title: Case C-278/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Aachen (Germany) lodged on 19 May 2016 — Frank Sleutjes

text:
               12.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 335/31

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Aachen (Germany) lodged on 19 May 2016 — Frank Sleutjes
   (Case C-278/16)
   (2016/C 335/41)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Aachen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Frank Sleutjes

      Other party: Staatsanwaltschaft Aachen

      Question referred

   Is Article 3 of Directive 2010/64/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings (Celex No 32010L0064) to be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘judgment’ in Paragraph 37(3) of the [Strafprozessordnung (StPO); the Code of Criminal Procedure] also includes penal orders within the meaning of Paragraph 407 et seq. of the Code of Criminal Procedure?

      (1)  OJ L 280, 26.10.2010, p. 1.


title: Case C-512/06 P: Appeal brought on 18 December 2006 by PTV Planung Transport Verkehr AG against the judgment delivered on 10 October 2006 in Case T-302/03 PTV Planung Transport Verkehr AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               24.2.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/12

         Appeal brought on 18 December 2006 by PTV Planung Transport Verkehr AG against the judgment delivered on 10 October 2006 in Case T-302/03 PTV Planung Transport Verkehr AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-512/06 P)
   (2007/C 42/21)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Appellant: PTV Planung Transport Verkehr AG (represented by: Dr. F. Nielsen, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
   Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Second Chamber) of 10 October 2006 in Case T-302/03;

               —

               Order the defendant and respondent to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 October 2006 infringes Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (1). The Court of First Instance wrongly considered that there is a ‘specific and direct relationship’ between the designation ‘map&guide’ and the ‘computer software’ product and ‘computer programming’ services and that the designation ‘map&guide’ allows for an ‘immediate identification’ of that product and those services (paragraph 40 of the judgment). Furthermore, the Court of First Instance erred in law when it assumed that the sign ‘map&guide’ enables the relevant public ‘to establish immediately, and without reflection, a specific and direct relationship with the computer software [product] and the computer programming services for computers providing the function of (city) maps and (travel) guides’ (paragraph 47 of the judgment). Finally, it is claimed in the judgment that the ‘computer software’ product group and the ‘computer programming’ services group may also include goods and services which have the function of providing (city) maps and (travel) guides.
   The interpretation of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 adopted by the Court of First Instance in the judgment is incorrect. Contrary to the assumption of the Court of First Instance the mark applied for does not lack distinctive character. The mark applied for is not descriptive. A ‘specific and direct relationship’ and an ‘immediate identification’ may only be assumed to exist if the term at issue is one which directly designates the product or services in question or describes characteristics which ‘attach to’ the particular goods or services immediately or per se. That does not apply to the designation ‘map&guide’. It neither designates the ‘computer software’ product or the ‘computer programming’ services directly nor makes a statement regarding an essential characteristic which is immediately associated with the product or services. The public does not have the opportunity ‘to establish immediately, and without reflection, a specific and direct relationship with the computer software [product] and the computer programming services for computers providing the function of (city) maps and (travel) guides’. Furthermore, neither the ‘computer programming’ services nor the ‘computer software’ product can ‘provide’ the function of a (city) map or a (travel) guide.
   The connection which the Court of First Instance in the judgment assumed to exist between the designation ‘map&guide’ and the specifically referred to ‘computer software’ product and ‘computer programming’ services is not present at the outset, but is only artificially contrived.

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


title: Case T-258/12: Action brought on 12 June 2012 — Mederer v OHIM — Katjes Fassin (SOCCER GUMS)

text:
               21.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/28

         Action brought on 12 June 2012 — Mederer v OHIM — Katjes Fassin (SOCCER GUMS)
   (Case T-258/12)
   2012/C 217/60
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Mederer GmbH (Fürth, Germany) (represented by: O. Ruhl and C. Sachs, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Katjes Fassin GmbH & Co. KG (Emmerich am Rhein, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 10 April 2012 in Case R 225/2011-4;

               —

               Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and Katjes Fassin GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs of the opposition proceedings, the appeal proceedings and the proceedings before the Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘SOCCER GUMS’ for goods in Class 30 — Community trade mark application No 8 629 446

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Katjes Fassin GmbH & Co. KG

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the national word mark ‘SOCCER STAR’ for goods in Class 30

      Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

      Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

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


title: Case C-2/09: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 June 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — Regionalna Mitnicheska Direktsia — Plovdiv v Petar Dimitrov Kalinchev (Excise duties — Taxation of used vehicles — Taxation of imported used vehicles higher than that imposed on vehicles which are already in circulation in the national territory — Taxation according to the year of manufacture and mileage of the vehicles — Concept of ‘similar domestic products’ )

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/8

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 June 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — Regionalna Mitnicheska Direktsia — Plovdiv v Petar Dimitrov Kalinchev
   (Case C-2/09) (1)

   (Excise duties - Taxation of used vehicles - Taxation of imported used vehicles higher than that imposed on vehicles which are already in circulation in the national territory - Taxation according to the year of manufacture and mileage of the vehicles - Concept of ‘similar domestic products’)
   2010/C 221/12
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Varhoven administrativen sad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Regionalna Mitnicheska Direktsia — Plovdiv

      Defendant: Petar Dimitrov Kalinchev

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Varhoven Administrativen Sad — Interpretation of Article 25 and Article 90, first paragraph, of the EC Treaty and of Article 3(3) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1) — National (excise) duty imposed on second-hand motor vehicles from a Member State on their introduction onto national territory, higher than the excise payable on new motor vehicles introduced onto the same national territory, which, being already in circulation, are no longer subject to excise duties on their subsequent resale as second-hand vehicles — Meaning of ‘similar domestic products’ — Compatibility of national legislation with Community rules

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The first subparagraph of Article 3(3) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products does not apply to a case such as the main proceedings and cannot therefore preclude a Member State from laying down provisions levying excise duty on the introduction of used motor vehicles into its territory, if that duty is not directly payable on the second-hand purchase of such vehicles which are already in the country and on which excise duty has already been paid on first introduction into the territory of the Member State, provided that such a system does not give rise to border-crossing formalities in trade between Member States.

               2.

               The first paragraph of Article 110 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that used vehicles imported into Bulgaria must be considered as similar products to used vehicles already registered in that State which were imported into that State as new vehicles, independently of their origin.

               3.

               The first paragraph of Article 110 TFEU precludes a Member State from applying differing rules on the levying of excise duty on motor vehicles in circumstances such as those in the present case where that excise duty is levied differently on used vehicles imported from other Member States and used vehicles already registered in that State and which were imported into that State as new vehicles.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.


C 191/32               EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                     10.8.2002
Action brought on 1 July 2002 by Anselmo Briganti                           change the minimum number of points required from that
    against Commission of the European Communities                          notified in the competition notice.
                         (Case T-195/02)                                    In support of his arguments, the applicant claims:
                         (2002/C 191/54)                                    —     the selection board’s errors were such as to distort the
                                                                                outcome of the two tests.
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                         —     failure to make an accurate, fair and equitable assessment
                                                                                of the abilities of the candidates and breach of the
                                                                                principles of equality and equal treatment.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                  —     breach of contractual obligations by the selection board.
European Communities on 1 July 2002 by Anselmo Briganti,
represented by Giovanni Sciusco, avvocato.                                  —     breach of the principle of legitimate expectations.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the selection board excluding the
      applicant from the subsequent stage of competition                           Removal from the register of Case T-152/98 (1)
      COM/A/11/01 for failing to obtain the minimum number
      of points required for Test A;                                                                (2002/C 191/55)
—     annul the evaluation criterion established by the selection                              (Language of the case: Italian)
      board following the discovery of errors committed by the
      board itself with regard to question 38 of Test A under
      ‘Justice and Internal Affairs’ and Question 3 in Test C;              By order of 16 May 2002 the President of the Fourth Chamber
                                                                            of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
—     annul the section on ‘Justice and Internal Affairs’ of Test A         ordered the removal from the register of Case T-152/98:
      of competition COM/A/11/01;                                           Azienda Agricola ‘Ponte S. Pietro’ di Zardi Vincenzo e Clara v
                                                                            Council of the European Union.
—     annul all the acts of the selection board relating to the
      section on ‘Justice and Internal Affairs’ of competition
      COM/A/11/01 after the test had taken place;                           (1) OJ C 358 of 21.11.1998.
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                    Removal from the register of Case T-165/99 (1)
The applicant in the present case, who took part in the pre-                                        (2002/C 191/56)
selection test for COM/A/11/01 (Principal administrators —
Justice and internal affairs section), contests the selection                                 (Language of the case: English)
board’s decision to exclude him from the subsequent stage of
the competition for failing to pass Test A.
                                                                            By order of 16 May 2002 the President of the Fourth Chamber
The applicant claims that he received at the same time a letter             of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
from the selection board after the test had taken place stating             ordered the removal from the register of Case T-165/99:
that it had discovered mistakes in Question 38 of the section               Omega Air Limited and Seven Q Seven Inc. v Council of the
on ‘Justice and Internal Affairs’ of Test A and Question 3 of               European Union.
Test C; the board then cancelled those questions and calculated
the marks on the basis of the remaining questions but did not               (1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.


