title: Case C-187/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 24 April 2015 — Joachim Pöpperl v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

text:
               27.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/5

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 24 April 2015 — Joachim Pöpperl v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen
   (Case C-187/15)
   (2015/C 245/06)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Joachim Pöpperl

      Defendant: Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 45 TFEU to be interpreted as precluding a national law according to which a person employed as a civil servant in a Member State loses his expectancies concerning a retirement pension (civil servant benefits) arising from employment as a civil servant because, in order to take up employment in another Member State, that person was released from the civil service at his own wish, when at the same time national law provides that that person is insured retrospectively in the statutory pension scheme on the basis of the gross salary received as a civil servant, although the resulting pension rights are less than the lost retirement pension expectancies?

               2.

               If the reply to the first question is in the affirmative for all or some civil servants, is Article 45 TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that, in the absence of other national provisions, the earlier appointing body of the civil servant in question has to pay the civil servant either the amount of retirement pension on the basis of the period of pensionable service in the earlier civil service post, reduced by the amount of pension rights arising from the retrospective insurance, or to compensate him financially in some other way for the loss of the retirement pension, although under national law only the civil servant benefits provided for by that law may be granted?


title: Case T-343/10: Action brought on 18 August 2010 — Etimine and Etiproducts v ECHA

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/49

      Action brought on 18 August 2010 — Etimine and Etiproducts v ECHA
      (Case T-343/10)
      ()
      (2010/C 288/93)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: Etimine SA (Bettembourg, Luxembourg) and Ab Etiproducts Oy (Espoo, Finland), (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and C. Mereu, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  Declare the application admissible and well-founded;

                  —

                  Annul the contested act as it relates to Boric Acid and Disodium Tetraborates;

                  —

                  Declare the illegality of Commission Regulation (EC) No 790/2009 (1) of 10 August 2009 insofar as it relates to Boric Acid and Disodium Tetraborates; and

                  —

                  Order ECHA to pay all the costs and the expenses of these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The applicants seek, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, the annulment of the decision of European Chemicals Agency to include Boric Acid and Disodium Tetraborates in the candidate list of substances established under Article 59 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (2). In addition, the applicants seek, pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, a declaration as to the illegality of Commission Regulation (EC) No 790/2009 of 10 August 2009 insofar as it relates to Boric Acid and Disodium Tetraborates.
      In support of their application, the applicants put forward the following pleas in law:

                  Firstly, the contested act was adopted in breach of essential procedural requirements and as an error of law because it failed to fulfil the requirements of Article 59 and Annex XV of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006.

                  Secondly, the contested act is based on a manifest error of assessment and is in breach of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 because ECHA failed to produce evidence and demonstrate that the Borate Substances ‘meet the criteria’ for classification as toxic to reproduction category 2 under Directive 67/548 (3).

                  In addition, by adopting the contested act, ECHA infringed the EU law principle of proportionality.

                  Finally, the contested act is based on Commission Regulation (EC) No 790/2009 which is in itself unlawful.

         (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 790/2009 of 10 August 2009 amending, for the purposes of its adaptation to technical and scientific progress, Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (OJ 2009 L 235, p. 1).

         (2)  Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1).

         (3)  Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (OJ 1967 196, p. 1)


title: Case T-136/10: Order of the General Court of 20 January 2011 — M v EMA (Action for damages — Lack of jurisdiction of the General Court — Referral back to the Civil Service Tribunal)

text:
               19.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/17

         Order of the General Court of 20 January 2011 — M v EMA
   (Case T-136/10) (1)

   (Action for damages - Lack of jurisdiction of the General Court - Referral back to the Civil Service Tribunal)
   2011/C 89/39
   Language of the case: English.

      Parties

      Applicant: M (Broxbourne, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Thomann, Barrister, and I. Khawaja, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Medicines Agency (EMA) (represented by: V. Salvatore and N. Rampal Olmedo, agents)

      Re:

   Action for damages, under Articles 268 TFEU and 340 TFEU, for loss allegedly sustained as a result of an accident at work.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is referred back to the European Union Civil Service Tribunal.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.

      (1)  OJ C 148, 5.6.2010.


title: Case T-364/12: Action brought on 8 August 2012 — Harper Hygienics v OHIM — Clinique Laboratories (CLEANIC Kindii)

text:
               17.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/28

         Action brought on 8 August 2012 — Harper Hygienics v OHIM — Clinique Laboratories (CLEANIC Kindii)
   (Case T-364/12)
   2012/C 355/60
   Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Harper Hygienics S.A. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: R. Rumpel, legal adviser)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Clinique Laboratories LLC (New York, United States)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 May 2012 (Case R 1135/2001-2) refusing registration of ‘CLEANIC Kindii’ as a Community trade mark for goods in Classes 3, 5 and 16;

               —

               amend the contested decision by registration of the trade mark for all the goods and services applied for;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Harper Hygienics

      Community trade mark concerned: figurative trade mark containing the word element ‘CLEANIC Kindii’ for goods in Classes 3, 5 and 16

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Clinique Laboratories LLC

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade marks No 54 429 for goods in Classes 3, 14, 25 and 42 and No 2 294 429 for goods in Classes 35 and 42, and national (Polish) mark No 51 732 for goods in Classes 3 and 5

      Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (1) as regards establishment of the similarity of the trade marks and of the likelihood of confusion on the part of consumers, and infringement of Article 8(5) of that regulation

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).


title: Case T-383/10: Action brought on 7 September 2010 — Continental Bulldog Club Deutschland v OHIM

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/43

         Action brought on 7 September 2010 — Continental Bulldog Club Deutschland v OHIM
   (Case T-383/10)
   ()
   2010/C 301/69
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Continental Bulldog Club Deutschland eV (Berlin, Germany) (represented by S. Vollmer, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 23 June 2010 in Case R 300/2010-1;

               —

               In the alternative, annul the contested decision, in so far as it concerns goods and services in Class 44;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘CONTINENTAL’ for goods in Classes 31 and 44.

      Decision of the Examiner: Registration was refused.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was dismissed.

      Pleas in law: Breach of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) since the Community trade mark in question is distinctive and is not descriptive.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Ordinario, Milan, by order of that court of 12 February 1998 in the case of Butterfly Music Srl against Carosello Edizioni Musicali e Discografiche Cemed Srl and FIMI, Federazione Industria Musicale Italiana (Case C-60/98)

