title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 November 2003 in Case T-13/02: Falk-Ulrich von Hoff v European Parliament (Officials — Temporary staff — Installation allowance — Change in place of employment — Default interest)

text:
C 35/8                   EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                              7.2.2004
      —     the Commission shall pay Mr Chemin the sum of                    (Luxembourg), represented by G. Bounéou and F. Frabetti,
            EUR 29 592 (twenty-nine thousand five hundred and                lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
            ninety-two) as compensation for the material damage and          Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall
            the sum of EUR 1 (one) as compensation for the non-              and C. Berardis-Kayser) — application for the annulment of
            material damage suffered;                                        the decision adopting the definitive staff report of the applicant
                                                                             for the period running from 1 July 1995 to 30 June 1997 —
      —     the Commission shall pay Miss Copes the sum of EUR 1             the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of
            (one) as compensation for the non-material damage                V. Tiili, President, P. Mengozzi and M. Vilaras, Judges; I. Natsin-
            suffered;                                                        as, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on
                                                                             5 November 2003, in which it:
      —     the Commission shall pay Mr Mondini the sum of
            EUR 5 000 (five thousand) as compensation for the
            material damage and the sum of EUR 1 (one) as                    1.    Dismisses the application.
            compensation for the non-material damage suffered;
      —     the Commission shall pay Miss Preissler the sum of               2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
            EUR 11 929 (eleven thousand nine hundred and twenty-
            nine) as compensation for the material damage and the
            sum of EUR 1 (one) as compensation for the non-                  (1) OJ C 84 of 6.4.02
            material damage suffered;
      —     the Commission shall pay Mrs Bertolo the sum of EUR 1
            (one) as compensation for the non-material damage
            suffered;
      —     the Commission shall pay Mr Brovelli the sum of EUR 1
            (one) as compensation for the non-material damage
            suffered;                                                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      —     the Commission shall pay Mrs D’Elia the sum of EUR 1
            (one) as compensation for the non-material damage                                      of 18 November 2003
            suffered.
4)    The remainder of the action in Case T-115/01 is dismissed.             in Case T-13/02: Falk-Ulrich von Hoff v European Parlia-
                                                                                ment (1)
5)    The Commission shall bear its own costs and pay the costs
      incurred by the applicants in Case T-331/00.
                                                                             (Officials — Temporary staff — Installation allowance —
6)    The Commission shall bear its own costs and pay three-quarters              Change in place of employment — Default interest)
      of the costs incurred by the applicants in Case T-115/01.
7)    The applicants in Case T-115/01 shall bear a quarter of their                                     (2004/C 35/12)
      own costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(1) OJ C 372 of 23.12.00 and OJ C 227 of 11.8.01.
                                                                             In Case T-13/02: Falk-Ulrich von Hoff, a member of the
                                                                             temporary staff of the European Parliament, residing in Berlin-
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  Wittenau (Germany), represented by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer,
                                                                             against European Parliament (Agents: J. de Wachter and
                        of 5 November 2003                                   U. Rösslein) — application for, first, annulment of the decision
                                                                             of the European Parliament of 17 April 2001, refusing to grant
in Case T-326/01: Giorgio Lebedef v Commission of the                        the applicant an installation allowance in connection with the
                    European Communities (1)                                 change in his place of employment and, second, an order that
                                                                             the European Parliament pay to the applicant an installation
(Officials — Staff report — Exercise of activities as staff                  allowance amounting to two months’ basic salary, together
representative and union activities — Action for annulment)                  with interest at 8 % from the date of the application — the
                                                                             Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. García-
                           (2004/C 35/11)                                    Valdecasas, President, J.D. Cooke and P. Lindh, Judges; I. Natsi-
                                                                             nas, administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on
                     (Language of the case: French)                          18 November 2003, in which it:
In Case T-326/01: Giorgio Lebedef, official of the Commission                1.    Annuls the decision of the Parliament of 17 April 2001
of the European Communities, residing in Senningerberg                             refusing to grant the applicant an installation allowance;
 ---pagebreak--- 7.2.2004                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 35/9
2.    Orders the Parliament to pay the applicant the installation          1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
      allowance provided for by Article 5 of Annex VII of the Staff
      Regulations, amounting to two months’ basic salary, together         2.    The applicant shall pay the costs.
      with default interest from 24 January 2002. The interest rate
      to be applied shall be two points higher than the rate fixed by
      the European Central Bank for principal refinancing operations
                                                                           (1) OJ C 169, 13.7.2002.
      applicable during the period concerned.
3.    Orders the Parliament to bear all the costs.
(1) OJ C 97 of 20.4.2002.
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 17 November 2003
                                                                           in Case T-235/02: Strongline A/S v Office for Harmonis-
                                                                           ation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                                (OHIM) (1)
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                           (Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Failure
                                                                           to produce evidence in the language of the opposition
                       of 5 November 2003                                  procedure — Rule 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 —
                                                                                Action manifestly inadmissible)
in Case T-130/02: Kronoply GmbH & Co. KG v Com-
          mission of the European Communities (1)                                                    (2004/C 35/14)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
(State aid — Multisectorial framework on regional aid for
large investment projects — Application for correction of a
decision declaring aid to be compatible with the common
market — Commission response — Not in the nature of a
   decision — Application for annulment — Inadmissible)                    In Case T-235/02: Strongline A/S, established in Glostrup
                                                                           (Denmark), represented by J.S. Ørndrup, lawyer, against Office
                                                                           for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                           (2004/C 35/13)                                  Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: O. Waelbroek), the intervener before
                                                                           the Court of First Instance being Scala Inc., established in
                                                                           Exton, Pennsylvania (United States of America), represented by
                                                                           R.M. Hiddleston, solicitor — action brought against the
                   (Language of the case: German)                          decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for
                                                                           Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                                                                           Designs) of 27 May 2002 (Case R 830/2001-1) on the refusal
                                                                           of an opposition for failure to substantiate rights based on
                                                                           earlier trade marks — the Court of First Instance (Second
In Case T-130/02: Kronoply GmbH & Co. KG, whose registered                 Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, A.W.H. Meij and
office is in Heiligengrabe, Germany, originally represented by             N.J. Forwood, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on
B. Luther and subsequently by R. Nierer, lawyers, against the              17 November 2003, the operative part of which is as follows:
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: V. Di
Bucci and T. Scharf) — application for annulment of the
alleged decision of the Commission of 5 February 2002 not to               1.    The action is dismissed.
correct its decision of 3 July 2001 relating to the authorisation
of State aid in the sum of DEM 69,3 million to the applicant               2.    The applicant shall pay the costs.
for an investment in Heiligengrabe, Germany — the Court
of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition),
composed, at the time of its deliberation, of V. Tiili, President,         (1) OJ C 233 of 28.9.02.
and J. Pirrung, P. Mengozzi, A.W.H. Meij and M. Vilaras,
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 5 November
2003, the operative part of which is as follows:


title: Case T-541/08: Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2014  — Sasol and Others v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Paraffin waxes market — Slack wax market — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Price fixing and market sharing — Liability of a parent company for the infringements of the competition rules committed by its subsidiaries and by a joint venture owned in part by it — Decisive influence exercised by the parent company — Presumption where the parent company holds 100 % of the shares — Succession of undertakings — Proportionality — Equal treatment — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Aggravating circumstances — Role of leader — Setting a limit on the fine — Unlimited jurisdiction)

text:
               1.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 292/24

         Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2014 — Sasol and Others v Commission
   (Case T-541/08) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Paraffin waxes market - Slack wax market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price fixing and market sharing - Liability of a parent company for the infringements of the competition rules committed by its subsidiaries and by a joint venture owned in part by it - Decisive influence exercised by the parent company - Presumption where the parent company holds 100 % of the shares - Succession of undertakings - Proportionality - Equal treatment - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Aggravating circumstances - Role of leader - Setting a limit on the fine - Unlimited jurisdiction))
   2014/C 292/29
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Sasol (Rosebank, South Africa); Sasol Holding in Germany GmbH (Hamburg, Germany); Sasol Wax International AG (Hamburg); and Sasol Wax GmbH (Hamburg) (represented by: W. Bosch, U. Denzel, C. von Köckritz, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and R. Sauer, Agents, and by M. Gray, Barrister)

      Re:

   Application, primarily, for annulment in part of the Commission’s decision C(2008) 5476 final of 1 October 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.181 — Candle waxes) and, in the alternative, for annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2008) 5476 final of 1 October 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.181 — Candle Waxes) in so far as the European Commission found therein that Sasol Holding in Germany GmbH and Sasol had participated in the infringement before 1 July 2002;

               2.

               Reduces the amount of the fine imposed on Sasol Wax GmbH to the sum of EUR 14 9 9 82  197 for the payment of which, first, Sasol Wax International AG shall be jointly and severally liable to the extent of EUR 11 9 1 22  197 and, secondly, Sasol and Sasol Holding in Germany shall be jointly and severally liable to the extent of EUR 7 1 0 42  197;

               3.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               4.

               Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay two thirds of the costs incurred by Sasol, Sasol Holding in Germany, Sasol Wax International and Sasol Wax;

               5.

               Orders Sasol, Sasol Holding in Germany, Sasol Wax International and Sasol Wax to bear one third of their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.


title: Case F-92/07: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 11 December 2008 — Evraets v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Promotion — 2006 promotion procedure — Ability to work in a third language)

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/72

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 11 December 2008 — Evraets v Commission
   (Case F-92/07) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Promotion - 2006 promotion procedure - Ability to work in a third language)
   (2009/C 44/125)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Pascal Evraets (Lambusart, Belgium) (represented by: N. Lhoëst, initially, and N. Lhoëst and S. Fernández Menéndez, subsequently, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Berscheid, Agents)

      Intervener: Council of the European Union (represented by: I. Šulce and M. Simm, Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of the decision not to promote the applicants to grade AST 4, for failure to demonstrate the ability to work in a third language, for the 2006 promotion procedure.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decisions not to promote Mr Evraets for the 2006 promotion procedure;

               2.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the applicant;

               3.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 283, 24.11.2007, p. 44.


title: Case T-90/14: Judgment of the General Court of 8 October 2015 — Secolux v Commission (Public service contracts — Tendering procedure — Safety checks — Rejection of a tenderer’s bid — Award of the contract to another tenderer — Non-contractual liability)

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/43

         Judgment of the General Court of 8 October 2015 — Secolux v Commission
   (Case T-90/14) (1)

   ((Public service contracts - Tendering procedure - Safety checks - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid - Award of the contract to another tenderer - Non-contractual liability))
   (2015/C 398/54)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Secolux, Association pour le contrôle de la sécurité de la construction (Capellen, Luxembourg) (represented by: N. Prüm-Carré and E. Billot, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Delaude and S. Lejeune, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   First, application for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 3 December 2013 rejecting the tenders submitted by the applicant in the context of a call for tenders concerning the provision of safety checks services and, secondly, a claim for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered as a result of that decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Secolux, Association pour le contrôle de la sécurité de la construction, to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.


title: Case C-476/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Efetio Athinon (Greece) lodged on 21 November 2006 — K.P. Marinopoulos — Anonimos Etairia Emporias kai Dianomis Farmakeftikon Proionton v GlaxoSmithKline Anonimi Emporiki Viomikhaniki Etairia Farmakeftikon Proionton

text:
               27.1.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 20/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Efetio Athinon (Greece) lodged on 21 November 2006 — K.P. Marinopoulos — Anonimos Etairia Emporias kai Dianomis Farmakeftikon Proionton v GlaxoSmithKline Anonimi Emporiki Viomikhaniki Etairia Farmakeftikon Proionton
   (Case C-476/06)
   (2007/C 20/11)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Referring court
   Efetio Athinon
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Claimant: K.P. Marinopoulos — Anonimos Etairia Emporias kai Dianomis Farmakeftikon Proionton

      Defendant: GlaxoSmithKline Anonimi Emporiki Viomikhaniki Etairia Farmakeftikon Proionton
   Questions referred:

               1.

               Where the refusal of an undertaking holding a dominant position to meet fully the orders sent to it by pharmaceutical wholesalers is due to its intention to limit their export activity and, thereby, the harm caused to it by parallel trade, does the refusal constitute per se an abuse within the meaning of Article 82 EC? Is the answer to that question affected by the fact that the parallel trade is particularly profitable for the wholesalers because of the different prices, resulting from State intervention, in the Member States of the European Union, that is to say by the fact that pure conditions of competition do not prevail in the pharmaceuticals market, but a regime which is governed to a large extent by State intervention? Is it ultimately correct for a national court to apply Community competition rules in the same way to markets which function competitively and those in which competition is distorted by State intervention?

               2.

               If the Court holds that limitation of parallel trade, for the reasons set out above, does not constitute an abusive practice in every case where it is engaged in by an undertaking holding a dominant position, how is possible abuse to be assessed? In particular:

               2.1

               Do the percentage by which normal domestic consumption is exceeded and/or the loss suffered by an undertaking holding a dominant position compared with its total turnover and total profits constitute appropriate criteria? If so, how are the level of that percentage and the level of that loss determined (the latter as a percentage of turnover and total profits), above which the conduct in question may be abusive?

               2.2

               Is an approach entailing the balancing of interests appropriate, and, if so, what are the interests to be compared? In particular:

                           (a)

                           is the answer affected by the fact that the ultimate consumer/patient derives limited financial advantage from the parallel trade and

                           (b)

                           is account to be taken, and to what extent, of the interests of social insurance bodies in cheaper medicinal products?

               2.3

               What other criteria and approaches are considered appropriate in the present case?


title: Case C-244/04: Action brought on 8 June 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/20

         Action brought on 8 June 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-244/04)
   (2004/C 228/40)
   An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 June 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Gerald Braun and Enrico Traversa of its Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1)

               declare the Federal Republic of Germany in breach of its obligations under Article 49 EC in that by its practice based on administrative circulars, it has consistently and disproportionately restricted the posting of non-member-country workers to Germany for the provision of services;

               2)

               order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   Workers who are nationals of a non-Member State and are to be posted to Germany in order to provide a service require a ‘work visa’, which is only issued if the worker was employed by the undertaking making the posting for a minimum of one year prior to the posting.
   In the view of the Commission, both (1) the practice based on an internal administrative instruction, of requiring a work permit in advance and (2) the issuing of such a permit only ‘Stammarbeitnehmer’ (regular/core workers) constitute an unjustified and disproportionate restriction on the freedom to provide services.


title: Case C-229/05 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 January 2007 — Osman Ocalan, on behalf of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), Serif Vanly, on behalf of the Kurdistan National Congress (KNK) v Council of the European Union, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism — Action for annulment — Admissibility)

text:
               10.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/5

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 January 2007 — Osman Ocalan, on behalf of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), Serif Vanly, on behalf of the Kurdistan National Congress (KNK) v Council of the European Union, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-229/05 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism - Action for annulment - Admissibility)
   (2007/C 56/08)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellants: Osman Ocalan, on behalf of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), Serif Vanly, on behalf of the Kurdistan National Congress (KNK) (represented by: M. Muller QC, E. Grieves and P. Moser, Barristers, J.G. Peirce, Solicitor)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: E. Finnegan and M. Bishop, acting as Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: R. Caudwell, acting as Agent), Commission of the European Communities
   Re:
   Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 15 February 2005 in Case T-229/02 PKK and KNK v Council, by which the Court of First Instance dismissed as inadmissible the action seeking annulment of Council Decision 2002/334/EC of 2 May 2002 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism (OJ 2002 L 116, p. 33) — Capacity and standing to bring proceedings
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the order of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 15 February 2005 in Case T-229/02 PKK and KNK v Council in so far as it dismisses the application of Osman Ocalan on behalf of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK);

               2.

               Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders Serif Vanly on behalf of the Kurdistan National Congress (KNK) to pay the costs of the appeal brought by him;

               4.

               Dismisses the application of Osman Ocalan on behalf of the PKK as inadmissible in so far as it challenges Council Decision 2002/334/EC of 2 May 2002 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2001/927/EC;

               5.

               Declares that the application of Osman Ocalan on behalf of the PKK is admissible in so far as it challenges Council Decision 2002/460/EC of 17 June 2002 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2002/334/EC, and refers the case back to the Court of First Instance of the European Communities for judgment on the substance;

               6.

               Reserves the costs of Osman Ocalan on behalf of the PKK.

      (1)  OJ C 86, 8.4.2006.


title: Action brought on 9 January 1995 by Christian Vahrenkamp against Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Case T-1/95)

text:
4. 3. 95            I EN 1                Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 54/17
v. Commission of the European Communities (Agent: Ana                3 . orders the Court of Justice to pay all the costs.
Maria Alves Vieira ) — application for the annulment of the
Commission's decision of 30 September 1993 imposing on               (M OJ 1994 C 76, 12 . 3 . 1994 .
the applicant the disciplinary measure referred to in Article
86 (2 ) ( f) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the
European Communities, namely, removal from post
without    withdrawal      or   reduction  of entitlement   to
retirement pension — the Court of First Instance ( Fourth            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Chamber ), composed of K. Lenaerts, President, and R.
Schintgen and R. García-Valdecasas, Judges; H. Jung,                                       of 11 January 1995
Registrar, has given a judgment on 26 January 1995, in               in Case T-l 16/94 Cassa Nazionale di Previdenza ed
which it:                                                            Assistenza a favore degli Avvocati e Procuratori v. Council
                                                                                of the European Union (*)
1 . dismisses the application;                                       (Action for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 3604/93
                                                                     specifying definitions for the application of the prohibition
2. orders the parties to bear their own costs, including             of privileged access referred to in Article 104a of the EC
     those relating to the proceedings for interim                                     Treaty — Inadmissibility)
     measures .                                                                                ( 95/C 54/32 )
(!) OJ No C 325, 2 . 12 . 1993 .                                                     (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                     In Case T- 116/94 : Cassa Nazionale di Previdenza ed
                                                                     Assistenza a favore degli Avvocati e Procuratori,
                                                                     represented by Edilberto Ricciardi, of the Salerno Bar, and
                                                                     by Pietro Adonnino, Mario Sanino, Maurizio de Stefano
                                                                     and Alberto Colabianchi, all of the Rome Bar, with an
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of M.
                      of 26 January 1995                             Goebel, 6 Rue Heine, against the Council of the European
in Case T-60/94: Myriam Pierrat v. Court of Justice of the           Union (Agents: R. Bandilla and A. Lucidi ) — application for
                  European Communities ( J )                         annulment of Council Regulation ( EC ) No 3604/93 of
(Members ofthe temporary staff— Recruitment ofreaders                13 December 1993 specifying definitions for the application
of judgments — Selection procedure — Rejection of an                 of the prohibition of privileged access referred to in
            application — Duty to state reasons)
                                                                     Article 104a of the Treaty (2), the Court of First Instance
                                                                     (Third Chamber), composed of: J. Biancarelli (President),
                          ( 95/C 54/31                               C.P. Briët and C.W. Bellamy, Judges, H. Jung, Registrar,
                                                                     made an order on 11 January 1995, the operative part of
                (Language of the case: French)                       which is as follows :
                                                                     1 . the action is dismissed as inadmissible.
In Case T-60/94: Myriam Pierrat, a former member of the
temporary staff of the Court of Justice of the European              2. there is no need to rule on the applications to
Communities, residing in Luxembourg, represented by                       intervene.
Georges Vandersanden, of the Brussels Bar, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the office of Fiduciaire Myson          3 . the applicant shall bear its own costs and those incurred
S.à r.l., 1 Rue Glesener, against Court of Justice of the                 by the Council. Each ofthe interveners shall bear its own
European Communities (Agents : T. Millett and A. May) —                   costs.
application for the annulment of the decisions of the Court
to appoint Mrs B. as reader of judgments and to reject the           (M OJ No C 132, 14. 5 . 1994 .
applicant's application for the post of reader of judgments,         (2 ) OJ No L 332, 31 . 12 . 1993 , p . 4 .
and for the award to the applicant of one symbolic ecu as
compensation for the non-material damage which she
claims to have suffered — the Court of First Instance (First
Chamber ), composed of: J.L. Cruz Vilaça, President, H.
Kirschner and A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges; H. Jung,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 26 January 1995, in               Action brought on 9 January 1995 by Christian
which it:                                                            Vahrenkamp against Council of the European Union and
                                                                              Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-l/95 )
1 . annuls the decision of the President of the Court of
    Justice of 27 May 1993 to appoint Mrs B. as reader of                                         95/C 54/33 )
    judgments and the decision, notified to the applicant by
    letter of 8 June 1 993, to reject her application for the                      (Language of the case: German)
    post of reader of judgments;
                                                                     An action against the Council of the European Union and
2. dismisses the remainder of the application;                       the Commission of the European Communities was brought
 ---pagebreak--- No C 54/18             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   4 . 3 . 95
before the Court of First Instance of the European                   — infringement of Articles 4 (4 ) and 2 ( 12 ) of the basic
Communities on 9 January 1995 by Christian Vahrenkamp,                   regulation and manifest error of assesment, in that the
Eggebek ( Federal Republic of Germany ), represented by Dr               Commission found that the product imported from
Lukanow, Rechtsanwalt, Euskirchen, with an address for                   China and Russia and the product manufactured in the
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Dupong &                        Community were alike,
Associés, 14a Rue des Bains.
                                                                     — infringement of Article 4 of the basic regulation and
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              manifest error of assessment, in that the Council found
                                                                         that the Community industry had suffered material
order the defendants to pay compensation to the applicant                injury,
for the period of five milk years from 1 April 1988 in the
amount of DM 30 705 plus 8 % interest with effect from               — infringement of Article 12 of the basic regulation and
2 November 1983 .                                                        manifest error of assessment, in that the Council
                                                                         concluded that the Community interest called for the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          imposition of definitive measures,
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in          — infringement of Article 190 of the Treaty, in that the
Case T-20/94 .                                                           Council failed to discharge its obligation to provide a
                                                                         statement of reasons with regard to the complaint of
                                                                         abuse of a dominant position lodged by the applicant
                                                                         with DG IV,
                                                                     — misuse of powers, in that the Commission was party to
Action brought on 9 January 1995 by Industrie des Poudres                the use of an anti-dumping procedure for
Sphériques (IPS ) against the Council of the European                    anti-competitive purposes.
                               Union
                          (Case T-2/95 )                             In the alternative, the applicant claims that the regulation
                                                                     should be declared unenforceable against it on the grounds
                           ( 95/C 54/34)                             of manifest error of appreciation, in that the Council
                                                                     imposed anti-dumping duties generally on all imports of
                (Language of the case: French)                       calcium metal originating in the People's Republic of China
                                                                     and Russia .
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 9 January 1995 by Industrie des Poudres
Sphériques (IPS), having its seat at Annemasse (France),
represented by Chantal Momège, of the Paris Bar, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alex            Action brought on 11 January 1995 by Hans-Theo
Schmitt, 62 Avenue Guillaume.                                        Wellmann against Council of the European Union and
                                                                             Commission of the European Communities
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                 (Case T-3/95 )
— primarily, annul Regulation ( EEC) No 2257/94 of                                           ( 95/C 54/35 )
    19 October 1994,
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
— in the alternative, declare it unenforceable against
    IPS,
                                                                     An action against the Council of the European Union and
— order the Council to pay the costs.                                Commission of the European Communities was brought
                                                                     before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                     Communities on 11 January 1995 by Hans-Theo
Pleas in law and main arguments                                      Wellmann, Rees ( Federal Republic of Germany),
                                                                     represented by Bernd Meisterernst, Mechtild Düsing,
The applicant contends in support of its action that the             Dietrich Manstetten, Frank Schulze and Winfried
contested regulation should be annulled for the following            Haneklaus, Rechtsanwälte, Munster, with an address for
reasons :
                                                                     service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Dupong &
                                                                     Associés, 14a Rue des Bains.
— infringement of the basic regulation, Council Regulation
    (EEC) No 2423/88 , and breach of the principle of legal
    certainty, in that, following the annulment of Regulation       The applicant claims that the Court should:
    No 2808/89 by the judgment of 11 June 1992, the
    Commission 'resumed the investigation',                          1 . order the defendants jointly to pay to the applicant
                                                                         SLOM III compensation for the period from 2 April
— infringement of Articles 7 and 8 of the abovementioned                 1984 to 29 July 1993 in the amount of DM 15 238,33
    basic regulation and of the applicant's rights to a fair             together with interest thereon at 8 % from 1 9 May 1992
    hearing,                                                             and jointly to pay the costs of the proceedings;


