earlier trade name and domain name Solid Floor Ltd — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Similarity of the goods and services — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               23.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/12

         Judgment of the General Court of 11 February 2015 — Fetim v OHIM — Solid Floor (Solidfloor The professional’s choice)
   (Case T-395/12) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark Solidfloor The professional’s choice - Earlier national figurative mark SOLID floor, earlier trade name and domain name Solid Floor Ltd - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Similarity of the goods and services - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 096/14)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Fetim BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: L. Bakers, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Solid Floor Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 June 2012 (Case R 884/2011-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Solid Floor Ltd and Fetim BV.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Fetim BV to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 355, 17.11.2012.


title: Case C-177/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — María José Regojo Dans v Consejo de Estado (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Clauses 3 and 4 — Principle of non-discrimination — ‘Non-permanent staff’ — Refusal to grant a three-yearly length-of-service increment — Objective grounds)

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/9

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — María José Regojo Dans v Consejo de Estado
   (Case C-177/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Clauses 3 and 4 - Principle of non-discrimination - ‘Non-permanent staff’ - Refusal to grant a three-yearly length-of-service increment - Objective grounds))
   (2015/C 294/11)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: María José Regojo Dans

      Defendant: Consejo de Estado

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The concept of a ‘fixed-term worker’, within the meaning of clause 3(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, which is set out in the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as applying to a worker such as the applicant in the main proceedings.

               2.

               Clause 4(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which excludes, without justification on objective grounds, non-permanent staff from the right to receive a three-yearly length-of-service increment granted, inter alia, to career civil servants when, as regards the receipt of that increment, those two categories of workers are in comparable situations, a matter which is for the referring court to ascertain.

      (1)  OJ C 253, 4.8.2014.


title: Case T-455/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 December 2008 — Componenta v Commission (State aid — Metallurgy sector — Acquisition of a shareholding held by an undertaking in a property company and repayment of a loan by that undertaking to the property company in consideration for an investment in that undertaking — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery — Private investor test — Valuation of the shares in a property company — Valuation of the real property assets of a company — Duty to state the reasons for the decision — Finding of the Court of its own motion)

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/42

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 December 2008 — Componenta v Commission
   (Case T-455/05) (1)

   (State aid - Metallurgy sector - Acquisition of a shareholding held by an undertaking in a property company and repayment of a loan by that undertaking to the property company in consideration for an investment in that undertaking - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery - Private investor test - Valuation of the shares in a property company - Valuation of the real property assets of a company - Duty to state the reasons for the decision - Finding of the Court of its own motion)
   (2009/C 44/71)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   Parties

      Applicant: Componenta Oyj (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: M. Savola and A. Järvinen, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Giolito and M. Huttunen, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Republic of Finland (represented by: E. Bygglin, A. Guimaraes-Purokoski and J. Heliskoski, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/900/EC of 20 October 2005 on the State Aid implemented by Finland for investment aid to Componenta Corporation (OJ 2006 L 353, p. 36)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision 2006/900/EC of 20 October 2005 on the State Aid implemented by Finland for investment aid to Componenta Corporation;

               2.

               Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and pay Componenta's costs;

               3.

               Orders the Republic of Finland to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 48, 25.2.2006.


title: Case T-71/08: Action brought on 13 February 2008 — Promat v OHIM — Prosima Comercial (PROSIMA PROSIMA COMERCIAL S.A.)

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/42

         Action brought on 13 February 2008 — Promat v OHIM — Prosima Comercial (PROSIMA PROSIMA COMERCIAL S.A.)
   (Case T-71/08)
   (2008/C 92/84)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Promat GmbH (Ratingen, Germany) (represented by: S. Beckmann, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Prosima Comercial SA (Barcelona, Spain)
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market in Case R 574/2007-2;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Prosima Comercial SA

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark PROSIMA PROSIMA COMERCIAL S.A. for goods and services in Classes 6, 7, 11, 16, 17, 20, 22, 35 to 39, 41 and 42 (Application No 2 423 176)

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Promat GmbH

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark PROMINA for goods and services in Class 7 (German trade mark No 847 011)

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) as the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market was incorrect to take as a basis that the goods were not similar.

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


               14.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/20

         Corrigendum to the Notice in the Official Journal in Case T-200/06
   (2006/C 249/41)
   The notice in the Official Journal of the European Union in Case T-200/06 IBERDROLA v Commission of the European Communities, as referred to in Article 24(6) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, was published twice, on 16 September 2006 (OJ C 224, p. 49) and 30 September 2006 (OJ C 237, p. 9).
   Regard being had to the provisions of Article 116(6) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, the second publication of the notice in question in the Official Journal of the European Union is the only one to be taken into account in calculating the period referred to in Article 115(1) of the Rules of Procedure.


title: Case C-236/05: Action brought on 30 May 2005 by Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

text:
               6.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/17

         Action brought on 30 May 2005 by Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-236/05)
   (2005/C 193/27)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 30 May 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Karen Banks, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that the United Kingdom has breached its obligations under Article 19 (i) first and third indents, of Council Regulation (EEC) 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy (1), by communicating with considerable delay the data required by those provisions,

               2.

               order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The provisions of Article 19(i) of Regulation 2847/93 require the Member States to transmit certain data to the Commission, by computer transmission, within a specific deadline. It is essential that the Commission has this data available in order to manage and develop the common fisheries policy, in particular with regard to conservation, management and exploitation of living aquatic resources.
   The United Kingdom communicated the data required by Article 19(i) with considerable delay for the years 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003. Deadlines for 2004 have not been met and no data has yet been received for 2005. The Commission therefore submits that the United Kingdom is in breach of its obligations under the aforementioned provision of Regulation 2847/93.