title: Case C-76/05: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 11 September 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln) — Herbert Schwarz and Marga Gootjes-Schwarz v Finanzamt Bergisch Gladbach (Article 8a of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 18 EC) — European Citizenship — Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC) — Freedom to provide services — Income tax legislation — School fees — Tax deductibility limited to school fees paid to national private establishments)

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/5

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 11 September 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln) — Herbert Schwarz and Marga Gootjes-Schwarz v Finanzamt Bergisch Gladbach
   (Case C-76/05) (1)

   (Article 8a of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 18 EC) - European Citizenship - Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC) - Freedom to provide services - Income tax legislation - School fees - Tax deductibility limited to school fees paid to national private establishments)
   (2007/C 269/10)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Finanzgericht Köln
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Herbert Schwarz and Marga Gootjes-Schwarz

      Defendant: Finanzamt Bergisch Gladbach,
   Re:
   Compatibility with Articles 18, 39, 43 and 49 EC of national legislation on income tax giving the benefit of a tax reduction for children's school fees, provided that the children are educated in certain national establishments — Children educated in establishments of other Member States
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Where taxpayers of a Member State send their children to a school situated in another Member State the financing of which is essentially from private funds, Article 49 EC must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which allows taxpayers to claim as special expenses conferring a right to a reduction in income tax the payment of school fees to certain private schools established in national territory, but generally excludes that possibility in relation to school fees paid to a private school established in another Member State.

               2.

               Where taxpayers of a Member State send their children to a school established in another Member State, the services of which are not covered by Article 49 EC, Article 18 EC precludes legislation which allows taxpayers to claim as special expenses conferring a right to a reduction in income tax the payment of school fees to certain private schools established in national territory, but generally excludes that possibility in relation to school fees paid to a private school established in another Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 93, 16.4.2005.


title: Case T-221/09: Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2011 — Ergo Versicherungsgruppe v OHIM — Société de développement et de recherche industrielle (ERGO Group) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark ERGO Group — Earlier Community word mark URGO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/47

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2011 — Ergo Versicherungsgruppe v OHIM — Société de développement et de recherche industrielle (ERGO Group)
   (Case T-221/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark ERGO Group - Earlier Community word mark URGO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2011/C 269/104
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Ergo Versicherungsgruppe AG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: V. von Bomhard, A.W. Renck, T. Dolde and J. Pause, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Société de développement et de recherche industrielle (Chenôve, France) (represented by: K. Dröge, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 March 2009 (Case R 520/2008-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Société de développement et de recherche industrielle and Ergo Versicherungsgruppe AG.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Versicherungsgruppe AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 180, 1.8.2009.


title: Case C-470/09 P: Appeal brought on 26 November 2009 by Territorio Histórico de Guipúzcoa — Diputación Foral de Guipúzcoa against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, extended composition) delivered on 9 September 2009 in Joined Cases T-30/01 to T-32/01 and T-86/01 to T-88/01 Territorio Histórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de Álava and Others v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               13.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/10

         Appeal brought on 26 November 2009 by Territorio Histórico de Guipúzcoa — Diputación Foral de Guipúzcoa against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, extended composition) delivered on 9 September 2009 in Joined Cases T-30/01 to T-32/01 and T-86/01 to T-88/01 Territorio Histórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de Álava and Others v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-470/09 P)
   2010/C 37/12
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Territorio Histórico de Guipúzcoa — Diputación Foral de Guipúzcoa (represented by: I. Sáenz-Cortabarría Fernández and M. Morales Isasi, lawyers)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Territorio Histórico de Vizcaya — Diputación Foral de Vizcaya, Territorio Histórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de Álava, Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco — Goberierno Vasco, Confederación Empresarial Vasca (Confebask), Commission of the European Communities and Comunidad Autónoma de la Rioja