text:
2.5.98               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 137/11
Court of First Instance of the European Communities in             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Amtsgericht,
Case T-178/94 between Associación Telefónica de                    Heinsberg, by decision of that court of 13 February 1998
Mutualistas and the Commission of the European                     in the proceedings for an administrative fine against Josef
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of                                         Corsten
the European Communities on 26 February 1998 by
                                                                                (Case C-58/98)
Associación Telefónica de Mutualistas (ATM), represented
by Juan Eugenio Blanco Rodríguez and Bernardo Vicente                                       (98/C 137/22)
HernaÂndez Bataller, of the Madrid Bar, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch &
Wolter, 11, rue Goethe.
                                                                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
The appellant claims that the Court should:                        European Communities by decision of the Amtsgericht
                                                                   (Local Court), Heinsberg, of 13 February 1998, received
                                                                   at the Court Registry on 27 February 1998, for a
1. quash the judgment of the Court of First Instance (1);
                                                                   preliminary ruling in the proceedings for an administrative
                                                                   fine against Josef Corsten on the following question:
2. uphold in their entirety the claims put forward at first
    instance.
                                                                   Is it compatible with Community law on the freedom to
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                   provide services for a Netherlands undertaking, which in
                                                                   the Netherlands satisfies all the conditions for carrying on
Ð lack of jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance on
                                                                   a commercial activity, to have to satisfy further, albeit
    the ground of exceeding the bounds of its jurisdiction:
                                                                   purely formal, conditions (in this case entry in the register
    the contested judgment makes a number of statements
                                                                   of manual trades) in order to carry on that activity in
    concerning Spanish law which, in the view of the
                                                                   Germany?
    appellants, are neither lawful or referred to in the
    pleadings, nor is it open to the Court of First Instance
    to give such reasons for judgment,
Ð irregularities in the procedure before the Court of First
    Instance which are to the detriment of the appellant's
    interests (inadequate statement of reasons),
                                                                   Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
Ð breach of Community law by the Court of First                    Ordinario, Milan, by order of that court of 12 February
    Instance in that it misinterpreted the fourth paragraph        1998 in the case of Butterfly Music Srl against Carosello
    of Article 173 of the EC Treaty: ATM does have an              Edizioni Musicali e Discografiche Cemed Srl and FIMI,
    interest in bringing proceedings inasmuch as the                           Federazione Industria Musicale Italiana
    categorisation of the financial assistance provided by                                 (Case C-60/98)
    the Kingdom of Spain in favour of CompanÄia
    Telefónica de EspanÄa SA (TESA) as State aid                                            (98/C 137/23)
    incompatible with the common market, and any order
    to repay it, undoubtedly benefits ATM, as an entity
    acting on behalf of its members, since the reduced             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    social charges would have to be reimbursed in                  European Communities by an order of the Tribunale
    accordance with Spanish law, that is to say, first by          Ordinario, Milan, of 12 February 1998, which was
    TESA to the Spanish public authorities, in order for           received at the Court Registry on 2 March 1998, for a
    the latter to pay the Institución Telefónica de                preliminary ruling in the case of Butterfly Music Srl
    Previsión, and finally to benefit those of ATM's               against Carosello Edizioni Musicali e Discografiche
    members on whose behalf ATM acted,                             Cemed Srl and FIMI, Federazione Industria Musicale
                                                                   Italiana, on the following question.
Ð breach of Community law by the Court of First
    Instance, inasmuch as the interpretation was erroneous
    and the judgment was inconsistent with the applicant's
                                                                   Whether the interpretation of Article 10 of Council
    submissions concerning the possible infringement of
                                                                   Directive 93/98/EEC of 29 October 1993 harmonising the
    Article 92 of the EC Treaty: in order to ascertain
                                                                   term of protection of copyright and certain related
    whether or not trade had been affected, there should
                                                                   rights (1), in particular where it provides for the adoption
    first have been a finding as to whether or not aid had
                                                                   of the necessary provisions to protect in particular
    been granted contrary to Article 92 of the EC Treaty
                                                                   acquired rights of third parties', is compatible with
    before deciding that the appellant did not have an
                                                                   Article 17(4) of Law No 52 of 6 February 1996, as
    interest in bringing proceedings, which the appellant
                                                                   amended by Law No 650 of 23 December 1996.
    considers to be an inconsistency in the contested
    judgment.
                                                                   (1) OJ L 290, 24.11.1993, p. 9.
( ) OJ C 55, 20.2.1998, p. 25.
 1


title: Action brought on 25 April 1996 by Partex, Companhia Portuguesa de Serviços SA, against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-58/96)

text:
6 . 7. 96              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 197/19
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               of the European Communities on 25 April 1996 by Partex,
                        of 22 May 1996                                Companhia Portuguesa de Serviços SA, whose registered
                                                                      office is in Lisbon, represented by Rui Chancerelle de
in     Case   T-277/94 :      Associazione   Italiana   Tecnico
                                                                      Machete, Pedro Machete e Miguel Pena Machete, of the
Economica del Cemento (AITEC ) v. Commission of the                   Lisbon Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                   European Communities i 1 )                         the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 rue du Fort
(Decision declaring State aid unlawful — Requests for                 Rheinsheim .
initiation of Treatyinfringementproceedings — Rejected—
Action for annulment of measures — Decision —
Inadmissible — Action for declaration of failure to act —
                           Inadmissible)                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
                          ( 96/C 197/40 )
                 (Language of the case: Italian)                      — declare the action to be admissible and, accordingly,
                                                                          annul the decision of the Commission approving the
In Case T-277/94 : Associazione Italiana Tecnico Economica                final payment claim for the balance of file
del Cemento ( AITEC ), established in Rome, represented by                No 88 0412 P3 of the European Social Fund,
Mario Siragusa, of the Rome Bar, Giuseppe
Scassellati-Sforzolini, of the Bologna Bar, and Cesare Rizza,
of the Syracuse Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger, Hoss & Prussen,               — order the Commission to pay the costs.
15 côte d'Eich, v . Commission of the European
Communities ( agents : Nicola Annecchino and Ben
Smulders ) — application for annulment of decision
D/05268 of the Commission of 9 June 1994, inasmuch as it              Pleas in law and main arguments:
expresses the Commission's refusal to bring an action before
the Court of Justice under the second subparagraph of
Article 93 ( 2 ) of the Treaty on account of the Greek                The applicant, a Portuguese service provider which
Government's failure to comply with Commission Decision               organized and put into operation in 1988 a vocational
91 /144/EEC of 2 May 1990 on aid granted by the Greek                 training programme intended for three undertakings,
Government to a cement manufacturer (Halkis Cement
                                                                      challenged the Commission's refusal to declare eligible for
Company ) ( OJ L 73 , 1991 , p . 27 ) and, in addition,               the European Social Fund certain expenditure in connection
annulment of the confirmation of that refusal, expressed in           with that training programme (ESF file No 88 0412 P3 ) .
decision D/07743 of 26 July 1994 , together, in the
alternative, with a declaration that the Commission has
failed to act — the Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber,
Extended Composition ), composed of H. Kirschner,                     The applicant claims in the first place that Article 190 of the
President, and B. Vesterdorf, C. W. Bellamy, A.                       Treaty was infringed since the contested decision does not
Kalogeropoulos and A. Potocki , Judges; J. Palacio                    state any reasons which would enable the applicant to
Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a               understand the grounds for the refusal .
judgment on 22 May 1996 , in which it:
1 , dismisses the action as inadmissible;                             The applicant complains, moreover, that the Commission,
                                                                      by adopting the contested decision, changed an initial
2 , orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay the         decision which was favourable to the training projects in
      costs of the Commission.                                        question, and that it had certified the expenditure incurred
                                                                      by the DAFSE in 1988 . In particular, the defendant
f 1 ) OJ No C 304, 29 . 10 . 1994 .                                   institution cannot reasonably ask for the repayment of the
                                                                      amounts at issue in respect of expenditure incurred in the
                                                                      context of a project approved and carried out eight years
                                                                      previously. By its conduct, the Commission breached,
                                                                      moreover, the applicable Community rules . Under Article 5
                                                                      of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2950/83 , the factual and
Action brought on 25 April 1996 by Partex, Companhia                  accounting verification must be carried out within a
Portuguesa de Serviços SA, against the Commission of the              time-limit of 13 months, as provided for in Decision
                    European Communities                               83/673/EEC . Since, according to settled case-law, this
                         ( Case T-58/96 )                             constitutes a time-bar, it is evident that there could have
                           ( 96/C 197/41 )                             been no valid reexamination in the present case .
              (Language of the case: Portuguese)
 An action against the Commission of the European
 Communities was brought before the Court of first Instance


title: Case T-333/07: Action brought on 7 September 2007 — Entrance Services v Parliament