title: Case C-494/11 P: Order of the Court of 15 June 2012 — Otis Luxembourg Sàrl, formerly General Technic-Otis Sàrl, Otis SA, Otis GmbH & Co. OHG, Otis BV, Otis Elevator Company v European Commission (Appeals — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for the installation and maintenance of elevators and escalators — Fines — Parent company and subsidiaries — Imputability of the unlawful conduct)

text:
               24.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 366/21

         Order of the Court of 15 June 2012 — Otis Luxembourg Sàrl, formerly General Technic-Otis Sàrl, Otis SA, Otis GmbH & Co. OHG, Otis BV, Otis Elevator Company v European Commission
   (Case C-494/11 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for the installation and maintenance of elevators and escalators - Fines - Parent company and subsidiaries - Imputability of the unlawful conduct)
   2012/C 366/36
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Otis Luxembourg Sàrl, formerly General Technic-Otis Sàrl, Otis SA, Otis GmbH & Co. OHG, Otis BV, Otis Elevator (represented by: A. Winckler and D. Gerard, lawyers, and by J. Temple Lang and C. Cook, Solicitors)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet, R. Sauer and J. Bourke, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 July 2011 in Joined Cases T-141/07, T-142/07, T-145/07 and T-146/07 General Technic-Otis and Others v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed an action for the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 512 final of 21 February 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/E 1/38.823 — Elevators and Escalators), concerning a cartel in the market for the installation and maintenance of elevators and escalators in Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, concerning bid-rigging, market-sharing, price-fixing, the awarding of projects and contracts related thereto and exchange of information, and, in the alternative, for the annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant — Liability of a parent company for infringements of the competition rules committed by its subsidiaries

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Otis Luxembourg Sàrl, Otis SA, Otis GmbH & Co. OHG, Otis BV and Otis Elevator Company shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 347, 26.11.2011.


title: Case T-237/14: Action brought on 17 April 2014  — Steinbeis Papier v Commission

text:
               14.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/16

         Action brought on 17 April 2014 — Steinbeis Papier v Commission
   (Case T-237/14)
   2014/C 223/21
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Steinbeis Papier GmbH (Glückstadt, Germany) (represented by: H. Janssen and G. Engel, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission of 18 December 2013 in State aid case SA.33995 (2013/C) — Support for renewable electricity and reduced EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law: Infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU

                           —

                           The applicant claims that the contested decision infringes Article 107(1) TFEU because the EEG-surcharge provided for in the Gesetz für den Vorrang erneuerbarer Energien (Law for the priority of renewable energy sources, hereinafter referred to as EEG) and the special compensation regime did not constitute an allocation of State or State-controlled resources. All the facts relevant to the qualification of those measures were determined in the preliminary proceedings between the Commission and the Federal Republic of Germany. There were no longer any doubts, which the Commission should have found in a proceeding pursuant to Article 108(2) TFEU and Article 4(4) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty. (1)

               2.

               Second plea in law: Infringement of Article 108(1) TFEU and the principle of legal certainty

                           —

                           The applicant submits in that regard that the Commission infringed Article 108(1) TFEU and the principle of legal certainty by applying the procedure for new aid pursuant to Article 4(4) of Regulation No 659/1999 instead of the procedure for existing aid pursuant to Article 17 et seq. of Regulation No 659/1999 in order to review its provisional assessment of the EEG as aid. In that regard, the applicant observes in particular that, by decision of 22 May 2002, the Commission did not classify the 2000 EEG as aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU because there was no transfer of State resources. The changes from the 2000 EEG to the 2012 EEG were not substantial in comparison to the Commission decision of 22 May 2002. The Commission, therefore, could have asserted an amended legal opinion in a proceeding pursuant to Article 108(1) TFEU without impacting on the applicant.

               3.

               Third plea in law: Infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the principle of audi alteram partem

                           —

                           The applicant also claims that the defendant adopted the contested decision without previously giving the applicant the opportunity to provide comments.

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


title: Case T-583/10: Order of the General Court of 26 September 2012 — Deutsche Telekom v OHIM TeliaSonera Denmark (Nuance de magenta)

text:
               17.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/37

         Order of the General Court of 26 September 2012 — Deutsche Telekom v OHIM TeliaSonera Denmark (Nuance de magenta)
   (Case T-583/10) (1)

   2012/C 355/78
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 19.2.2011.


title: Case C-430/15: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom) made on 5 August 2015 — Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Tolley (deceased, acting by her personal representative)

text:
               28.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 320/23

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom) made on 5 August 2015 — Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Tolley (deceased, acting by her personal representative)
   (Case C-430/15)
   (2015/C 320/32)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

      Defendant: Tolley (deceased, acting by her personal representative)

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the care component of the United Kingdom's Disability Living Allowance properly classified as an invalidity rather than a cash sickness benefit for the purpose of Regulation No 1408/71 (1)?

               2.

                           (i)

                           Does a person who ceases to be entitled to UK Disability Living Allowance as a matter of UK domestic law, because she has moved to live in another member state, and who has ceased all occupational activity before such move, but remains insured against old age under the UK social security system, cease to be subject to the legislation of the UK for the purpose of article 13(2)(f) of Regulation No 1408/71?