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare the appeal to be admissible and well founded;

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal;

               —

               grant the form of order sought at first instance, that is the alternative claim to annul Article 3 of the contested decision;

               —

               alternatively, refer the case back to the Court of First Instance and, order it to examine the evidence rejected;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal and the intervener, the Comunidad Autónoma de la Rioja to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               The CFI erred in law by holding that the conclusion of the preliminary examination procedure with respect to the tax measure at issue, prior to the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, required the existence of an express decision by Commission decision to that effect (addressed to the Member State).

               2.

               The CFI misinterpreted the decision of 28 November 2000 by holding that that decision put an end to the preliminary examination procedure of the tax measure at issue which arose out of a complaint lodged in April 1994. The CFI erred in law by not holding that the re-examination of the tax measure at issue in 2000 was carried out within the framework of the procedure laid down for existing aid.

               3.

               The CFI erred in law by failing to comply with the procedural rules concerning the burden of proof and the assessment of evidence, in particular with respect to the documentary evidence consisting of the decision of 28 November 2000 (its credibility and probative force). The CFI also infringed the right to a fair trial.

               4.

               The CFI erred in law by infringing the procedural rules relating to the assessment of evidence and the burden of proof with respect to the objective, relevant, corroborative and conclusive evidence in the case-file and which proves that, prior to the decision of 28 November 2000, the Commission had conducted a preliminary examination of the tax measure at issue and had closed that examination. The CFI erred in law by not holding that the re-examination of the tax measure at issue in 2000 had to be conducted within the framework of the procedure laid down for existing aid.

               5.

               The CFI erred in law by confirming the finding that the tax measure at issue, adopted in 1993, constituted operating aid, by applying the definition of investment aid laid down in the directives on regional aid of 1998. The CFI breached the principle of legal certainty and, in particular, the principle of non-retroactivity.

               6.

               The CFI erred in law as regards the concept of ‘relevant information’ for the preliminary examination of a tax system in the field of State aid which led the CFI to hold that the duration of the preliminary procedure was not unreasonable.

               7.

               The CFI erred in law by holding that a period of 79 months, in the instant case, is not unreasonable period of time for a preliminary examination procedure with respect to the tax measure at issue, and by holding, that therefore there was no infringement of Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 as regards the principle of legal certainty.

               8.

               The CFI erred in law by holding that a period of 79 months, in the instant case, is not unreasonable for a preliminary examination procedure for the tax measure at issue and by holding, therefore, that there was no infringement of Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 as regards the principle of sound administration.

               9.

               The CFI erred in law by holding that, in the instant case, there are no exceptional circumstances which justify the legitimate expectation that the tax measure at issue is lawful, which could preclude the recovery of the aid, in accordance with Article 14(1) of Regulation No 659/1999. The decision was also misinterpreted.

               10.

               The CFI erred in law by holding that, in this case, there was no infringement of the principle of equal treatment which could preclude recovery of the aid in accordance with Article 14(1) of Regulation No 659/1999.

               11.

               The CFI erred in law by failing to comply with the procedural rules regarding the assessment of evidence and by deciding not to require disclosure of the evidence requested by the applicant with respect to certain Commission documents that, in the light of the arguments used by the CFI in order to dismiss the applicant's application, are essential to the defence of its interests. The CFI also infringed the right to a fair trial, the principle of equality of arms and the rights of defence.


title: Case C-435/09: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 March 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 85/337/EEC — Assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment — Selection criteria — Determination of thresholds — Size of the project)

text:
               21.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 152/6

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 March 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-435/09) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 85/337/EEC - Assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment - Selection criteria - Determination of thresholds - Size of the project)
   2011/C 152/10
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. van Beek, J.-B. Laignelot and C. ten Dam, Agents)

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

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Incorrect and incomplete transposition of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40), as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5) — Article 4(2) and (3), in conjunction with Annexes II and II (Flemish Community), Article 4(1), in conjunction with Annex I(8)(a) and (18)(a), and Article 7(1)(b) (Walloon Region) and Article 4(2) and (3) in conjunction with Annexes II and II (Brussels Capital Region) — Thresholds and criteria