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/54

         Action brought on 7 September 2007 — Entrance Services v Parliament
   (Case T-333/07)
   (2007/C 269/97)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Entrance Services NV (Vilvoorde, Belgium) (represented by: A. Delvaux and V. Bertrand, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the action for annulment admissible;

               —

               Annul the decision by which the Parliament rejected the applicant's tender and granted the contract to another tenderer, a decision notified to the applicant on 14 August 2007;

               —

               Order the Parliament to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By this action the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Parliament of 14 August 2007 rejecting its tender submitted in the framework of the tender procedure for the conclusion of a contract for repair and maintenance of automatic equipment, joinery and similar equipment in European Parliament buildings in Brussels [(contract for the provision of services 2007-2010) (call for tender No IFIN-BATIBRU-JLD-S0765-00)] (1).
   In support of its action the applicant claims, first, an infringement of Article 10 of the schedule of administrative clauses and of Article 93(1) of the Financial Regulation (2), in that the Parliament accepted a tender submitted by a tenderer which, according to the applicant, was excluded under Article 10 of the schedule of administrative clauses as a result of a finding by the Commission that it had participated in a cartel.
   Second, the applicant maintains that the Parliament infringed Articles 97 and 98 of the Financial Regulation and Article 137 of the Implementing Regulation (3) by requiring tenderers to establish their technical capacity to carry out the contract by means of evidence other than that referred to by those provisions.
   Third, the applicant relies on a plea alleging the infringement of Articles 97 and 98 of the Financial Regulation and of Article 135(5) of the Implementing Regulation, in that the Parliament required tenderers to demonstrate their economic and financial capacity to carry out the contract by means of evidence not provided for in those provisions, and in that it rejected the applicant's tender on the ground that it had failed to provide the evidence required.
   Finally, the applicant submits that the contested decision should be annulled because it infringes the equality principle laid down in Article 89(1) of the Financial Regulation, in that the Parliament rejected its tender and awarded the contract to another tenderer even though it was in the same situation as the applicant with regard to the non-production of the certifications required by Article 11 of the schedule of administrative clauses.

      (1)  Contract notice published in OJ 2006/S 148-159062.

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

      (3)  Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, as amended (OJ 2002 L 357, p. 1).


title: Case T-505/09: Action brought on 16 December 2009 — Carlyle v OHIM — Mascha & Regner Consulting (CAFE CARLYLE)

text:
               27.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/36

         Action brought on 16 December 2009 — Carlyle v OHIM — Mascha & Regner Consulting (CAFE CARLYLE)
   (Case T-505/09)
   2010/C 51/70
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: The Carlyle, LLC (St. Louis, United States) (represented by: E. Cornu, E. De Gryse and D. Moreau, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mascha & Regner Consulting KEG (Vienna, Austria)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 October 2009 in case R 239/2009-4; and

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark subject of the request for revocation: The word mark “CAFE CARLYLE”, for services in class 42

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Party requesting the revocation of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the request for revocation

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Revoked the Community trade mark concerned

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Council Regulation 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erroneously employed a too restrictive interpretation of the concept of genuine use. Moreover, the Board of Appeal failed: (i) to take into consideration properly the evidence of use submitted by the applicant before the Cancellation Division; (ii) to assess correctly the scope of the said evidence of use; and (iii) to make an overall assessment thereof.


title: Case T-375/05: Action brought on  7 October 2005  — Azienda Agricola le Canne v Commission

text:
               26.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/37

         Action brought on 7 October 2005 — Azienda Agricola le Canne v Commission
   (Case T-375/05)
   (2005/C 296/75)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Azienda Agricola le Canne (Porto Viro, Italy) (represented by: Giuseppe Carraio and Francesco Mazzonetto, lawyers)

      Defendant(s): Commission
   Form of order sought
   The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

               —

               declare the contested Commission Decision C(2005)2939 of 26 July 2005 null and void insofar as it reduces the aid granted to Azienda Agricola Le Canne s.r.l. by Decision C(90)1923/99 of 30 October 1990 pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86;

               —

               order the Commission to pay damages to make good the loss allegedly suffered in an amount not less than the portion of the subsidies not yet paid, with interest at the rate charged to the applicant by the bank on the whole balance of the sums originally owed on the basis of Decision C(90)1923/99 of 30 October 1990, to run from the date of the annulled decision (27 October 1995) until payment of the total aid owed;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The application seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2005)2939 of 26 July 2005 which reduces aid granted under Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86 for the project entitled: 'Modernisation of the aquaculture production unit in Rosolina (Veneto)'. The applicant relies on four pleas in support of its claims:

               1.

               By the first plea, it is submitted, as a preliminary issue, that, as regards the investigation of the alleged irregularities, the administrative action taken by the Commission to reduce the subsidy already granted for co-financing is time-barred. It is submitted in that connection that Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities' financial interests was infringed. (1)

               2.

               By its second plea the applicant alleges that the Commission breached its obligation to implement the ruling in the judgment of 5 March 2002, (2) in that, although it was entitled, in the new decision intended to replace the annulled decision of 11 July 2000, to review the whole matter, it had to do so within the limits and subject to the procedural requirements of the complaint of 23 November 1999 which is still open and has not been closed as a result of the annulment of the above decision. However, it was not entitled to submit further complaints not raised before that time.
               Moreover, the Commission, while recognising implicitly that most of the amount reduced in the previous, now annulled, decision reducing aid was in fact due, did not acknowledge that default interest was due on the amounts unlawfully withheld.

               3.

               The third plea raises a complaint that Article 44(1) of the cited Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86 does not include the irregularity of which the applicant is accused in the contested decision among the conditions, listed exhaustively therein, for the reduction of aid: that is to say, the irregularity consisting in the fact that in the course of carrying out the work eligible for aid the contracting undertaking acquired a holding in the capital of the company awarded the contract.

               4.

               By its fourth plea, which alleges breach of the principles of equal treatment, proportionality and reasonableness, and the principle of free movement of capital, the applicant submits in the alternative that the criterion used by the Commission to calculate the contested reduction was arbitrary, in that it applied the same reduction indiscriminately to all the periods considered, without taking account of the fact that the percentage of the holding of the contracting undertaking in the company capital of the beneficiary changed gradually over time.

      (1)  OJ 1995 L 312, 23.12.1995, p. 1.