      (1)  OJ L 261, 20.10.1993, p.1


title: Assignment of the Judges to Chambers

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/1

         Assignment of the Judges to Chambers
   (2006/C 326/04)
   At its meetings on 11 and 13 October 2006, the Court decided to assign the Judges to the Chambers as follows:
   First Chamber
   Mr Jann, President,
   Mr Schintgen, Mr Tizzano, Mr Borg Barthet, Mr Ilešič and Mr Levits, Judges
   Second Chamber
   Mr Timmermans, President,
   Mr Kūris, Mr Schiemann, Mr Makarczyk, Mr Bay Larsen and Mr Bonichot, Judges
   Third Chamber
   Mr Rosas, President,
   Mr Klučka, Mr Cunha Rodrigues, Mr Lõhmus, Mr Ó Caoimh and Ms Lindh, Judges
   Fourth Chamber
   Mr Lenaerts, President,
   Mr Juhász, Ms Silva de Lapuerta, Mr Arestis, Mr Malenovský and Mr von Danwitz, Judges
   Fifth Chamber
   Mr Schintgen, President,
   Mr Tizzano, Mr Borg Barthet, Mr Ilešič and Mr Levits, Judges
   Sixth Chamber
   Mr Kūris, President,
   Mr Schiemann, Mr Makarczyk, Mr Bay Larsen and Mr Bonichot, Judges
   Seventh Chamber
   Mr Klučka, President,
   Mr Cunha Rodrigues, Mr Lõhmus, Mr Ó Caoimh and Ms Lindh, Judges
   Eighth Chamber
   Mr Juhász, President,
   Ms Silva de Lapuerta, Mr Arestis, Mr Malenovský and Mr von Danwitz, Judges


               2.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 237/19

         Action brought on 15 June 2010 by Reassur Aktiengesellschaft against the EFTA Surveillance Authority
   (Case E-6/10)
   2010/C 237/03
   An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 15 June 2010 by Reassur Aktiengesellschaft, represented by Ulrich Soltész and Philipp Melcher, acting as agents for Reassur Aktiengesellschaft, Aeulestrasse 5, 9490 Vaduz, LIECHTENSTEIN.
   Reassur Aktiengesellschaft requests the EFTA Court to:

               1.

               Annul the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision No 97/10/COL of 24 March 2010 regarding the taxation of captive insurance companies under the Liechtenstein Tax Act, in its entirety;

               2.

               Annul Article 3 of the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision No 97/10/COL of 24 March 2010 regarding the taxation of captive insurance companies under the Liechtenstein Tax Act, at least insofar as it orders recovery for the period prior to 31 March 2009;
               and

               3.

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

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

               —

               The applicant is the reinsurance captive of the Schindler group which has been exclusively engaged in reinsuring certain types of risks of companies belonging to the Schindler group.

               —

               The applicant contends that since captive (re)insurance companies cover risks, for which insurance coverage is not normally offered by commercial insurance companies, and as their activities are confined to intra-group risk coverage, they are not active in a market where they are in competition with other market players. They are therefore not engaged in an economic activity and do not qualify as undertakings. Consequently, taxation pursuant to the provisions of the Liechtenstein Tax Act concerning taxation of captive (re)insurance companies cannot have distorted competition or intra-EEA trade. The contested tax provisions are not selective and do therefore not constitute State aid.

               —

               Moreover, the applicant claims that the EFTA Surveillance Authority:

                           —

                           was wrong in choosing the procedure applicable to ‘unlawful aid’ and in adopting a recovery decision,

                           —

                           violated the principle of legitimate expectations by ordering recovery for the period from 6 November 2001 through at least 31 March 2009.


title: Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU — Cases where the Commission raises no objections  Text with EEA relevance

text:
               7.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 162/3

         Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU
   Cases where the Commission raises no objections
   (Text with EEA relevance)
   2013/C 162/03

               Date of adoption of the decision

               20.2.2013

               Reference number of State Aid

               SA.31860 (N 506/10)

               Member State

               Slovakia

               Region

               —

               Non-assisted areas

               Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

               Nariadenie vlády Slovenskej republiky č. 426/2010 Z. z., ktorým sa ustanovujú podrobnosti o výške odvodu z dodanej elektriny koncovým odberateľom a spôsobe jeho výberu pre Národný jadrový fond na vyraďovanie jadrových zariadení a na nakladanie s vyhoretým jadrovým palivom a rádioaktívnymi odpadmi.

               Legal basis

                           1.

                           Zákon 238/2006 Z. z. o Národnom jadrovom fonde na vyraďovanie jadrových zariadení a na nakladanie s vyhoretým jadrovým palivom a rádioaktívnymi odpadmi (zákon o jadrovom fonde) a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov v znení neskorších predpisov.

                           2.

                           Nariadenie vlády Slovenskej republiky č. 426/2010 Z. z., ktorým sa ustanovujú podrobnosti o výške odvodu z dodanej elektriny koncovým odberateľom a spôsobe jeho výberu pre Národný jadrový fond na vyraďovanie jadrových zariadení a na nakladanie s vyhoretým jadrovým palivom a rádioaktívnymi odpadmi.