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by reason of the fact that the measures necessary for the correct and complete implementation have not been adopted

                           —

                           as regards the Flemish Region, Article 4(2) and (3) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Directive 2003/35/EC of 26 May 2003, in conjunction with Annexes II and II thereof;

                           —

                           as regards the Walloon Region, Article 4(1), in conjunction with Annex I(8)(a) and (18)(a) of Directive 85/337, as amended by Directive 2003/35, and Article 7(1)(b) thereof; and

                           —

                           as regards the Brussels-Capital Region, Article 4(2) and (3), in conjunction with Annexes II and III of Directive 85/337, as amended by Directive 2003/35, and Annex III as such, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.


title: Case T-187/15: Order of the General Court of 10 November 2015 — Compagnia Trasporti Pubblici and Others v Commission (State aid — Undertaking operating a network of bus connections in the Region of Campania — Compensation for the public service obligations paid by the Italian authorities following a judgment of the Consiglio di Stato — Commission decision declaring the measure incompatible with the internal market — Action brought by undertakings in a situation analogous to that of the aid recipient)

text:
               18.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/38

         Order of the General Court of 10 November 2015 — Compagnia Trasporti Pubblici and Others v Commission
   (Case T-187/15) (1)

   ((State aid - Undertaking operating a network of bus connections in the Region of Campania - Compensation for the public service obligations paid by the Italian authorities following a judgment of the Consiglio di Stato - Commission decision declaring the measure incompatible with the internal market - Action brought by undertakings in a situation analogous to that of the aid recipient))
   (2016/C 016/47)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicants: Compagnia Trasporti Pubblici (Naples, Italy); Atap — Azienda Trasporti Automobilistici Pubblici delle Province di Biella e Vercelli SpA (Biella, Italy); Ferrovie Appulo Lucane Srl (Bari, Italy); Asstra — Associazione Trasporti (Rome, Italy) and Associazione Nazionale Autotrasporto Viaggiatori (ANAV) (Rome) (represented by: M. Malena, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Armati, G. Conte and P.J. Loewenthal, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1074 of 19 January 2015 on State aid SA.35842 (2014/C) (ex 2012/NN) implemented by Italy — Additional public service compensation for CSTP (OJ 2015 L 179, p. 112).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Compagnia Trasporti Pubblici; Atap — Azienda Trasporti Automobilistici Pubblici delle Province di Biella e Vercelli SpA; Ferrovie Appulo Lucane Srl; Asstra — Associazione Trasporti and Associazione Nazionale Autotrasporto Viaggiatori (ANAV) shall bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 190, 8.6.2015.


title: Case T-534/12: Action brought on 8 December 2012 — Still v OHIM (Fleet Data Services)

text:
               2.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/25

         Action brought on 8 December 2012 — Still v OHIM (Fleet Data Services)
   (Case T-534/12)
   2013/C 32/39
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Still GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by S. Waller, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 September 2012 in Case R 130/2012-1;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs;

               —

               Join the case under Article 50(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court with the action brought in parallel against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) in Case R 4/2012-1, also of 10 September 2012, regarding the Community trade mark application ‘Truck Data Services’, application No 009931429.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark including the word elements ‘Fleet Data Services’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 12, 35, 36, 37 and 39 — Community trade mark application No 9 931 387

      Decision of the Examiner: the application was rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

      Pleas in law:

               —

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

               —

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

               —

               Infringement of the second sentence of Article [75] of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case C-108/10: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Venezia — Italy) — Ivana Scattolon v Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca (Social policy — Directive 77/187/EEC — Maintenance of the rights of workers in the event of a transfer of an undertaking — Meaning of undertaking and transfer — Transferor and transferee governed by public law — Application, from the date of transfer, of the collective agreement in force with the transferee — Salary treatment — Whether length of service completed with the transferor to be taken into account)

text:
               22.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/10

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Venezia — Italy) — Ivana Scattolon v Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca
   (Case C-108/10) (1)

   (Social policy - Directive 77/187/EEC - Maintenance of the rights of workers in the event of a transfer of an undertaking - Meaning of ‘undertaking’ and ‘transfer’ - Transferor and transferee governed by public law - Application, from the date of transfer, of the collective agreement in force with the transferee - Salary treatment - Whether length of service completed with the transferor to be taken into account)
   2011/C 311/12
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Ordinario di Venezia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ivana Scattolon