      (2)  Case T-241/00 Azienda Agricola Le Canne v Commission [2002] ECR II-1251.


title: Case T-102/17: Action brought on 17 February 2017 — Cantina e oleificio sociale di San Marzano v EUIPO — Miguel Torres (SANTORO)

text:
               18.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/40

         Action brought on 17 February 2017 — Cantina e oleificio sociale di San Marzano v EUIPO — Miguel Torres (SANTORO)
   (Case T-102/17)
   (2017/C 121/59)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Cantina e oleificio sociale di San Marzano (San Marzano di San Giuseppe, Italy) (represented by: F. Jacobacci and E. Truffo, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Miguel Torres, SA (Vilafranca del Penedés, Spain)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘SANTORO’ — Application for registration No 12 282 141

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 December 2016 in Case R 2018/2015-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Art. 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 misconstruction of the case-law related to the issues in question;

               —

               Infringement of Art. 8(5) of Regulation No. 207/2009 and distortion of evidence.


title: Case T-469/13: Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2016 — Generics (UK) v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for antidepressant medicinal products containing the active pharmaceutical ingredient citalopram — Concept of restriction of competition ‘by object’ — Potential competition — Generic medicinal products — Barriers to market entry resulting from the existence of patents — Agreements concluded between a patent holder and a generic undertaking — Error of law — Error of assessment — Rights of defence — Fines)

text:
               17.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/11

         Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2016 — Generics (UK) v Commission
   (Case T-469/13) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for antidepressant medicinal products containing the active pharmaceutical ingredient citalopram - Concept of restriction of competition ‘by object’ - Potential competition - Generic medicinal products - Barriers to market entry resulting from the existence of patents - Agreements concluded between a patent holder and a generic undertaking - Error of law - Error of assessment - Rights of defence - Fines))
   (2016/C 383/15)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Generics (UK) Ltd (Potters Bar, United Kingdom) (represented by: I. Vandenborre and T. Goetz, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by J. Bourke, F. Castilla Contreras and T. Vecchi, and subsequently by F. Castilla Contreras, T. Vecchi, B. Mongin and C. Vollrath, acting as Agents, assisted by S. Kingston, Barrister)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2013) 3803 final of 19 June 2013 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39226 — Lundbeck), and for reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by that decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Generics (UK) Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 325, 9.11.2013.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of  12 January 2006  in Case C-139/04 Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Ambient air quality — Limit values)

text:
               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/4

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Sixth Chamber)
   of 12 January 2006
   in Case C-139/04 Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Ambient air quality - Limit values)
   (2006/C 60/08)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case C-139/04 Commission of the European Communities (Agents: V. Valero Jordana and R. Amorosi) v Italian Republic (Agent: I.M. Braguglia) — action for failure to fulfil obligations under Article 226 EC — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of J.-P. Puissochet, acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber, S. von Bahr and A. Borg Barthet (Rapporteur), Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 January 2006, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to forward to the Commission of the European Communities for 2001 all necessary information concerning the substances subject to Council Directive 1999/30/EC of 22 April 1999 relating to limit values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient air, as required under Article 11(1)(a)(i) and (ii) and (b) of Council Directive 96/62/EC of 27 September 1996 concerning ambient air quality assessment management, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11 of Directive 96/62 in conjunction with Article 4(1) of that directive and with Directive 1999/30 and Article 1 of Commission Decision 2001/839/EC of 8 November 2001 laying down a questionnaire to be used for annual reporting on ambient air quality assessment under Directives 96/62 and 1999/30;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 106 of 30.4.2004


title: Case T-295/04: Action brought on 22 July 2004 by Centro Provincial de Jóvenes Agricultores de Jaén against Council of the European Union

text:
               9.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/27

         Action brought on 22 July 2004 by Centro Provincial de Jóvenes Agricultores de Jaén against Council of the European Union
   (Case T-295/04)
   (2004/C 251/49)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   An action against Council of the European Union was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 22 July 2004 by Centro Provincial de Jóvenes Agricultores de Jaén, established in Jaen (Spain), represented by José Francisco Vázquez Medina, of the Jaen Bar.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul ipso jure Article 1(7) of Council Regulation (EC) No 864/04

               —

               reserve its decision on costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant is contesting the abovementioned provision insofar as it includes, exclusively in respect of olive oil, the 1999/2000 marketing year together with the other 3 planned for the remaining agricultural sectors (2000/2001, 2001/2002 and 2002/2003), for the determination of the direct support to be provided for producers.
   In support of its claims, the applicant maintains that not only is there an inadequate statement of reasons for the contested provision, contrary to the duty to provide reasons, it also discriminates against certain regions and many farmers in view of the fact that in the 1999/2000 marketing year the harvest was very poor in Andalusia, particularly in Jaen. Thus, by calculating the assistance to be provided by taking into account the aforementioned marketing year, olive oil producers in Jaen, together with others in Cordoba and Granada, will, by that mere fact, suffer serious economic harm and thus be discriminated against.
   Finally, the applicant alleges misuse of powers.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of  22 September 2005  in Case C-221/03: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 91/676/EEC — Incomplete transposition — Protection of water against pollution by nitrates from agricultural sources — Failure to identify waters that are or could be affected by pollution — Incorrect and inadequate designation of vulnerable zones — Code of good agricultural practice — Inadequacies — Action programme — Inadequacies and incomplete application)

text:
               26.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/1

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 22 September 2005
   in Case C-221/03: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 91/676/EEC - Incomplete transposition - Protection of water against pollution by nitrates from agricultural sources - Failure to identify waters that are or could be affected by pollution - Incorrect and inadequate designation of vulnerable zones - Code of good agricultural practice - Inadequacies - Action programme - Inadequacies and incomplete application)
   (2005/C 296/02)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-221/03, Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Valero Jordana, assisted by M. van der Woude and T. Chellingsworth) v Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: A. Snoecx, and subsequently by E. Dominkovits,) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 22 May 2003 — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, A. Borg Barthet, S. von Bahr, J. Malenovský and A. Ó Caoimh (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 22 September 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt:

                           —

                           in the case of the Flemish Region, within the time-limit set by the reasoned opinion of 23 November 1998, the measures needed for the full and correct implementation of Article 4 of Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources and, within the time-limit set by the reasoned opinion of 9 November 1999, the measures needed for the full and correct implementation of Articles 3(1) and (2), 5 and 10 thereof, and

                           —

                           in the case of the Walloon Region, within the time-limit set by the reasoned opinion of 9 November 1999, the measures needed for the full and correct implementation of Articles 3(1) and (2) and 5 of that directive,

                     the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Declares that, to the extent to which, in its complaints, the Commission puts forward charges other than those set out in the reasoned opinions, its action is inadmissible;

               3.

               Declares that the part of the complaint alleging infringement of Article 5 of Directive 91/676, in conjunction with Annex III thereto, to the effect that the Flemish Region action programme is only partly applicable in that region, in particular as regards the maximum quantities of livestock effluents that may be applied each year in vulnerable zones, is unfounded;

               4.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 19.07.2003.


title: Case T-599/13: Judgment of the General Court of 7 May 2015 — Cosmowell v OHIM — Haw Par (GELENKGOLD) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark GELENKGOLD — Earlier Community figurative mark representing a tiger — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Alteration of the distinctive character of the earlier mark — Phonetic similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               22.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/30

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 May 2015 — Cosmowell v OHIM — Haw Par (GELENKGOLD)
   (Case T-599/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark GELENKGOLD - Earlier Community figurative mark representing a tiger - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Alteration of the distinctive character of the earlier mark - Phonetic similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 205/39)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Cosmowell GmbH (Sankt Johann in Tirol, Austria) (represented by: J. Sachs, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Haw Par Corp. Ltd (Singapore, Singapore) (represented by: C. Schultze, J. Ossing, R.-D. Härer, C. Weber, H. Ranzinger, C. Brockmann and C. Gehweiler, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 September 2013 (Case R 2013/2012-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Haw Par Corp. Ltd and Cosmowell GmbH.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 5 September 2013 (Case R 2013/2012-4);

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Cosmowell GmbH during both the proceedings before the Court and the Board of Appeal;

               4.