                           3.

                           Zákon 391/2012, ktorým sa mení a dopĺňa zákon č. 238/2006 Z. z., o Národnom jadrovom fonde na vyraďovanie jadrových zariadení a na nakladanie s vyhoretým jadrovým palivom a rádioaktívnymi odpadmi (zákon o jadrovom fonde) a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov v znení neskorších predpisov.

               Type of measure

               Scheme

               Slovenské elektrárne a. s., Javys a. s.

               Objective

               Other — Safe decommissioning

               Form of aid

               Direct grant

               Budget

                           Overall budget: EUR 2 364 million

                           Annual budget: EUR 70 million

               Intensity

               —

               Duration (period)

               1.1.2011-31.12.2041

               Economic sectors

               Electric power generation, transmission and distribution

               Name and address of the granting authority

                           Ministerstvo hospodárstva a výstavby SR

                           Mierová 19

                           827 15 Bratislava 212

                           SLOVENSKO/SLOVAKIA

               Other information

               —

         The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:
   http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm

               Date of adoption of the decision

               6.3.2013

               Reference number of State Aid

               SA.34359 (12/N)

               Member State

               Poland

               Region

               Miasto Warszawa

               —

               Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

               Pomoc dla MPR „Sarmatia” sp. z o.o. na realizację projektu budowy rurociągu naftowego Brody–Adamowo (jako części rurociągu Odessa–Brody–Płock)

               Legal basis

                           1)

                           Ustawa z dnia 6 grudnia 2006 r. o zasadach prowadzenia polityki rozwoju

                           2)

                           Ustawa z dnia 27 sierpnia 2009 r. o finansach publicznych

                           3)

                           Program Operacyjny Infrastruktura i Środowisko na lata 2007–2013, wersja 3.0 zatwierdzona decyzją Komisji Europejskiej COM(2011) 9376 z dnia 21 grudnia 2011 r.

                           4)

                           Program Operacyjny Infrastruktura i Środowisko 2007–2013: Szczegółowy opis priorytetów

                           5)

                           Załącznik nr 1 do Szczegółowego opisu priorytetów Programu Operacyjnego Infrastruktura i Środowisko: Kryteria wyboru projektów dla Priorytetu X: „Bezpieczeństwo energetyczne, w tym dywersyfikacja źródeł energii”

                           6)

                           Załącznik nr 2 do Szczegółowego opisu priorytetów PO Infrastruktura i Środowisko – Organizacja systemu oceny i wyboru projektów w ramach Programu Operacyjnego Infrastruktura i Środowisko

                           7)

                           Wytyczne Ministra Rozwoju Regionalnego w zakresie jednolitego systemu zarządzania i monitorowania projektów indywidualnych, zgodnych z art. 28 ust. 1 ustawy z dnia 6 grudnia 2006 r. o zasadach prowadzenia polityki rozwoju

                           8)

                           Lista projektów indywidualnych dla Programu Operacyjnego Infrastruktura i Środowisko 2007–2013 (aktualizacja z dnia 12 sierpnia 2011 r.)

                           9)

                           „Polityka Rządu RP dla przemysłu naftowego w Polsce”, przyjęta przez Radę Ministrów w dniu 6 lutego 2007 r.

                           10)

                           „Polityka energetyczna Polski do 2030 roku” przyjęta przez Radę Ministrów w dniu 10 listopada 2009 r.

                           11)

                           Umowa nr UPP-POIS.10.01.00-00-019/10-01 z dnia 27 stycznia 2010 r. dotycząca przygotowania projektu budowy rurociągu naftowego Brody–Płock z możliwością jego przedłużenia do Gdańska lub w kierunku zachodnim (pre-umowa)

                           12)

                           Wytyczne Ministra Rozwoju Regionalnego w zakresie kwalifikowania wydatków w ramach Programu Operacyjnego Infrastruktura i Środowisko

                           13)

                           Projekt umowy o dofinansowanie

               Type of measure

               Individual aid

               —

               Objective

               Sectoral development, Execution of an important project of common Europe

               Form of aid

               Direct grant

               Budget

               Overall budget: PLN 545 million

               Intensity

               37 %

               Duration (period)

               1.12.2012-31.12.2015

               Economic sectors

               Transport via pipeline

               Name and address of the granting authority

                           Instytut Nafty i Gazu

                           ul. Lubicz 25A

                           31-503 Kraków

                           POLSKA/POLAND

               Other information

               —

         The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:
   http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm

               Date of adoption of the decision

               20.12.2012

               Reference number of State Aid

               SA.35709 (12/N)

               Member State

               Slovenia

               Region

               —

               —

               Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

               Recapitalisation of NKBM

               Legal basis

               Hybrid loan agreement

               Type of measure

               Ad hoc aid

               Nova Kreditna Banka Maribor d.d. (NKBM)

               Objective

               Remedy for a serious disturbance in the economy

               Form of aid

               Other forms of equity intervention — Capital increase in the form of hybrid loan

               Budget

               Overall budget: EUR 100 million

               Intensity

               —

               Duration (period)