      Defendant: Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale Ordinario di Venezia — Scope of Council Directives 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses (OJ 1977 L 61, p. 26) and 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses (OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16) — Interpretation of Article 3(1) of Directive 77/187/EEC — Transfer of local authority cleaning staff from a local authority to the State — Safeguarding of rights, including length of service with the local authority

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The takeover by a public authority of a Member State of staff employed by another public authority and entrusted with the supply to schools of auxiliary services including, in particular, tasks of maintenance and administrative assistance constitutes a transfer of an undertaking falling within Council Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses, where that staff consists in a structured group of employees who are protected as workers by virtue of the domestic law of that Member State.

               2.

               Where a transfer within the meaning of Directive 77/187 leads to the immediate application to the transferred workers of the collective agreement in force with the transferee, and where the conditions for remuneration are linked in particular to length of service, Article 3 of that directive precludes the transferred workers from suffering, in comparison with their situation immediately before the transfer, a substantial loss of salary by reason of the fact that their length of service with the transferor, equivalent to that completed by workers in the service of the transferee, is not taken into account when determining their starting salary position with the latter. It is for the national court to examine whether, at the time of the transfer at issue in the main proceedings, there was such a loss of salary.

      (1)  OJ C 134, 22.5.2010.


title: Case T-683/13: Action brought on 20 December 2013 — Brammer v OHIM — Office Ernest T. Freylinger (EUROMARKER)

text:
               1.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/14

         Action brought on 20 December 2013 — Brammer v OHIM — Office Ernest T. Freylinger (EUROMARKER)
   (Case T-683/13)
   2014/C 61/24
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Brammer GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: R. Kornfeld, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Office Ernest T. Freylinger SA (Strassen, Luxembourg)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   in so far as the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) also confirmed the decision of the Opposition Division of 4 July 2012, in that it upheld the opposition also for the supply of services in Class 38 and in Class 42,

               —

               find that the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) made an error;

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 October 2013 in Case R 1653/2012-1;

               —

               order the defendant OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Brammer GmbH

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘EUROMARKER’ for services in Classes 38, 42 and 45 — Community trade mark application Nr 9 852 849

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Office Ernest T. Freylinger SA

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark ‘EURIMARK’ for services in Classes 35, 41, 42 and 45 — Community trade mark No 5 850 111

      Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was dismissed

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


title: Cases T-84/10 R and T-223/10 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 25 June 2010 — Regione Puglia v Commission (Application for interim measures — Decision to reduce Community financial assistance — Debit note — Application to suspend the operation of a measure — No urgency)

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/38

         Order of the President of the General Court of 25 June 2010 — Regione Puglia v Commission
   (Cases T-84/10 R and T-223/10 R)
   (Application for interim measures - Decision to reduce Community financial assistance - Debit note - Application to suspend the operation of a measure - No urgency)
   2010/C 234/68
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Regione Puglia (represented by: F. Brunelli and A. Aloia, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Cattabriga and A. Steiblytè, Agents)

      Re:

   Action to suspend the operation, first, of Commission Decision C(2009) 10350 of 22 December 2009, concerning the cancellation of part of the contribution from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), allocated to Italy for the operational programme POR Puglia, within Objective 1 (2000-2006) and, second, of the payment order contained in the debit note of 26 February 2010 issued following that decision.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Cases T-84/10 R and T-223/10 R are joined for the purposes of this order.

               2.

               The applications for interim measures are dismissed.

               3.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case C-665/15: Action brought on 14 December 2015 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

text:
               15.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 59/10

         Action brought on 14 December 2015 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-665/15)
   (2016/C 059/10)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Guerra e Andrade and J. Hottiaux, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to be connect to the European Union driving licence network, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(5)(d) of Directive 2006/126/EC (1).