               Orders Haw Par Corp. Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Cosmowell during both the proceedings before the Court and the Board of Appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 39, 8.2.2014.


title: Case T-662/16: Action brought on 12 September 2016 — Gall Pharma v EUIPO — Pfizer (Styriagra)

text:
               28.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 441/19

      Action brought on 12 September 2016 — Gall Pharma v EUIPO — Pfizer (Styriagra)
      (Case T-662/16)
      (2016/C 441/24)
      Language in which the application was lodged: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Gall Pharma GmbH (Judenburg, Austria) (represented by: D. Reichelt and L. Figura, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pfizer Inc. (New York, New York, United States)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Applicant for registration of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

         Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Styriagra’ — EU trade mark application No 12 161 469

         Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 June 2016 in Case R 724/2015-5

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision and reject the opposition (Opposition Procedure No 002286568) to Community trade mark No 000233890;

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009;

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-227/08: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 December 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Salamanca — Spain) — Eva Martín Martín v EDP Editores SL (Directive 85/577/EEC — Article 4 — Consumer protection — Contracts negotiated away from business premises — Right of cancellation — Obligation on the trader to give notice of that right — Contract void — Appropriate measures)

text:
               27.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/7

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 December 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Salamanca — Spain) — Eva Martín Martín v EDP Editores SL
   (Case C-227/08) (1)

   (Directive 85/577/EEC - Article 4 - Consumer protection - Contracts negotiated away from business premises - Right of cancellation - Obligation on the trader to give notice of that right - Contract void - Appropriate measures)
   2010/C 51/10
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Audiencia Provincial de Salamanca

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Eva Martín Martín

      Defendant: EDP Editores SL

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Audiencia Provincial de Salamanca — Interpretation of Article 4 of Council Directive 85/577/EEC of 20 December 1985 to protect the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away from business premises (OJ 1985 L 372, p. 31) — Articles 3 EC, 95 EC and 153 EC — Article 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Right of renunciation — Obligation on the trader to supply certain information — Consumer protection measures in case of non-performance — Nullity of contract and jurisdiction of national court

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 4 of Council Directive 85/577/EEC of 20 December 1985 to protect the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away from business premises does not preclude a national court from declaring, of its own motion, that a contract falling within the scope of that directive is void on the ground that the consumer was not informed of his right of cancellation, even though the consumer at no stage pleaded that the contract was void before the competent national courts.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 30.8.2008.


title: Case C-331/05 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 June 2007 — Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Non-contractual liability — Causal link — Costs relating to proceedings before the European Ombudsman)

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/7

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 June 2007 — Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-331/05 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Non-contractual liability - Causal link - Costs relating to proceedings before the European Ombudsman)
   (2007/C 199/11)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Appellant: Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV (represented by: H. Kaltenecker and S. Krüger, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M.-J. Jonczy and S. Fries, Agents)
   Re:
   Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 11 July 2005, Internationaler Hilfsfonds e.V. v Commission (Case T-294/04), in which the Court of First Instance dismissed as manifestly unfounded an application for compensation for damage alleged to have been suffered comprising the lawyer's fees incurred in three sets of proceedings before the European Ombudsman
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Internationaler Hilsfonds eV to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 271, 29.10.2005.


C 366/24              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  18.12.1999
       Removal from the register of Case C-92/99 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-185/99 (1)
                       (1999/C 366/43)
                                                                                (1999/C 366/47)
By order of 24 September 1999 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal        By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-92/99: Commission of the               Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
European Communities v Portuguese Republic.                        from the register of Case C-185/99 (reference for a preliminary
                                                                   ruling, from the Regeringsrätten): Riksskatteverket v X, Y and
(1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.                                          Z.
                                                                   (1) OJ No C 204 of 17.7.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-151/99 (1)
                       (1999/C 366/44)
By order of 28 September 1999 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-151/99: Commission of the
European Communities v Ireland.                                           Removal from the register of Case C-186/99 (1)
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.                                                                 (1999/C 366/48)
                                                                   By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Court of
                                                                   Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                   from the register of Case C-186/99 (reference for a preliminary
                                                                   ruling, from the Regeringsrätten): Riksskatteverket v X.
       Removal from the register of Case C-31/99 (1)
                       (1999/C 366/45)                             (1) OJ No C 204 of 17.7.1999.
By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-31/99: Commission of the
European Communities v French Republic.
(1) OJ C 86 of 27.3.1999.
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case C-210/99 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 366/49)
       Removal from the register of Case C-32/99 (1)
                       (1999/C 366/46)                             By order of 30 September 1999 the President of the Court of
                                                                   Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                   from the register of Case C-210/99: Commission of the
By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Court of
                                                                   European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-32/99: Commission of the
European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.
(1) OJ C 86 of 27.3.1999.


title: Case C-338/13: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Marjan Noorzia v Bundesministerin für Inneres (Request for a preliminary ruling — Right to family reunification — Directive 2003/86/EC — Article 4(5) — Provision of national law under which the sponsor and his/her spouse must have reached the age of 21 by the date on which the application for family reunification is lodged — Interpretation in conformity with EU law)

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/18

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Marjan Noorzia v Bundesministerin für Inneres
   (Case C-338/13) (1)

   ((Request for a preliminary ruling - Right to family reunification - Directive 2003/86/EC - Article 4(5) - Provision of national law under which the sponsor and his/her spouse must have reached the age of 21 by the date on which the application for family reunification is lodged - Interpretation in conformity with EU law))
   2014/C 315/26
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Marjan Noorzia

      Defendant: Bundesministerin für Inneres

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 4(5) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification must be interpreted as meaning that that provision does not preclude a rule of national law requiring that spouses and registered partners must have reached the age of 21 by the date when the application seeking to be considered family members entitled to reunification is lodged.

      (1)  OJ C 233, 10.8.2013.


title: Case C-323/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Chancery Division, made on 12 August 2009 — Interflora Inc, Interflora British Unit v Marks & Spencer plc, Flowers Direct Online Limited

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Chancery Division, made on 12 August 2009 — Interflora Inc, Interflora British Unit v Marks & Spencer plc, Flowers Direct Online Limited
   (Case C-323/09)
   2009/C 282/37
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Chancery Division

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Interflora Inc, Interflora British Unit

      Defendants: Marks & Spencer plc, Flowers Direct Online Limited

      Questions referred

               1.

               Where a trader which is a competitor of the proprietor of a registered trade mark and which sells goods and provides services identical to those covered by the trade mark via its website (i) selects a sign which is identical (in accordance with the Court's ruling in Case C-291/00) with the trade mark as a keyword for a search engine operator's sponsored link service, (ii) nominates the sign as a keyword, (iii) associates the sign with the URL of its website, (iv) sets the cost per click that it will pay in relation to that keyword, (v) schedules the timing of the display of the sponsored link and (vi) uses the sign in business correspondence relating to the invoicing and payment of fees or the management of its account with the search engine operator, but the sponsored link does not itself include the sign or any similar sign, do any or all of these acts constitute ‘use’ of the sign by the competitor within the meaning of Article 5(l)(a) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC (1) of 21 December 1988 (‘the Trade Marks Directive’) and Article 9(l)(a) of Council Regulation 40/94 (2) of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (‘the CTM Regulation’)?