               From 31.12.2012

               Economic sectors

               Financial service activities, except insurance and pension funding

               Name and address of the granting authority

                           Ministry of Finance

                           Župančičeva 3

                           SI-1000 Ljubljana

                           SLOVENIJA

                           Tel. +386 13696300

                           Fax +386 13696659

                           E-mail: gp.mf(at)gov.si

               Other information

               —

         The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:
   http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm

               Date of adoption of the decision

               22.1.2013

               Reference number of State Aid

               SA.35999 (12/N)

               Member State

               Greece

               Region

               —

               —

               Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

               Prolongation of the Guarantee Scheme and the Bond Loan Scheme for Credit Institutions in Greece

               Legal basis

               Law No 3723/2008 ‘For the enhancement of liquidity of the economy in response to the impact of the international financial crisis’

               Type of measure

               Scheme

               —

               Objective

               Remedy for a serious disturbance in the economy

               Form of aid

               Guarantee, Other — Bond loan scheme

               Budget

               Overall budget: EUR 93 000 million

               Intensity

               —

               Duration (period)

               Until 30.6.2013

               Economic sectors

               Financial and insurance activities

               Name and address of the granting authority

                           Ministry of Finance

                           Nikis 5-7

                           ΕΛΛΑΔΑ/GREECE

               Other information

               —

         The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:
   http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm

               Date of adoption of the decision

               29.4.2013

               Reference number of State Aid

               SA.36345 (13/N)

               Member State

               United Kingdom

               Region

               —

               —

               Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

               Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) scheme — Air quality requirements

               Legal basis

               Primary legislation (power to introduce the RHI scheme): Section 100 of the Energy Act 2008
               Secondary legislation — The Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme Regulations 2011, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2011/9780111512753/contents
               The regulations above were amended in 2012 — The Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2012, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/1999/contents/made

               Type of measure

               Scheme

               —

               Objective

               Environmental protection

               Form of aid

               Other — A set pence/kWh tariff for the generation of useful renewable heat

               Budget

               —

               Intensity

               —

               Duration (period)

               Until 30.6.2040

               Economic sectors

               All economic sectors eligible to receive aid

               Name and address of the granting authority

                           Department of Energy and Climate Change

                           3 Whitehall Place

                           London

                           SW1A 2AW

                           UNITED KINGDOM

               Other information

               —

         The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:
   http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm


title: Case T-322/14: Action brought on 7 May 2014  — mobile.international v OHIM — Rezon (mobile.de)

text:
               21.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/26

         Action brought on 7 May 2014 — mobile.international v OHIM — Rezon (mobile.de)
   (Case T-322/14)
   2014/C 235/36
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: mobile.international GmbH (Kleinmachnow, Germany) (represented by: T. Lührig, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rezon OOD (Sofia, Bulgaria)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 13 February 2014 in Case R 951/2013-1;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the figurative mark including the word elements ‘mobile.de’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 38 and 42 — Community trade mark No 8 8 38  609

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Rezon OOD

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: national figurative mark including the word elements ‘mobile’ for services in Classes 35, 39 and 42

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal upheld and the case is referred back to the Cancellation Division

      Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of Article 57 (2) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Rule 22(2) of Regulation No 2868/95;

               —

               Infringement of Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 57(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Rule 22(3) and (4) of Regulation No 2868/95;

               —

               Infringement of Article 78(1)(f) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of the rules on abuse of law in conjunction with Article 56(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 and Article 54(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 64(1) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case C-460/10 P: Order of the Court of 14 April 2011 — Luigi Marcuccio v Court of Justice of the European Union (Appeal — Non-contractual liabity — Representation of the appellant — Lawyer not authorised to act — Service of an appeal — Claim for damages — Court of Justice of the European Union — Rejection — Action for annulment — Harm allegedly suffered — Action for damages — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

text:
               6.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/11

         Order of the Court of 14 April 2011 — Luigi Marcuccio v Court of Justice of the European Union
   (Case C-460/10 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Non-contractual liabity - Representation of the appellant - Lawyer not authorised to act - Service of an appeal - Claim for damages - Court of Justice of the European Union - Rejection - Action for annulment - Harm allegedly suffered - Action for damages - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
   2011/C 232/18
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: A. V. Placco, agent)

      Re:

   Appeal against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 July 2010 in Case T-401/09 Marcuccio v Commission, in which that court dismissed, first, the action for annulment of the purported decisions of the Court of Justice dismissing the claim for compensation for the harm allegedly suffered as a result of an alleged unlawful act committed when the appeal was served on Mr Luigi Marcuccio in Case T-20/09 P and, second, a claim for damages.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Marcuccio is orderd to pay the costs of the appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.


title: Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections  Text with EEA relevance

text:
               20.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/1

         Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
   Cases where the Commission raises no objections
   (Text with EEA relevance)
   (2015/C 063/01)

               Date of adoption of the decision

               04.12.2013

               Aid number

               SA.34385 (2013/N)

               Member State

               Bulgaria

               Region

               —

               —

               Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

               Предоставяне на Безплатни квоти за емисии парникови газове съгласно чл.10в от Директива 2003/87/ЕО в замяна на реализация на инвестиции в електропроизводствени обекти и енергийна инфраструктура

               Legal basis

                           1.

                           Прието с Протоколно решение №36 на МС от 28.09.2011.

                           2.

                           Закон за изменение и допълнение на Закона за енергетиката

                           3.