                           (ii)

                           Does such a person in any event remain subject to the legislation of the UK in the light of Point 19(c) of the United Kingdom's annex VI to the Regulation?

                           (iii)

                           If she has ceased to be subject to the legislation of the UK within the meaning of article 13(2)(f), is the UK obliged or merely permitted by virtue of Point 20 of annex VI to apply the provisions of Chapter 1 of Title III to the Regulation to her?

               3.

                           (i)

                           Does the broad definition of an employed person in Dodl apply for the purposes of articles 19 to 22 of the Regulation, where the person has ceased all occupational activity before moving to another member state, notwithstanding the distinction drawn in Chapter 1 of Title III between, on the one hand, employed and self-employed persons and, on the other hand, unemployed persons?

                           (ii)

                           If it does apply, is such a person entitled to export the benefit by virtue of either article 9 or article 22? Does article 22(1)(b) operate to prevent a claimant's entitlement to the care component of DLA being defeated by a residence requirement imposed by national legislation on a transfer of residence to another member state?

      (1)  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community OJ L 149, p. 2


title: Case T-454/08: Action brought on 6 October 2008 — Grand Hotel Abi d'Oru v Commission

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/59

         Action brought on 6 October 2008 — Grand Hotel Abi d'Oru v Commission
   (Case T-454/08)
   (2008/C 301/98)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Grand Hotel Abi d'Oru SpA (Olbia, Italy) (represented by: D. Dodaro and S. Cianciullo, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Forms of order sought

               —

               Annul the Decision in so far as it:

                           (a)

                           states that ‘[t]he [S]tate aid granted in accordance with Regional Act No 9 of 1998, unlawfully put into effect by Italy in Resolution (deliberazione) No 33/6 and in the first call for applications, is incompatible with the common market unless the recipient of the aid submitted an application for aid under the scheme before starting work on an initial investment project’ (Article 1 of the Decision);

                           (b)

                           orders that ‘[t]he Italian Republic shall recover the incompatible aid granted under the scheme referred to in Article 1 from the recipients’ (Article 2(1) of the Decision);

                           (c)

                           orders that ‘[t]he The Italian Republic shall cancel all outstanding payments of aid under the scheme referred to in Article 1 with effect from the date of adoption of this Decision’ (Article 2(4) of the Decision).

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The contested decision in the present case is the same as that at issue in Case T-394/08 Regione Sardegna v Commission, Case T-408/08 S.F. Turistico Immobiliare v Council and Commission and Case T-436/08 Studio Vacanze v Commission.
   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in those cases.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 2 June 2004 in Case T-123/03 Pfizer Ltd v Commission of the European Communities (Medicinal products for human use — Initiation, under Article 30 of Directive 2001/83/EC, of the procedure under Article 32 of that directive — Application for annulment — Measure against which an action may be brought — Preparatory measure — Inadmissible)

text:
               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/42

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 2 June 2004
   in Case T-123/03 Pfizer Ltd v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Medicinal products for human use - Initiation, under Article 30 of Directive 2001/83/EC, of the procedure under Article 32 of that directive - Application for annulment - Measure against which an action may be brought - Preparatory measure - Inadmissible)
   (2004/C 228/95)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case T-123/03: Pfizer Ltd, established in Sandwich, Kent (United Kingdom), represented by D. Anderson QC, K. Bacon, Barrister, I. Dodds-Smith and T. Fox, Solicitors, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: H. Støvlbaek and X. Lewis, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg ) — application for the annulment of the Commission Decision of 6 January 2003 initiating a referral to the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA) in relation to Lopid under Article 30 of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67) — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: H. Legal, President, V. Tilli and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 2 June 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The application is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               The applicant shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 171 of 19.7.2003.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 September 2001 in Case C-442/99 P: Cordis Obst und Gemüse Grosshandel GmbH (Appeal — Common organisation of the market — Bananas — Imports from ACP States and third countries — Request for import licences — Transitional measures — Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 — Principle of equal treatment)

text:
5.1.2002                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 3/11
      —    that the authorised retailers and wholesalers have not                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
           imposed on their own purchasers contractual reservations
           setting out such opposition, even though they have been
           informed of it by the trade mark proprietor.                                              (Third Chamber)
(1) OJ C 6 of 8.1.2000; OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.
                                                                                of 13 November 2001
                                                                           in Case C-427/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
                                                                                Ireland (1)
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                           (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                   Quality of bathing water — Inadequate compliance with
                                                                                Directive 76/160/EEC)
                      of 27 September 2001
                                                                                (2002/C 3/15)
in Case C-442/99 P: Cordis Obst und Gemüse Grosshandel
                             GmbH (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
(Appeal — Common organisation of the market — Bananas
— Imports from ACP States and third countries — Request
for import licences — Transitional measures — Regulation
      (EEC) No 404/93 — Principle of equal treatment)
                           (2002/C 3/14)                                   In Case C-427/00: Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           (Agent: R.B. Wainwright) v United Kingdom of Great Britain
                                                                           and Northern Ireland (Agent: G. Amodeo, assisted by D. Wyatt)
                   (Language of the case: German)                          — application for a declaration that by failing to ensure that
                                                                           bathing water in the United Kingdom complies with the limit
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     values set in accordance with Article 3 of Council Directive
                   in the European Court Reports)                          76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975 concerning the quality of
                                                                           bathing water (OJ 1976 L 31, p. 1), the United Kingdom has
                                                                           failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive — the Court
                                                                           (Third Chamber), composed of. C. Gulmann, acting for the
In Case C-442/99 P: Cordis Obst und Gemüse Grosshandel                     President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet and J.N. Cunha
GmbH, established in Ostrau (Germany), (Rechtsanwalt:                      Rodrigues (Rapporteur), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,
G. Meier) — appeal against the judgment of the Court of First              Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
Instance of the European Communities (Fifth Chamber) in                    on 13 November 2001, in which it:
Case T-612/97 Cordis v Commission [1999] ECR II-2771,
seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other parties
to the proceedings being: Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: K.-D. Borchardt) and French Republic                   1.    Declares that, since it has not ensured that bathing water
(Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger and C. Vasak) — the Court                           complied with the limit values set in accordance with Article 3
(Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the                       of Council Directive 761160/EEC of 8 December 1975,
Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, N. Colneric and                         concerning the quality of bathing water, the United Kingdom
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate                   of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its
General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar,                   obligations under that Directive.
has given a judgment on 27 September 2001, in which it:
                                                                           2.    Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
1.    Dismisses the appeal;                                                      Ireland to pay the costs.
2.    Orders Cordis Obst und Gemüse Grosshiandel to pay the costs;
3.    Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001.
(1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.


title: Case T-293/06: Action brought on 19 October 2006 — NBC Fourth Realty v OHIM — Regalado Pareja and Pedrol (PK MAX)

text:
               16.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 310/23

         Action brought on 19 October 2006 — NBC Fourth Realty v OHIM — Regalado Pareja and Pedrol (PK MAX)
   (Case T-293/06)
   (2006/C 310/44)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: NBC Fourth Realty Corp. (Las Vegas, USA) (represented by: A. Woodgate, A. Smith, Solicitors)

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

      Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Miguel Isaias Regalado Pareja and Bibiana Pedrol, trading as Rosell (Alicante, Spain)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of the contested decision of the First Board of Appeal, of 5 July 2006, in Case R 397/2005-1;

               —

               order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs of this application and also the costs of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: Miguel Isaias Regalado Pareja and Bibiana Pedrol, trading as Rosell.