               2.

               Is any such use ‘in relation to’ goods and services identical to those for which the trade mark is registered within the meaning of Article 5(l)(a) of the Trade Marks Directive and Article 9(l)(a) of the CTM Regulation?

               3.

               Does any such use fall within the scope of either or both of:

                           (a)

                           Article 5(l)(a) of the Trade Marks Directive and Article 9(l)(a) of the CTM Regulation; and

                           (b)

                           (assuming that such use is detrimental to the distinctive character of the trade mark or takes unfair advantage of the repute of the trade mark) Article 5(2) of the Trade Marks Directive and Article 9(l)(c) of the CTM Regulation?

               4.

               Does it make any difference to the answer to question 3 above if:

                           (a)

                           the presentation of the competitor's sponsored link in response to a search by a user by means of the sign in question is liable to lead some members of the public to believe that the competitor is a member of the trade mark proprietor's commercial network contrary to the fact; or

                           (b)

                           the search engine operator does not permit trade mark proprietors in the relevant Member State of the Community to block the selection of signs identical to their trade marks as keywords by other parties?

               5.

               Where the search engine operator (i) presents a sign which is identical (in accordance with the Court's ruling in Case C-291/00) with a registered trade mark to a user within search bars located at the top and bottom of search pages that contain a sponsored link to the website of the competitor referred to in question 1 above, (ii) presents the sign to the user within the summary of the search results, (iii) presents the sign to the user by way of an alternative suggestion when the user has entered a similar sign in the search engine, (iv) presents a search results page to the user containing the competitor's sponsored link in response to the entering by the user of the sign and (v) adopts the user's use of the sign by presenting the user with search results pages containing the competitor's sponsored link, but the sponsored link does not itself include the sign or any similar sign, do any or all of these acts constitute ‘use’ of the sign by the search engine operator within the meaning of Article 5(l)(a) of the Trade Marks Directive and Article 9(l)(a) of the CTM Regulation?

               6.

               Is any such use ‘in relation to’ goods and services identical to those for which the trade mark is registered within the meaning of Article 5(l)(a) of the Trade Marks Directive and Article 9(l)(a) of the CTM Regulation?

               7.

               Does any such use fall within the scope of either or both of:

                           (a)

                           Article 5(l)(a) of the Trade Marks Directive and Article 9(l)(a) of the CTM Regulation; and

                           (b)

                           (assuming that such use is detrimental to the distinctive character of the trade mark or takes unfair advantage of the repute of the trade mark) Article 5(2) of the Trade Marks Directive and Article 9(l)(c) of the CTM Regulation?

               8.

               Does it make any difference to the answer to question 7 above if:

                           (a)

                           the presentation of the competitor's sponsored link in response to a search by a user by means of the sign in question is liable to lead some members of the public to believe that the competitor is a member of the trade mark proprietor's commercial network contrary to the fact; or

                           (b)

                           the search engine operator does not permit trade mark proprietors in the relevant Member State to block the selection of signs identical to their trade marks as keywords by other parties?

               9.

               If any such use does fall within the scope of either or both of Article 5(l)(a) of the Trade Marks Directive/Article 9(l)(a) of the CTM Regulation and Article 5(2) of the Trade Marks Directive/Article 9(l)(c) of the CTM Regulation:

                           (a)

                           does such use consist of or include ‘the transmission in a communication network of information provided by a receipt of the service’, and if so does the search engine operator ‘select or modify the information’, within the meaning of Article 12(1) of European Parliament and Council Directive 2000/31/EC (3) of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘the E-commerce Directive’)?

                           (b)

                           does such use consist of or include ‘the automatic, intermediate and temporary storage of information, performed for the sole purpose of making more efficient the information's onward transmission to other recipients of the service upon their request’ within the meaning of Article 13(1) of the E-commerce Directive?

                           (c)

                           does such use consist of or include ‘the storage of information provided by a recipient of the service’ within the meaning of Article 14(1) of the E-commerce Directive?

                           (d)

                           if the use does not consist exclusively of activities falling within the scope of one or more of Article 12(1), 13(1) and 14(1) of the E-Commerce Directive, but includes such activities, is the search engine operator exempted from liability to the extent that the use consists of such activities and if so may damages or other financial remedies be granted in respect of such use to the extent that it is not exempted from liability?

               10.

               If the answer to question 9 above is that the use does not consist exclusively of activities falling within the scope of one or more of Articles 12-14 of the Ecommerce Directive, may the competitor be held jointly liable for the acts of infringement of the search engine operator by virtue of national law on accessory liability?

      (1)  First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks
   OJ L 40, p. 1

      (2)  OJ L 11, p. 1

      (3)  OJ L 178, p. 1


title: Case C-100/07 P: Appeal brought on 21 February 2007 by É. R. and Others against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) on 13 December 2006 in Case T-138/03 É.R. and Others v Council and Commission

text:
               9.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/2

         Appeal brought on 21 February 2007 by É. R. and Others against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) on 13 December 2006 in Case T-138/03 É.R. and Others v Council and Commission
   (Case C-100/07 P)
   (2007/C 129/03)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellants: É.R, J.R, A.R, B.R, O.O, T.D, V.D, J.M.D, D.D, D.F, E.E, C.F, M.R, I.R, B.R, M.R, C.S. (represented by: F. Honnorat, lawyer)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare the appeal admissible;

               —

               declare the appeal to be well founded;

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) of 13 December 2006 in Case T-138/03;

               —

               order the case to be referred back to the Court of First Instance to rule on the appellants' claims.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By their appeal, the appellants seek to have the contested judgment set aside in so far as it rejected their application as being partly inadmissible and partly unfounded.
   First, as regards the admissibility of their appeal, the appellants submit that the reasoning of the Court is contradictory and that, by holding that the action for compensation resulting from the infection and death of Mr H.E.R was brought after the expiry of the 5-year limitation period, the Court violated both Article 46 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 6(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. In that connection, the appellants submit that since at the time their applications were considered they did not have epidemiological data capable of accurately pinpointing the date of on which their relatives became infected, the Court could not declare that their action was time-barred.
   Second, as regards the consideration of the substance of the case, the appellants submit that the Court also adopted contradictory reasoning and violated Article 6(1) of the convention cited above, on one hand, by basing its judgment on old reports and by failing to taken account of the most recent epidemiological data and, on the other hand, by holding that the existence of a causal link between the harm alleged and the alleged unlawful conduct by the Community institutions was not established.


title: Case T-343/12: Order of the General Court of 21 November 2012 — Grupo T Diffusión v OHIM — ABR Producción Contemporánea (Lampe) (Community trade mark — Application for a declaration of invalidity — Withdrawal of that application — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/50

         Order of the General Court of 21 November 2012 — Grupo T Diffusión v OHIM — ABR Producción Contemporánea (Lampe)
   (Case T-343/12) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for a declaration of invalidity - Withdrawal of that application - No need to adjudicate)
   2013/C 26/101
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Grupo T Diffusión, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: A. Lasala Grimalt, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: ABR Producción Contemporánea, SL (Barcelona, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 June 2012 (Case R 1622/2010-3) relating to invalidity proceedings between ABR Producción Contemporánea, SL and Grupo T Diffusión, SA.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               Each party shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 287, 22.9.2012.


title: Case T-341/04: Action brought on 13 August 2004 by DATAC AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               20.11.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 284/21

         Action brought on 13 August 2004 by DATAC AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case T-341/04)
   (2004/C 284/42)
   Language in which the application was submitted: German
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 13 August 2004 by DATAC AG, Passau (Germany), represented by K. Zingsheim, lawyer.
   DATEV eG, Nuremberg (Germany), was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 12 May 2004 in Case R 176/2002-4;

               —

               reject the opposition entered by DATEV eG;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               The applicant.