                           Проект на Наредба за организацията и контрола на изпълнение, механизма за предоставяне и начина на разходване на средствата за изпълнение на Националния план за инвестиции на Република България.

                           4.

                           Директива 2003/87/ЕО на Европейския парламент и на Съвета, изменена с Директива 2009/29/ЕО на Европейския парламент и на Съвета от 23 април 2009 година за изменение на Директива 2003/87/ЕО с оглед подобряване и разширяване на схемата за търговия с квоти за емисии на парникови газове на Общността

               Type of measure

               Scheme

               —

               Objective

               Environmental protection

               Form of aid

               Direct grant

               Budget

               Overall budget: BGN 1  848,33 (in millions)

               Intensity

               100 %

               Duration (period)

               until 31.12.2019

               Economic sectors

               Electricity; gas; steam and air conditioning supply

               Name and address of the granting authority

                           Министерство на икономиката и енергетиката

                           град София, ул. Триадица №8

               Other information

               —

         The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:
   http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm

               Date of adoption of the decision

               20.11.2013

               Aid number

               SA.36624 (2013/N)

               Member State

               France

               Region

               REUNION

               Article 107(3)(a)

               Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

               Projet SWAC

               Legal basis

               Convention de délégation SIDEO du 19 avril 2011

               Type of measure

               Individual aid

               Climabyss

               Objective

               Environmental protection

               Form of aid

               Direct grant

               Budget

               Overall budget: EUR 174,8 (in millions)

               Intensity

               61,1 %

               Duration (period)

               01.01.2014 — 01.04.2040

               Economic sectors

               Electricity; gas; steam and air conditioning supply

               Name and address of the granting authority

                           SGAE

                           68 rue de Bellechasse 75700 Paris

               Other information

               —

         The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:
   http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm

               Date of adoption of the decision

               18.12.2013

               Aid number

               SA.36870 (2013/N)

               Member State

               Greece

               Region

               ATTIKI

               —

               Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

               ΕΓΚΑΤΑΣΤΑΣΗ ΣΥΣΤΗΜΑΤΟΣ ΜΕΤΡΗΣΕΩΝ ΓΙΑ ΧΡΗΣΤΕΣ ΤΟΥ ΔΙΚΤΥΟΥ ΜΕΤΑΦΟΡΑΣ

               Legal basis

               Υπουργική απόφαση αριθ. ΦΑ/E 3.2/57/3 ‘Καθορισμός πράξεων, ύψους και διαδικασίας χρηματοδότησης της Ανώνυμης Εταιρείας με την επωνυμία “Δημόσια Επιχείρηση Ηλεκτρισμού Α.Ε.”’

               Type of measure

               Individual aid

               ADMIE S.A.

               Objective

               Sectoral development

               Form of aid

               Direct grant

               Budget

               Overall budget: EUR 1,75 (in millions)

               Intensity

               46,13 %

               Duration (period)

               —

               Economic sectors

               Transmission of electricity

               Name and address of the granting authority

                           Yπουργείο Ανάπτυξης, Ανταγωνιστικότητας, Υποδομών, Μεταφορών & Δικτύων — Υπηρεσία διαχείρισης του επιχειρησιακού προγράμματος ΑΝΤΑΓΩΝΙΣΤΙΚΟΤΗΤΑ ΚΑΙ ΕΠΙΧΕΙΡΗΜΑΤΙΚΟΤΗΤΑ

                           Λεωφ. Μεσογείων 56, GR 115 27, Αθήνα, Ελλάδα

               Other information

               —

         The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:
   http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm

               Date of adoption of the decision

               18.09.2013

               Aid number

               SA.37030 (2013/N)

               Member State

               Ireland

               Region

               —

               —

               Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

               Sale of State Assets

               Legal basis

               Electricity Regulation Act (Public Service Obligations) Order 2002 (Statutory Instrument No 217 of 2002)

               Type of measure

               Individual aid

               —

               Objective

               Services of general economic interest

               Form of aid

               Subsidized services

               Budget

               Overall budget: EUR 381 (in millions)
               Annual budget: EUR 63,5 (in millions)

               Intensity

               38 %

               Duration (period)

               until 31.12.2019

               Economic sectors

               Production of electricity

               Name and address of the granting authority

                           The Commission for Energy Regulation of Ireland

                           The Exchange, Belgard Square North, Tallaght, Dublin 24, Ireland

               Other information

               —

         The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:
   http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm

               Date of adoption of the decision

               28.10.2014

               Aid number

               SA.38271 (2014/N)

               Member State

               France

               Region

               —

               —

               Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

               Plan de relance autoroutier

               Legal basis

               —

               Type of measure

               Ad hoc aid

               —

               Objective

               Services of general economic interest

               Form of aid

               Other — Allongement de la durée des concessions.

               Budget

               Overall budget: EUR 3  200 (in millions)

               Intensity

               %

               Duration (period)

               —

               Economic sectors

               Other passenger land transport

               Name and address of the granting authority

                           MEEDDAT

                           Arche Sud 92055 La Défense

               Other information

               —

         The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:
   http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm

               Date of adoption of the decision

               24.06.2014

               Aid number

               SA.38420 (2014/NN)

               Member State

               Sweden

               Region

               —

               —

               Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

               Skattebefrielser för biodrivmedel — förlängd tillämpning

               Legal basis

               Lagen 1994:1776 om skatt på energi.