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative Community Trademark PK MAX, claiming the colour navy blue for goods and services in classes 3, 25 and 28 in Case R 397/2005-1.

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

      Mark or sign cited: The national word marks T.K. MAXX for goods and services in class 35, the Community word mark T.K. MAX, for goods and services in classes 3, 14, 18, 25, 28 and 35, as well as earlier non-registered national word marks of the same denomination, used in the course of trade in Ireland, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in its entirety.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal upheld and case remitted to the Opposition Division for the remaining grounds of opposition.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94.
   The applicant claims that the Board of Appeal erred in law, by concluding there was no likelihood of confusion between the earlier and the contested mark. In particular, the applicant submits the Board of Appeal incorrectly interpreted the ‘consumer’ of the protected services while it manifestly erred in the assessment of the visual, phonetic and conceptual similarities between the respective trade marks. Moreover, the Board of Appeal allegedly failed to correctly assess the scope of protection enjoyed by the earlier mark, as a result of its reputation and/or inherent distinctiveness. Finally, the applicant submits the Board has incorrectly introduced additional requirements into the provisions of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94.


title: Case T-282/03: Action brought on 8 August 2003 by Paul Ceuninck against Commission of the European Communities

text:
18.10.2003            EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 251/17
In support of her application, she relies inter alia on the              Pleas in law and main arguments
following pleas:
                                                                         The applicant submitted his candidature for a vacant post as
                                                                         counsellor at the European Anti-Fraud Office. The applicant's
—    failure to have regard to the purpose of optional observa-          candidature for the post was rejected.
     tions in so far as the fact that she was being ‘encouraged
     to resume tasks of coordination and distribution of work
     in the Pool’ is in no way a justification of the assessment         In support of his action, the application claims that there has
     of ‘very good’ under the headings concerned;                        been a breach of Article 7(1) of the Staff Regulations, an abuse
                                                                         of power and of procedure, a manifest error of assessment, a
                                                                         breach of essential procedural requirements in drawing up the
                                                                         vacancy notice, a breach of the principle of institutional impar-
—    inconsistency in the marks;
                                                                         tiality and of the principle that an institution must have regard
                                                                         to the welfare of its officials, a breach of Part 1, Point 2 of the
                                                                         Commission's Decision of 21 December 2000, a breach of
—    failure to have regard to the observations of the Reports           the rights of the defence, in particular the right to be heard,
     Committee;                                                          of the principle of equality of arms, of the principle of equality,
                                                                         of the principle that an institution must have regard to the
                                                                         welfare of its officials, of the principle that officials should
—    that she was the victim of harassment at her workplace;             have reasonable career prospects and of the principle that
                                                                         a decision must contain a statement of reasons. Last, the
                                                                         applicant claims that the Director General of OLAF was not
—    that she had amply and undeniably demonstrated a                    competent to make a determination in respect of the
     capacity for mobility and versatility. It would therefore           complaint and to reject it.
     be in keeping with the Staff Regulations for that merit to
     be specifically referred to in the staff report at issue.
                                                                         Action brought on 5 August 2003 by Rosalinda Aycinena
                                                                              against Commission of the European Communities
Action brought on 8 August 2003 by Paul Ceuninck
    against Commission of the European Communities                                                  (Case T-284/03)
                        (Case T-282/03)                                                             (2003/C 251/33)
                        (2003/C 251/32)                                                       (Language of the case: French)
                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
An action against the Commission of the European                         of the European Communities on 5 August 2003 by Rosalinda
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance               Aycinena, residing in Brussels, represented by Sébastien
of the European Communities on 8 August 2003 by Paul                     Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal,
Ceuninck, residing in Hertsberge (Belgium), represented by               lawyers.
G. Vandersanden and A. Finchelstein, lawyers.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         —      annul the decision of 26 March 2003 revising the appli-
                                                                                cant's classification on recruitment classifying her at the
—    annul the entire selection procedure following notice of                   first step of Grade LA 6;
     vacant post COM/051/02 and annul that notice;
                                                                         —      order the defendant to pay the costs.
—    annul the decision to appoint another person taken by
     the appointing authority on 13 September 2002 and also,             Pleas in law and main arguments
     consequently, the decision rejecting the applicant's candi-
     dature for that post;                                               In support of her claims, the applicant alleges breach of the
                                                                         obligation to provide reasons for decisions, manifest error of
                                                                         assessment, breach of the principle that officials should have
—    order the Commission to pay the costs.                              reasonable career prospects (Article 5(3) of the Staff


title: Case C-22/10 P: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 October 2010 — REWE-Zentral AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG (Appeal — Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark Clina — Earlier Community word mark CLINAIR — Refusal of registration — Relative ground for refusal — Examination of the likelihood of confusion — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b))

text:
               26.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/15

         Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 October 2010 — REWE-Zentral AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG
   (Case C-22/10 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark Clina - Earlier Community word mark CLINAIR - Refusal of registration - Relative ground for refusal - Examination of the likelihood of confusion - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b))
   2011/C 63/27
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: REWE-Zentral AG (represented by: M. Kinkeldey and A. Bognár, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: R. Pethke, acting as Agent), Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG (represented by: N. Lützenrath, Rechtsanwalt)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 11 November 2009 in Case T-150/08 REWE-Zentral v OHIM, by which the Court dismissed the action for annulment brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 February 2008 refusing the registration of the word sign ‘Clina’ as a Community trade mark for certain goods in Classes 3 and 21 by upholding the opposition brought by the proprietor of the earlier Community word mark ‘CLINAIR’ — Likelihood of confusion between two marks — Failure to carry out a global assessment of the relevant factors in examining the likelihood of confusion — Breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               REWE-Zentral AG is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 27.03.2010.


title: Case C-374/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 14 September 2006 — BATIG Gesellschaft für Beteiligungen mbH v Hauptzollamt Bielefeld

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/25

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 14 September 2006 — BATIG Gesellschaft für Beteiligungen mbH v Hauptzollamt Bielefeld
   (Case C-374/06)
   (2006/C 326/49)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Finanzgericht Düsseldorf
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: BATIG Gesellschaft für Beteiligungen mbH

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Bielefeld
   Question referred
   Should Council Directive 92/12/EEC (1) of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products be interpreted as meaning that a Member State which has collected excise duty for manufactured tobacco by means of issuing tax markings is obliged to reimburse the recipient of the tax markings for the sum paid for them if manufactured tobacco furnished with those tax markings in another Member State departs from the duty suspension arrangement irregularly with the consequence that the latter Member State collects excise duty for the manufactured tobacco from the trader established there who dispatched the manufactured tobacco under intra-community duty-suspension arrangements ?