               Community trade mark sought:

               The word mark ‘DATAC’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 23 and 42 (inter alia, computer hardware and parts and computer software, printed matter, business affairs and rental and licensing of computer hardware and software) — Application No 665 455.

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               DATEV eG.

               Mark or sign cited in opposition:

               The German and Community word marks ‘DATEV’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 41 and 42 (inter alia, office organisation tools, electronic data processing for others, providing of training and tuition in the field of data processing and planning, developing, establishing and maintenance of electronic data processing programmes).

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Rejection of the opposition.

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division and referral of the proceedings back to the Opposition Division.

               Pleas in law:

                           —

                           infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 53(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94;

                           —

                           misapplication of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94;

                           —

                           no likelihood of confusion between the opposed marks.


title: Case T-159/16: Action brought on 15 April 2016 — Metronia v EUIPO — Zitro IP (TRIPLE O NADA)

text:
               13.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/61

      Action brought on 15 April 2016 — Metronia v EUIPO — Zitro IP (TRIPLE O NADA)
      (Case T-159/16)
      (2016/C 211/75)
      Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: Metronia, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Vela Ballesteros, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Zitro IP Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Applicant: Applicant

         Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘TRIPLE O NADA’ — Application for registration No 11 603 529

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 February 2016 in Case R 2605/2014-4

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  uphold the action brought against the decision of the Board of Appeal of 15 February 2016 and allow the EU trade mark applied for;

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Plea in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-432/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 31 July 2013 — Casa Județeană de Pensii Cluj v Attila Balazs

text:
               12.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 298/4

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 31 July 2013 — Casa Județeană de Pensii Cluj v Attila Balazs
   (Case C-432/13)
   2013/C 298/06
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Cluj

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Casa Județeană de Pensii Cluj

      Respondent: Attila Balazs

      Question referred

   Is Article 7(2)(c) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) to be interpreted as including within its scope a bilateral agreement which two Member States entered into before the date on which that regulation became applicable and by which the two states agreed to the termination of obligations relating to social security benefits owed by one state to nationals of the other state who had been political refugees in the territory of the first state and who have been repatriated to the territory of the second state, in exchange for a payment by the first state of a lump sum for the payment of pensions and to cover periods during which social security contributions were paid in the first 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, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416).


title: Case T-339/05: Action brought on  9 September 2005  — MacLean-Fogg/OHIM

text:
               26.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/28

         Action brought on 9 September 2005 — MacLean-Fogg/OHIM
   (Case T-339/05)
   (2005/C 296/60)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant(s): MacLean-Fogg Company (Mundelein, USA) [represented by: H. Eichmann, G. Barth, U. Blumenröder, C. Niklas-Falter, M. Kinkeldey, K. Brandt, A. Franke, U. Stephani, B. Allekotte, E. Bertram, K. Lochner, B. Ertle, C. Neuhierl, S. Prückner, C. Schmitt, B. Mehnert, P. Lübbe, S. Brötje, lawyers]

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trademarks and Designs) in the case R 1122/2004-1 of June 20, 2005;

               —

               order the costs of the proceedings to be borne by the defendant.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘LOKTHREAD’ for goods in class 6 (bolts, bolts of metal, nuts, nuts of metal) — application No 3 440 666

      Decision of the examiner: Refusal of the application for all goods

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the trade mark has to be considered as a whole and not as composed of two English words and thus possesses a minimum degree of distinctiveness.


title: Case T-639/14: Action brought on 22 August 2014 — DEI v Commission

text:
               10.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 395/54

      Action brought on 22 August 2014 — DEI v Commission
      (Case T-639/14)
      (2014/C 395/67)
      Language of the case: Greek

         Parties

         Applicant: Dimosia Epikhirisi Ilektrismou A.E. (DEI) (Athens, Greece) (represented by: E. Bourtzalas, D. Waelbroeck, A. Ikonomou, K Sinodinos and E. Salaka, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the General Court should:

                  —

                  annul the Commission decisions which are contained in the defendant’s letter of 12 June 2014 to the applicant and relate respectively to the two complaints which the applicant submitted in turn to the defendant challenging the unlawful State aid which resulted, initially, from the application of decision No 346/2012 of the Greek regulatory authority for energy and, subsequently, from the award of the special arbitration tribunal in the context of the permanent arbitration of the abovementioned regulatory authority for energy — both of which obliged the applicant to supply electricity to the company Alouminion A.E. at below cost price — and, specifically, the Commission’s express decision not to investigate further the second of the abovementioned complaints from the applicant, on the ground that no infringement of the State aid rules was established, and its implicit decision not to investigate further the first of the abovementioned complaints;

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay its costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  The first plea alleges infringement of an essential procedural requirement, as the defendant did not comply with the procedural requirements that are laid down for the adoption of the contested measure.

                  2.

                  The second plea alleges a manifest error of assessment as regards the law and the facts in interpreting and applying Articles 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU, relating to the defendant’s conclusion that the measure complained of cannot be imputed to the State.

                  3.

                  The third plea alleges a manifest error of assessment as regards the law and the facts in interpreting and applying Articles 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU, relating to the defendant’s conclusion that the measure complained of does not result in the grant of an unfair advantage to the company Alouminion A.E.

                  4.

                  The fourth plea alleges infringement of the obligation to state sufficient reasons and to examine all the relevant matters of fact and law and infringement of the principle of sound administration, in particular in the light of the defendant’s failure to set out sufficiently all the reasons for which the matters of fact and law that the applicant placed before it did not establish the existence of the alleged unlawful State aid and to state full reasons for the substantial change to the position which the defendant itself had adopted in previous cases, as regards fulfilment of the criterion of imputability to the State and the calculation of the price for the supply of electricity to a consumer such as the company Alouminion A.E., and in the light of the defendant’s failure to carry out any substantive investigation relating to the two abovementioned complaints from the applicant.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 27 November 2001 in Case T-222/00: Otto Wöhr GmbH v Commission of the European Communities (State aid — Approval decisions — Refusal to open the procedure pursuant to Article 88(2) EC — Complaint — Admissibility)