               Type of measure

               Scheme

               —

               Objective

               Environmental protection

               Form of aid

               Tax rate reduction

               Budget

               Overall budget: SEK 360 (in millions)

               Intensity

               0 %

               Duration (period)

               01.05.2014 — 31.12.2015

               Economic sectors

               Manufacture of refined petroleum products

               Name and address of the granting authority

                           Skatteverket

                           Skatteverket, 77183 Ludvika

               Other information

               —

         The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:
   http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm

               Date of adoption of the decision

               24.06.2014

               Aid number

               SA.38421 (2014/NN)

               Member State

               Sweden

               Region

               —

               —

               Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

               Sveriges energibeskattning vad gäller biodrivmedel till blandning — förlängning

               Legal basis

               7 kap. 3 a — 3 d § § lagen (1994:1776) om skatt på energi (Chapter 7, paragraphs 3 a — 3 d of Act (1994:1776) on Excise Duties on Energy)

               Type of measure

               Scheme

               —

               Objective

               Environmental protection

               Form of aid

               Tax rate reduction

               Budget

               Overall budget: SEK 5  970 (in millions)

               Intensity

               0 %

               Duration (period)

               01.05.2014 — 31.12.2015

               Economic sectors

               Manufacture of refined petroleum products

               Name and address of the granting authority

                           Skatteverket

                           Skatteverket, 77183 Ludvika

               Other information

               —

         The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:
   http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm


title: Case C-436/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 23 October 2006 — Per Gronfeldt, Tatiana Gronfeldt v Finanzamt Hamburg-Am Tierpark

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/33

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 23 October 2006 — Per Gronfeldt, Tatiana Gronfeldt v Finanzamt Hamburg-Am Tierpark
   (Case C-436/06)
   (2006/C 326/70)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Finanzgericht Hamburg
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Per Gronfeldt, Tatiana Gronfeldt

      Defendant: Finanzamt Hamburg-Am Tierpark
   Question referred
   Is it compatible with Article 56 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (EC), on the free movement of capital, that the profits from a sale of shares in a foreign limited company in 2001 were subject to tax if the seller held, either directly or indirectly, a share of at least 1 % of the company's capital within the previous five years, whereas the profits from the sale of shares in a (national) limited company subject to unlimited corporation tax in 2001 were, in otherwise comparable circumstances, subject to tax only in the case of a substantial shareholding of at least 10 %?


title: Case C-26/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 21 January 2013 — Kásler Árpád, Káslerné Rábai Hajnalka v OTP Jelzálogbank Zrt.

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/18

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 21 January 2013 — Kásler Árpád, Káslerné Rábai Hajnalka v OTP Jelzálogbank Zrt.
   (Case C-26/13)
   2013/C 156/28
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Kúria

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Kásler Árpád, Káslerné Rábai Hajnalka

      Defendant: OTP Jelzálogbank Zrt.

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 4(2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (‘the Directive’) be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of a debt in respect of a loan which is denominated in a foreign currency but, in reality, is advanced in the national currency, and which is repayable by the consumer solely in national currency, the contractual clause concerning the rate of exchange of the currency, which was not individually negotiated, may form part of the ‘definition of the main subject matter of the contract’?
               If that is not the case, on the basis of the second indent of Article 4(2) of the Directive, must it be considered that the difference between the buying rate of exchange and the selling rate of exchange constitutes remuneration whose equivalence with the service provided cannot be analysed from the viewpoint of unfairness? In this regard, does the question whether there has in fact been a foreign exchange operation between the financial entity and the consumer have any impact?

               2.

               If it were necessary to interpret Article 4(2) of the Directive as meaning that the national court is also entitled to examine, regardless of the provisions of its national law, the unfairness of the contractual clauses referred to in that article, provided that such clauses are not drafted in a clear and intelligible manner, must it be considered, in the light of the latter requirement, that the contractual clauses must in themselves appear to be clear and intelligible to the consumer from the grammatical point of view or, in addition, must the economic reasons for using the contractual clause and its relationship with the other contractual clauses also be clear and intelligible?

               3.

               Must Article 6(1) of the Directive and paragraph 73 of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-618/10 Banco Español de Crédito be interpreted as meaning that the national court is not entitled to eliminate, for the benefit of the consumer, [the causes] of ineffectiveness of an unfair clause included in the general conditions of a loan contract concluded with a consumer, amending the contractual clause in question and completing the contract, not even where, otherwise, if such a clause is eliminated, the contract cannot be performed on the basis of the remaining contractual clauses? In that regard, is it relevant that national law contains a provision which, in the event of omission of the ineffective clause, governs [in its place] the legal question at issue?