               —

               order Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   It is apparent from Directive 2006/126 and from case-law that a Member State which issues a driving licence is required to verify whether the minimum requirements for the issue of driving licences are fulfilled.
   If the Portuguese Republic is not connected to the European Union driving licence network (RESPER), it cannot verify whether the minimum requirements for the issue of driving licences are fulfilled. It cannot, in particular, verify whether the applicant already holds a driving licence in another Member State.
   Moreover, as the Portuguese Republic is not connected to RESPER, other Member States cannot verify, together with Portugal, whether the minimum requirements for the issue of driving licences are fulfilled.
   It should be added that other Member States cannot carry out any form of control, together with Portugal, in cases in which the minimum requirements for the issue of driving licences are clearly not fulfilled.
   Accordingly, as Portugal is not connected to RESPER, it undermines the essential purpose of the requirement to be connected to the network and of Directive 2006/126, namely to improve road safety and facilitate the free movement of persons.
   Article 7(5)(d) of Directive 2006/126 clearly establishes that Member States must use the EU driving licence network, in particular in order to carry out checks and especially in order to prevent a licence holder having more than one driving licence.
   Under Article 16(2) of the directive, Member States were required to apply Article 7(5) of the directive as from 19 January 2013.

      (1)  Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences (recast) (OJ 2006 L 403, p. 18).


title: Action brought on 19 June 1995 by Nicolaos Progoulis against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-131/95)