text:
C 131/18               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        1.6.2002
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 17 January 2002
                     of 27 November 2001
                                                                          in Case T-236/00: Gabriele Stauner and Others v European
                                                                          Parliament and Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties (1)
in Case T-222/00: Otto Wöhr GmbH v Commission of the
                  European Communities (1)
                                                                          (Action for annulment — Framework agreement on relations
                                                                          between the European Parliament and the Commission —
                                                                                Article 197 EC — Inadmissibility)
(State aid — Approval decisions — Refusal to open the
procedure pursuant to Article 88(2) EC — Complaint —                                                (2002/C 131/35)
                          Admissibility)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                        (2002/C 131/34)
                                                                          In Case T-236/00: Gabriele Stauner, residing in Wolfratshausen
                                                                          (Germany), Freddy Blak, residing in Næstved (Denmark),
                  (Language of the case: German)                          Mogens Camre, residing in Copenhagen (Denmark), Rijk
                                                                          van Dam, residing in Rotterdam (Netherlands), Christopher
                                                                          Heaton-Harris, residing in Kettering, Northamptonshire
                                                                          (United Kingdom), Franz-Xaver Mayer, residing in Landau-
                                                                          sur-l’Isar (Germany), Ursula Schleicher, residing in Munich
                                                                          (Germany), Jens-Peter Bonde, residing in Bagsværd (Denmark),
                                                                          Theodorus Bouwman, residing in Eindhoven (Netherlands),
In Case T-222/00: Otto Wöhr GmbH, established at Friolzheim               Kathalijne Maria Buitenweg, residing in Amsterdam (Nether-
(Germany), represented by C. Hebel and G. Walz, v Com-                    lands), Michl Ebner, residing in Bolzano (Italy), Joost Lagendijk,
mission of the European Communities, (Agents: K.-D. Borch-                residing in Rotterdam, Nelly Maes, residing in Sinaai (Belgium),
ardt and M. Nuñez-Müller), — application for annulment of                Franziska Emilia Müller, residing in Bruck (Upper Palatinate)
the Commission’s decision of 26 June 2000 not to open the                 (Germany), Alexander Radwan, residing in Rottach-Egern
formal examination procedure pursuant to Article 88(2) EC,                (Germany), Alexander de Roo, residing in Amsterdam, Heide
following the complaint lodged by the applicant concerning                Rühle, residing in Stuttgart (Germany), Inger Schöring, residing
State aid in favour of Hydraulik Markranstädt GmbH and                    in Gävle (Sweden), Esko Olavi Seppänen, residing in Helsinki
Hydraulik Seehausen GmbH, — the Court of First Instance                   (Finland), Bart Staes, residing in Antwerp (Belgium), Claude
(Second Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of                       Turmes, residing in Esch-sur-Alzette (Luxembourg), Lousewies
R.M. Moura Ramos, President, V. Tiili. J. Pirrung, P. Mengozzi            van der Laan, residing in Brussels (Belgium), Members of
and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on             the European Parliament, represented by J. Sedemund and
27 November 2001, the operative part of which is as follows:              T. Lübbig, Rechtsanwälte, with an address for service in
                                                                          Luxembourg, against European Parliament (Agents: C. Pennera
                                                                          and M. Berger) and Commission of the European Communities
                                                                          (Agents: U. Wölker and X. Lewis), — application for annulment
                                                                          of the Framework Agreement of 5 July 2000 on Relations
1.   The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
                                                                          between the European Parliament and the Commission (OJ
                                                                          2001 C 121, p. 122), — the Court of First Instance (Fourth
                                                                          Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili and
2.   The parties are ordered to pay their own costs.                      P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on
                                                                          17 January 2002, in which it:
3.   There is no need to give a decision on the Federal Republic of
                                                                          1.    Dismisses the application as inadmissible.
     Germany’s application to intervene.
                                                                          2.    Orders the applicants to pay their own costs and those of the
                                                                                Parliament and the Commission, including those incurred in
                                                                                the proceedings for interim measures.
(1) OJ C 316 of 4.11.2000.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 316 of 4.11.2000.


title: Case C-45/14: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 June 2014  — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Ítélőtábla — Hungary) — Criminal proceedings against István Balázs, Dániel Papp (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Fundamental rights — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Articles 47, 50 and 54 — Implementation of EU law — Lack — Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/32

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 June 2014 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Ítélőtábla — Hungary) — Criminal proceedings against István Balázs, Dániel Papp
   (Case C-45/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Fundamental rights - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 47, 50 and 54 - Implementation of EU law - Lack - Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court))
   2014/C 315/52
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Fővárosi Ítélőtábla

      Criminal proceedings against

   István Balázs, Dániel Papp

      Operative part of the order

   The Court of Justice of the European Union manifestly lacks jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Fővárosi Ítélőtábla (Hungary) by order of 21 January 2014.

      (1)  OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.


title: Case T-79/15: Action brought on 18 February 2015 — Olympus Medical Systems v OHIM (3D)

text:
               13.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/41

         Action brought on 18 February 2015 — Olympus Medical Systems v OHIM (3D)
   (Case T-79/15)
   (2015/C 118/52)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Olympus Medical Systems Corp. (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: A. Ebert-Weidenfeller and C. Opatz, lawyers)

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

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark containing the element ‘3D’ — Application for registration No 12 598 538

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 December 2014 in Case R 1708/2014-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case F-51/15: Action brought on 27 March 2015 — FR v EASA

text:
               8.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/37

         Action brought on 27 March 2015 — FR v EASA
   (Case F-51/15)
   (2015/C 190/45)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: FR (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot. lawyers)

      Defendant: European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision to dismiss the applicant at the end of his probationary period and claim for compensation in respect of the material and non-material damage allegedly sustained.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision dated 13 June 2014;

               —

               in as far as necessary, annul the decision of 18 December 2014;

               —

               as a consequence, order the compensation of the material prejudice suffered should the applicant not be reintegrated within the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA);

               —

               order the EASA to pay an indemnity for the moral prejudice suffered, evaluated ex aequo et bono and on a provisional basis at 5  800 euros;

               —

               order the EASA to bear all the costs.


               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/35

         Removal from the register of Case C-316/02 P (1)

   (2004/C 94/89)
   By order of 16 February 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case C-316/02 P: Hijos de Andrés Molina SA (HAMSA) v Commission of the European Communities and Kingdom of Spain.

      (1)  OJ C 274 of 9.11.2002.


title: Case T-154/15: Judgment of the General Court of 26 October 2016 — Jaber v Council (Common Foreign and Security Policy — Restrictive measures taken against Syria — Freezing of funds — Annulment of prior measures by a judgment of the General Court — New measures including the applicant's name on the lists — Action for annulment — Article 76(d) of the Rules of Procedure — Content of the application — Admissibility — Obligation to state reasons — Burden of proof — Right to property — Freedom to conduct a business)

text:
               12.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 26 October 2016 — Jaber v Council
   (Case T-154/15) (1)

   ((Common Foreign and Security Policy - Restrictive measures taken against Syria - Freezing of funds - Annulment of prior measures by a judgment of the General Court - New measures including the applicant's name on the lists - Action for annulment - Article 76(d) of the Rules of Procedure - Content of the application - Admissibility - Obligation to state reasons - Burden of proof - Right to property - Freedom to conduct a business))
   (2016/C 462/21)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Aiman Jaber (Lattakia, Syria) (represented by: A. Boesch, D. Amaudruz and M. Ponsard, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and S. Kyriakopoulou, acting as Agents)

      Re:

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

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders Mr Aiman Jaber to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union in the context of the present proceedings and during the proceedings for an interim order.

      (1)  OJ C 190, 8.6.2015.