      (1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).


title: Case T-421/11: Action brought on 6 August 2011 — Qualitest FZE v Council

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/44

         Action brought on 6 August 2011 — Qualitest FZE v Council
   (Case T-421/11)
   2011/C 282/81
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Qualitest FZE (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: M. Catrain González, lawyer, E. Wright and H. Zhu, Barristers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 503/2011 of 23 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 136, p. 26) and Council Decision 2011/299/CFSP of 23 May 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 136, p. 65), so far as they apply to the applicant; and

               —

               Order the defendant 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 that the defendant has breached the obligation imposed upon it by Article 296 TFEU to state the reasons for including the applicant in the contested measures.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that by failing to include any statement of reasons in the contested measures, the defendant has infringed the applicant’s right of defence, as:

                           —

                           The absence of any justification prevents the applicant to effectively make known his view on the information or material against it; and

                           —

                           These failures constitute a fundamental breach of the defendant’s obligations in relation to the contested measures and render such invalid in so far as they apply to the applicant.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment in concluding that the applicant was involved in the procurement of components for Iranian nuclear programme and that the legal conditions for its inclusion have been fulfilled.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 November 2002 in Case C-356/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Toscana): Antonio Testa, Lido Lazzeri v Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob) (Directive 93/22/EEC — Investment services in the securities field — Managing portfolios of investments)

text:
11.1.2003               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                                  C 7/3
of the limitation periods laid down in Article 3(1) of Council              Point 3 of Section A of the Annex to Council Directive 93/22/EEC
Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on                  of 10 May 1993 on investment services in the securities field, which
the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests, to         defines managing portfolios of investments, precludes national
reduce the area actually determined in order to calculate the aid           legislation which departs from that definition by not requiring, for
payable in respect of the previous years.                                   the purposes of the implementation of that directive, that the
                                                                            management of portfolios of investments should be ‘on a discriminat-
                                                                            ory, client-by-client basis’ and ‘in accordance with mandates given by
In accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 9(2) of Regulation
                                                                            investors’. However, there is nothing to prevent a Member State from
No 3887/92, the reductions referred to in the first and second              extending by national legislation the applicability of the provisions of
paragraphs of that article are not to be applied if the farmer shows
                                                                            that directive to operations not covered by it, provided that it is made
that his determination of the area was accurately based on information
                                                                            clear that the national legislation in question does not constitute the
recognised by the competent authority. It is for the national court to      transposition of the directive, but arises from the independent will of
establish whether or not that has been shown in the case in the main
                                                                            the legislature.
proceedings.
( 1) OJ C 285 of 7.10.2000.                                                 (1 ) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                       of 21 November 2002
in Case C-356/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                                          of 21 November 2002
the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Toscana):
Antonio Testa, Lido Lazzeri v Commissione Nazionale
              per le Società e la Borsa (Consob) ( 1)                       in Case C-436/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                                the Regeringsrätten): X, Y v Riksskatteverket (1)
(Directive 93/22/EEC — Investment services in the securities
          field — Managing portfolios of investments)                       (Freedom of establishment — Free movement of capital —
                                                                            Income tax — Tax advantages for the transfer at undervalue
                                                                            of shares to companies in which the transferor has a holding)
                            (2003/C 7/04)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                                                      (2003/C 7/05)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                          (Language of the case: Swedish)
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-356/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Toscana
(Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Antonio Testa, Lido Lazzeri and
Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob),                   In Case C-436/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
intervener: Banca Fideuram SpA, on the interpretation of                    EC by the Regeringsrätten (Sweden) for a preliminary ruling in
Point 3 of Section A of the Annex to Council Directive 93/22/               the proceedings pending before that court between X, Y and
EEC of 10 May 1993 on investment services in the securities                 Riksskatteverket, on the interpretation of Articles 43 EC, 46
field (OJ 1993 L 141, p. 27), the Court (Fifth Chamber),                    EC, 48 EC, 56 EC and 58 EC, the Court (Fifth Chamber),
composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber,                         composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber,
C.W.A. Timmermans, A. La Pergola, P. Jann and S. von                        C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann
Bahr (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General;                 and A. Rosas, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; H. von
L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given           Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 No-
a judgment on 21 November 2002, in which it has ruled:                      vember 2002, in which it has ruled:


title: Case C-246/14: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte dei Conti, Sezione Giurisdizionale per la Regione Puglia — Italy) — Vittoria De Bellis, Diana Perrone, Cesaria Antonia Villani v Istituto Nazionale di Previdenza per i Dipendenti dell’Amministrazione Pubblica (INPDAP) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations — National legislation providing, with retroactive effect, for a reduction in pension entitlements — Purely internal situation — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

text:
               19.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/13

      Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte dei Conti, Sezione Giurisdizionale per la Regione Puglia — Italy) — Vittoria De Bellis, Diana Perrone, Cesaria Antonia Villani v Istituto Nazionale di Previdenza per i Dipendenti dell’Amministrazione Pubblica (INPDAP)
      (Case C-246/14) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations - National legislation providing, with retroactive effect, for a reduction in pension entitlements - Purely internal situation - Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)
      (2015/C 016/19)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Corte dei Conti, Sezione Giurisdizionale per la Regione Puglia

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Vittoria De Bellis, Diana Perrone, Cesaria Antonia Villani

         Defendant: Istituto Nazionale di Previdenza per i Dipendenti dell’Amministrazione Pubblica (INPDAP)

         Operative part of the order

      The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction to reply to the questions referred by the Corte dei conti, sezione giurisdizionale per la Regione Puglia (Italy), by decision of 28 April 2014 (Case C-246/14).