      (1)  OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1.


title: Case C-317/12: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea hovrätt — Sweden) — Criminal proceedings against Daniel Lundberg (Road transport — Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 — Obligation to install recording equipment — Derogations in respect of the non-commercial carriage of goods — Concept — Carriage of goods by a private individual as part of his leisure activity as an amateur rally driver, financed in part by sponsorship from third parties)

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/33

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea hovrätt — Sweden) — Criminal proceedings against Daniel Lundberg
   (Case C-317/12) (1)

   (Road transport - Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 - Obligation to install recording equipment - Derogations in respect of the non-commercial carriage of goods - Concept - Carriage of goods by a private individual as part of his leisure activity as an amateur rally driver, financed in part by sponsorship from third parties)
   2013/C 344/56
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Svea hovrätt

      Party in the main criminal proceedings

   Daniel Lundberg

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Svea hovrätt — Interpretation of Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 of 20 December 1985 concerning the interpretation of the concept of ‘non-commercial carriage of goods’ within the meaning of Article 3(h) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 (OJ 2006 L 102, p. 1) — Derogation from the obligation to install and use a tachograph on board vehicles weighing less than 7.5 tonnes — Carriage of goods for non-commercial purposes — Carriage of goods by a private individual as part of his leisure activity as an amateur rally driver, financed in part by sponsorship from private individuals or from companies

      Operative part of the judgment

   The concept of ‘non-commercial carriage of goods’ laid down in Article 3(h) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 must be interpreted as covering the carriage of goods by a private individual for his own purposes purely as part of his hobby where that hobby is in part financed by financial contributions from external persons or undertakings and where no payment is made for that carriage per se.

      (1)  OJ C 258, 25.8.2012.


title: Case C-466/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 10 October 2014 — Dieter Wedzel, Karin Wedzel v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

text:
               2.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/9

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 10 October 2014 — Dieter Wedzel, Karin Wedzel v Condor Flugdienst GmbH
      (Case C-466/14)
      (2015/C 073/13)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Dieter Wedzel, Karin Wedzel

         Defendant: Condor Flugdienst GmbH
      The case was removed from the Register of the Court of Justice by order of the Court of 9 December 2014.


title: Case T-782/16: Action brought on 9 November 2016 — Timberland Europe v Commission

text:
               16.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 14/48

         Action brought on 9 November 2016 — Timberland Europe v Commission
   (Case T-782/16)
   (2017/C 014/58)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Timberland Europe BV (Enschede, Netherlands) (represented by: E. Vermulst, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1395 of 18 August 2016 reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and produced by Buckinghan Shoe Mfg Co. Ltd, Buildyet Shoes Mfg., DongGuan Elegant Top Shoes Co. Ltd, Dongguan Stella Footwear Co. Ltd, Dongguan Taiway Sports Goods Limited, Foshan City Nanhai Qun Rui Footwear Co., Jianle Footwear Industrial, Sihui Kingo Rubber Shoes Factory, Synfort Shoes Co. Ltd, Taicang Kotoni Shoes Co. Ltd, Wei Hao Shoe Co. Ltd, Wei Hua Shoe Co. Ltd, Win Profile Industries Ltd, and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in joined cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 (OJ L 225, p. 52);

               —

               annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1647 of 13 September 2016 re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in Vietnam and produced by Best Royal Co. Ltd, Lac Cuong Footwear Co., Ltd, Lac Ty Co., Ltd, Saoviet Joint Stock Company (Megastar Joint Stock Company), VMC Royal Co Ltd, Freetrend Industrial Ltd and its related company Freetrend Industrial A (Vietnam) Co, Ltd, Fulgent Sun Footwear Co., Ltd, General Shoes Ltd, Golden Star Co, Ltd, Golden Top Company Co., Ltd, Kingmaker Footwear Co. Ltd, Tripos Enterprise Inc., Vietnam Shoe Majesty Co., Ltd, and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in joined cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 (OJ L 245, p. 16);

               —

               annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1731 of 28 September 2016 reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and Vietnam and produced by General Footwear Ltd (China), Diamond Vietnam Co. Ltd and Ty Hung Footgearmex/Footwear Co. Ltd and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 (OJ L 262, p. 4); and

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the Applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission did not have the legal competence to adopt the contested regulations in the first place.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to provide the precise legal basis for the adoption of the contested regulations in violation of Article 296 TFUE and infringed the rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection of the applicant.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the reopening of the concluded footwear proceeding and the retroactive imposition of the expired anti-dumping duty on the applicant’s suppliers (i) lacks legal basis, is based on a manifest error in the application of Article 266 TFUE and the Basic Regulation and infringed the latter, (ii) is inconsistent with the principles of protection of legitimate expectations, legal certainty and non-retroactivity; and (iii) is inconsistent with Article 266 TFUE, infringed Article 5(4) and is based on a misuse of powers by the Commission.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the retroactive imposition of the duty through the three contested regulations is discriminatory vis-à-vis the applicant.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the manner of assessment of the market economy and individual treatment claims of the applicant’s suppliers was discriminatory and based on a misuse of power by the Commission.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of  16 February 2006  in Case C-215/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret in Marius Pedersen A/S v Miljøstyrelsen (Waste — Transfer of waste — Waste intended for recovery operations — Concept of  notifier  — Notifier's obligations)

text:
               8.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/6

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 16 February 2006
   in Case C-215/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret in Marius Pedersen A/S v Miljøstyrelsen (1)

   (Waste - Transfer of waste - Waste intended for recovery operations - Concept of ‘notifier’ - Notifier's obligations)
   (2006/C 86/10)
   Language of the case: Danish
   In Case C-215/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Østre Landsret (Denmark), made by decision of 14 May 2004, received at the Court on 21 May 2004, in the proceedings between Marius Pedersen A/S and Miljøstyrelsen — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, K. Schiemann (Rapporteur), N. Colneric, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and E. Levits, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; M. Ferreira, Principal Administrator, gave a judgment on 16 February 2006, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The phrase ‘where this is not possible’ in Article 2(g)(ii) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community must be interpreted as meaning that the simple fact that a person is a licensed collector does not confer on him the status of notifier of a shipment of waste for recovery. However, the situation that the producer of the waste is unknown or that the number of waste producers is so great and the individual contribution of each of them so small that it would be unreasonable for each individually to be required to notify the transport of the waste may justify the licensed collector being considered as the notifier of a shipment of waste for recovery;

               2.

               The competent authority of dispatch is entitled, pursuant to Article 7(2) and the first indent of Article 7(4)(a) of Regulation No 259/93, to object to a shipment of waste in the absence of information on the conditions of recovery of that waste in the State of destination. However, the notifier cannot be required to prove that the recovery in the State of destination will be equivalent to that required by the rules in the State of dispatch;

               3.

               The first indent of Article 6(5) of Regulation No 259/93 must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to supply information relating to the composition of the waste is not satisfied by the notifier declaring a category of waste under the heading ‘electronic scrap’;

               4.

               The period in Article 7(2) of Regulation No 259/93 begins to run when the competent authorities of the State of destination have sent the acknowledgement of receipt of the notification, irrespective of the fact that the competent authorities of the State of dispatch do not consider that they have received all of the information set out in Article 6(5) of that regulation. The effect of the expiry of that time-limit is that the competent authorities can no longer raise objections to the shipment or request additional information from the notifier.

      (1)  OJ C 190, 24.7.2004.


title: Case C-632/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Koophandel Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 7 December 2016 — Dyson Ltd, Dyson BV v NV BSH Home Appliances

text:
               13.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Koophandel Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 7 December 2016 — Dyson Ltd, Dyson BV v NV BSH Home Appliances
   (Case C-632/16)
   (2017/C 078/14)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank van Koophandel Antwerpen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Dyson Ltd, Dyson BV

      Defendant: NV BSH Home Appliances

      Questions referred

               1)

               Can strict compliance with the Vacuum Cleaner Regulation (1) (without supplementing the label as defined in Annex II thereof with information about the test conditions which lead to the classification in an energy efficiency class in accordance with Annex I) be regarded as a misleading omission within the meaning of Article 7 of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive? (2)

               2)

               Does the Vacuum Cleaner Regulation preclude supplementing the label with other symbols which communicate the same information?