         (1)  OJ C 245, 28.7.2014.


title: Case T-209/14: Action brought on 31 March 2014  — Bopp v OHIM (Representation of an octagonal green frame)

text:
               19.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/34

         Action brought on 31 March 2014 — Bopp v OHIM (Representation of an octagonal green frame)
   (Case T-209/14)
   2014/C 151/44
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Carsten Bopp (Glashütten, Germany) (represented by C. Russ, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 January 2014 in Case R 1276/2013-1

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark representing an octagonal green frame for services in Class 35 — application No 8 248 965

      Decision of the Examiner: the application was rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

      Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of Article 65(6) of Regulation No 207/2009

               —

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


title: Case T-575/12: Action brought on 28 December 2012 — Pyrox v OHIM — Köb Holzheizsysteme (PYROX)

text:
               23.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/23

         Action brought on 28 December 2012 — Pyrox v OHIM — Köb Holzheizsysteme (PYROX)
   (Case T-575/12)
   2013/C 55/41
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Pyrox GmbH (Oberhausen, Germany) (represented by: T. Eigen, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Köb Holzheizsysteme GmbH (Wolfurt/Vorarlberg, Austria)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 4 October 2012 in joined Cases R 2187/2011-1 and R 2507/2011-1;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs including those incurred in the proceedings before OHIM.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark which includes the word element ‘PYROX’, for goods in Classes 4, 7 and 11 — Community trade mark application No 8 612 781

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Köb Holzheizsysteme GmbH

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the national word mark ‘PYROT’ for goods in Class 11

      Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the contested decision was annulled in part and the application was rejected in its entirety

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


title: Case C-295/10: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Republic of Lithuania) — Genovaitė Valčiukienė, Julija Pekelienė, Lietuvos žaliųjų judėjimas, Petras Girinskis, Laurynas Arimantas Lašas v Pakruojo rajono savivaldybė, Šiaulių visuomenės sveikatos centras, Šiaulių regiono aplinkos apsaugos departamentas (Directive 2001/42/EC — Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment — Plans which determine the use of small areas at local level — Article 3(3) — Documents relating to land planning at local level relating to only one subject of economic activity — Assessment under Directive 2001/42/EC precluded in national law — Member States’ discretion — Article 3(5) — Link with Directive 85/337/EEC — Article 11(1) and (2) of Directive 2001/42/EC)

text:
               12.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/5

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Republic of Lithuania) — Genovaitė Valčiukienė, Julija Pekelienė, Lietuvos žaliųjų judėjimas, Petras Girinskis, Laurynas Arimantas Lašas v Pakruojo rajono savivaldybė, Šiaulių visuomenės sveikatos centras, Šiaulių regiono aplinkos apsaugos departamentas
   (Case C-295/10) (1)

   (Directive 2001/42/EC - Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment - Plans which determine the use of small areas at local level - Article 3(3) - Documents relating to land planning at local level relating to only one subject of economic activity - Assessment under Directive 2001/42/EC precluded in national law - Member States’ discretion - Article 3(5) - Link with Directive 85/337/EEC - Article 11(1) and (2) of Directive 2001/42/EC)
   2011/C 331/07
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Referring court

   Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Genovaitė Valčiukienė, Julija Pekelienė, Lietuvos žaliųjų judėjimas, Petras Girinskis, Laurynas Arimantas Lašas

      Defendants: Pakruojo rajono savivaldybė, Šiaulių visuomenės sveikatos centras, Šiaulių regiono aplinkos apsaugos departamentas

      Intervener: Sofita UAB, Oltas UAB, Šiaulių apskrities viršininko administracija, Rimvydas Gasparavičius, Rimantas Pašakinskas

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Interpretation of Articles 3 and 11 of Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (OJ 2001 L 197, p. 30) and of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40) — Whether or not it is necessary to carry out an assessment under Directive 2001/42/EC after an assessment has been carried out under Directive 85/337/EEC — National legislation which provides that it is not necessary to carry out a strategic environmental impact assessment of documents relating to land planning at local level if those documents relate to only one subject of economic activity

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 3(5) of Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, in conjunction with Article 3(3) thereof, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that in question in the main proceedings, which provides, in fairly general terms and without assessment of each case, that assessment under that directive is not to be carried out where mention is made, in the land planning documents applied to small areas of land at local level, of only one subject of economic activity.

               2.

               Article 11(1) and (2) of Directive 2001/42 must be interpreted as meaning that an environmental assessment carried out under Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997, does not dispense with the obligation to carry out such an assessment under Directive 2001/42. However, it is for the referring court to assess whether an assessment which has been carried out pursuant to Directive 85/337, as amended, may be considered to be the result of a coordinated or joint procedure and whether it already complies with all the requirements of Directive 2001/42. If that were to be the case, there would then no longer be an obligation to carry out a new assessment pursuant to Directive 2001/42.

               3.

               Article 11(2) of Directive 2001/42 must be interpreted as not placing Member States under an obligation to provide, in national law, for joint or coordinated procedures in accordance with the requirements of Directive 2001/42 and Directive 85/337, as amended.

      (1)  OJ C 221, 14.8.2010.


title: Case T-869/16: Action brought on 7 December 2016 — Wenger v. EUIPO — Swissgear (SWISSGEAR)

text:
               6.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/50

         Action brought on 7 December 2016 — Wenger v. EUIPO — Swissgear (SWISSGEAR)
   (Case T-869/16)
   (2017/C 038/65)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Wenger SA (Delémont, Switzerland) (represented by: K. Ikas and A. Sulovsky, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Swissgear Sàrl (Baar, Switzerland)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘SWISSGEAR’– EU trade mark No 7 197 783

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 September 2016 in Case R 2098/2015-5

      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 7(1)(b) and (c) EUTMR.