      (1)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 665/2013 of 3 May 2013 supplementing Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to energy labelling of vacuum cleaners (OJ 2013 L 192, p. 1).

      (2)  Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22).


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 11 December 1996 in Case T-49/95: Van Megen Sports Group BV v. Commission of the European Communities (Competition - Article 85 of the EC Treaty - Proof of the infringement - Fine - Statement of the reasons for the decision)

text:
No C 40/ 16           LIN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                             8 . 2 . 97
2 . orders the applicants jointly and severally to pay all              the Commission of the European Communities, residing at
     the costs incurred in this case, including the costs               Stutensee ( Germany ), and Vittorino Tebaldi , an official of
     relating to the proceedings for interim relief;                    the Commission of the European Communities, residing at
                                                                        Marxzell-Burbach ( Germany ), represented by Jean-Noel
3.   orders the interveners to hear their own costs .                   Louis, Thierry Demaseure, Veronique Leclercq and Ariane
                                                                        Tornel , of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
(') 01 No C 188 , 10 . 7 . 1993 .                                       Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 1
                                                                        Rue Glesener, v. Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities (Agent: Gianluigi Valsesia ), supported by
                                                                        Council of the European Union ( Agents : Yves Cretien ,
                                                                        Antonio Lucidi and Diego Canga Fano ) and Federal
                                                                        Republic of Germany ( Agents : Ernst Röder, Bernd Kloke
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               and Sabine Maass ) — application for annulment of the
                      of 11 December 1996                               pay slips issued for the period from 1 July 1 994 to
                                                                        31 December 1994 pursuant to Council Regulation
in Case T-49/95 : Van Megen Sports Group BV v.                          ( ECSC, EC , Euratom ) No 3161 /94 of 19 December 1994
        Commission of the European Communities (')                      adjusting, with effect from I July 1994 , the remuneration
(Competition — Article 85 of the EC Treaty — Proof of                   and pensions of officials and other servants of the
the infringement — Fine — Statement of the reasons for                  European Communities and the weightings applied thereto
                            the decision )                              ( OJ No L 335 , 23 . 12 . 1994 , p. 1 ), inasmuch as those pay
                                                                        slips apply retroactively a specific weighting for Karlsruhe
                            ( 97/C 40/40 )                              fixed at 99,8 — the Court of First Instance ( Fourth
                                                                        Chamber ), composed of: K. Lenaerts , President, and R
                  (Language of the case: Dutch)                         Lindh and J. D. Cooke , Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez,
                                                                        Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
In Case T-49/95 : Van Megen Sports Group BV, formerly                    11 December 1996 , in which it:
Van Megen Tennis BV, established in Eindhoven
( Netherlands ), represented by Antonius Wouters Willems,
Advocaat, Eindhoven , with an address for service in                     1.   dismisses the action ;
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Loesch , 1 1 Rue
Goethe, v. Commission of the European Communities
                                                                        2 . orders     the    applicants ,     the   defendant      and       the
( Agents : Francisco Enrique Gonzalez Diaz and Wouter                         interveners to hear their own costs .
Wils ) — application for annulment of Commission
Decision 94/987/EC of 21 December 1994 relating to a
proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of the EC Treaty ( IV/                 (') O No C ; 315 , 25 . 11 . 1995 .
 32.948 — IV/34.590 : Tretorn and others ) ( OJ No L 378 ,
 31 . 12 . 1994 , p. 45 ) — the Court of First Instance ( Fourth
 Chamber ), composed of: K. Lenaerts, President of the
 Chamber, P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges ; J. Palacio
 Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
 judgment on 11 December 1996 , in which it:
                                                                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 1 . dismisses the application;                                                                of 12 December 1996
                                                                         in    Case   T-16/91       RV:     Rendo    NV   and      Others       v.
 2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs.                                      Commission of the European Communities (')
 (>) OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 .                                          (Competition — Implied rejection of a complaint —
                                                                         Statement of reasons — Appeal — Referral of a case back
                                                                          to the Court of First Instance — Continuation of the
                                                                                proceedings — Costs)
                                                                                ( 97/C 40/42 )
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                       of 11 December 1996                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
 in   Case    T-177/95 :      Patrick  Barraux   and    Others   v.
          Commission of the European Communities (')                      In Case T-16/91 RV: Rendo NV, established at Hoogeveen
                                                                          ( Netherlands ), Centraal Overijsselse Nutsbedrijven NV,
                  (Officials — Specific weighting)
                                                                          established     at      Almelo       ( Netherlands ),     Regionaal
                              ( 97/C 40/41 )                              Energiebedrijf Salland NV, established at Deventer
                                                                          ( Netherlands ), represented by Tom R. Ottervanger, of the
                   (Language of the case: French)                         Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                          the Chambers of Stef Oostvogels, 13 Rue Aldringen v.
  In Case T-177/95 : Patrick Barraux, an official of the                  Commission of the European Communities ( Agent: Berend
  Commission of the European Communities, residing at                     Jan Drijber ), supported by Samenverkende Elecktriciteits
  Karlsruhe ( Germany ), Klaus Kammerichs, an official of                 produktiebedrijven          NV,     established       at    Arnhem


title: Case T-59/08: Action brought on 7 February 2008 — Nute Partecipazione and La Perla v OHIM — Worldgem Brands (NIMEI LA PERLA MODERN CLASSIC)

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/39

         Action brought on 7 February 2008 — Nute Partecipazione and La Perla v OHIM — Worldgem Brands (NIMEI LA PERLA MODERN CLASSIC)
   (Case T-59/08)
   (2008/C 92/78)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Italian
   Parties

      Applicants: Nute Partecipazione Spa (Bologna, Italy) and La Perla Srl (Bologna, Italy) (represented by: R. Morresi and A. del Ferro, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Worldgem Brands Srl (Olmo di Creazzo, Italy)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul and alter the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 November 2007 on the ground of misapplication of Article 8(5) and infringement of Articles 63(6), 73 and 74 of the regulation on the Community trade mark;

               —

               in the alternative, annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 November 2007 on the ground of misapplication of Article 8(5) and infringement of Articles 63(6), 73 and 74 of the regulation on the Community trade mark;

               —

               in the further alternative, annul and/or alter the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 November 2007 on the ground of misapplication of Article 8(1)(b) of the regulation on the Community trade mark and infringement of Articles 63(6), 73 and 74 of the regulation on the Community trade mark;

               —

               in any event, order OHIM and Worldgem Brands Srl, jointly and severally, to pay the costs of all the proceedings, including the costs relating to the proceedings before the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Community word mark ‘NIMEI LA PERLA MODERN CLASSIC’ (application for registration No 713.446) for goods in Class 14. That trade mark has already been the subject of an earlier application for a declaration of invalidity. The decision rejecting that earlier application by the First Board of Appeal was annulled by judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-137/05 La Perla v OHIM — Worldgem Brands
       (1).

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: WORLDGEM BRANDS Srl

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: the applicant.

      Trade mark right of applicant for the declaration: the reputation of a number of ‘PERLA’ Italian figurative marks for goods in Classes 3, 9, 14, 16, 18, 24, 25 and 35.

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: granted the application and declared that the registration of the Community trade mark in question was invalid.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: annulled the contested decision and granted in part the application for a declaration of invalidity.

      Pleas in law: infringement of provisions of law and misinterpretation and misapplication of Articles 63, 73 and 74 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark. In the alternative: infringement of provisions of law and misapplication of Article 8(1)(b) of that regulation.

      (1)  Not yet published in the ECR.