text:
2 . 9 . 95              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 229/21
Action brought on 8 June 1995 by Neue Maxhütte                         Action brought on 19 June 1995 by Nicolaos Progoulis
Stahlwerke GmbH and Lech-Stahlwerke GmbH against the                     against the Commission of the European Communities
          Commission of the European Communities                                              ( Case T-131/95 )
                         ( Case T-129/95 )                                                      ( 95/C 229/48 )
                           ( 95/C 229/47
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities was brought before the Court of First
An action against the Commission of the European                       Instance of the European Communities on 19 June 1995 by
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      Nicolaos Progoulis, residing in Brussels, represented, by
Instance of the European Communities on 8 June                         Vassilios Akritidis, of the Athens Bar, with an address for
1995 by Neue Maxhütte Stahlwerke GmbH, Sulzbach-                       service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arsène
Rosenberg ( FRG ), and Lech-Stahlwerke GmbH,                           Kronshagen, 12 Boulevard de la Foire .
Meitingen-Herbertshofen ( FRG), represented by Dr Rainer
M. Bierwagen, Rechtsanwalt, Brussels, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Victor Elvinger,              The applicant claims that the Court should:
Elvinger &; Dessoy, 31 Rue d'Eich .
                                                                       — annual the decision of the defendant, addressed to the
                                                                           applicant by letter of 20 March 1995 , rejecting his
The applicants claim that the Court should :                               application for regrading in grade Bl , step 2, -with
                                                                           retroactive effect from 1 March 1983 , and for payment
1 . declare void the Commission's decision of 4 April 1995                 of the sum due in consequence of the regrading applied
     in so far as it concerns the applicants;                              for, calculated retroactively from 1 March 1983 ,
                                                                           together with compound interest thereon at the annual
                                                                           rate of 10 % ,
2 . order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                       — order the defendant to pay the costs .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The application concerns the Commission's decision of
4 April 1995 addressed to the Federal German Government                The applicant states that he was appointed an official of the
in which it prohibited the Federal State of Bavaria's planned          defendant institution by decision of 9 March 1983 , in grade
contributions to compensation for accumulated losses and               B3 , step 2 . On the following day, he submitted an
in respect of certain investments on the ground that they              application for a review of his classification. He
were State aids which were incompatible with the ECSC                  subsequently lodged a complaint against the decision
Treaty and the Steel Aids Code .                                       rejecting that application, maintaining that the
                                                                       administration had failed to take into acount his period of
The applicants complain that there was an incorrect                    compulsory military service ( 27 months ). In consequence of
statement of the reasons on which the decision was based               that complaint, the defendant reclassified the applicant in
and a breach of Article 15 of the ECSC Treaty. The decision            grade B3 , step 3 .
is based on an erroneous representation and evaluation of
the facts .                                                            On 5 December 1991 , the applicant submitted an
                                                                       application for a review of his classification, on the ground
                                                                       that the professional experience gained by him prior to his
The applicants complain that there was an infringement of              entry into service (the administration had acknowledged
both the applicants ' and the Federal Government's right to            him as having 12 years and nine months' experience ), taken
be heard .
                                                                       together with his period of military service ( 27 months ), was
                                                                       greater ( 15 years ) than that required, according to the
The applicants also claim that the decision incorrectly                wording of the decision of 6 June 1973 on the criteria
applied Article 4 ( c ) of the ECSC Treaty because the planned         applicable to appointment in grade and step on recruitment
payments were in reality not aids . The Commission                     for appointment in grade Bl ( 14 years ). In support of his
misconstrued the notion of aid and incorrectly appraised the           application, the applicant relied on the case of another
Federal State of Bavaria's business conduct. Furthermore,              official whom the defendant had reclassified in a different
the     contested    decision     infringes  the    principle  of      career bracket with retroactive effect from the date of his
proportionality, fails to recognize that in view of the                 appointment. That application was rejected .
applicants' weak market position there is no effect on
competition in the common market, and prevents the                      On 6 May 1994, the applicant submitted a fresh application
 planned privatization measures in an anti-competitive                  for regrading in consequence of the judgment delivered by
 manner .                                                               the Court of First Instance on 29 September 1993 in Joined
                                                                        Cases T-103/92 , T-104/92 snd T-105/92 . That application
                                                                        was rejected by the defendant, who considered that that
                                                                        judgment was not applicable in the applicant's case.
 ---pagebreak--- No C 229/22             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                       2 . 9 . 95
The applicant maintains that the defendant has committed              On 23 November 1994 , the applicant, pursuant to Article
several manifest errors of assessment of the law and of his           175 , called on the Commission to act by adopting a
personal situation, by regarding him as not entitled to               definitive position on the complaint in so far as concerned
regrading in a different career bracket despite having                Article 85 .
allowed another official to change to a different career
bracket. Moreover, he considers that insufficient reasons
were given for the contested decision, in particular as               On 15 February 1995 , not having received any decision
regards the reasons for the non-application of the principles         from the Commission, the applicant, pursuant to Article
laid down by the judgment of the Court of First Instance of           175 , lodged with the Court of First Instance an application
29 September 1993 . Lastly, the applicant states that, by             against the Commission for failure to act ( Case T-28/95 ).
reason of the administrative practice followed by the                 On 17 February 1995 the Commission adopted Decision
defendant in relation to him, it has prejudiced his interests,        SG/95 ) D/1790, rejecting the complaint as regards Article 85
particularly as regards the development of his career and of          of the EC Treaty . The applicant challenged that decision by
his pension rights .                                                  application lodged with the Court of First Instance pursuant
                                                                      to Article 173 ( Case T-l 10/95 ). Finally, on 6 April 1995 , the
                                                                      Commission adopted Decision SG(95 ) D/4438 , rejecting the
                                                                      second part of the aforementioned complaint of abuse of a
                                                                      dominant position within the meaning of Article 86 by the
                                                                      interception of mail on the basis of Article 25 of the UPU
                                                                      Convention . The latter is the decision contested in the
Action brought on 20 June 1995 by International Express
Carriers Conference (IECC ) against the Commission of the             present case .
                     European Communities
                          Case T-133 /95 )                            The applicant submits that the contested decision should be
                           ( 95/C 229/49 )                            annulled for the following reasons :
                 (Language of the case: English)                      — Breach of Article 190 of the Treaty in that the
                                                                          Commission fails to state reasons in its decision
An action against the Commission of the European                          regarding the interception of 'ABC remail' and the
Communities was brought before the Court of First                         application of Article 85 to the market allocation scheme
Instance of the European Communities on 20 June 1995 by                   implemented on the basis of Article 25 of the UPU
International Express Carriers Conference ( IECC ),                       Convention .
represented by Eric Morgan de Rivery and Jacques Derenne,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
of Alex Schmitt, Bonn & Schmitt, 62 Avenue Guillaume,                 — Breach of Article 3(2 ) of Regulation No 17/62 in so far as
L-1650 .                                                                  the Commission incorrectly considered that the
                                                                          applicant's members had no legitimate interest as
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               regards 'non-physical' remail .
— annul Commission Decision No SG(95)D/4438 of
                                                                      — Breach of EC competition rules in that the Commission
       6 April 1995 ( Case No IV/32.791 — Remail ),
                                                                           failed to condemn ( i ) the interception and the agreement
— order such further or other relief as the Court considers               to intercept commercial 'physical ABA remail' by the
                                                                           post offices, ( ii) the post offices' efforts to restrict
       appropriate in order for the Commission to comply with
       Article 176 of the EC Treaty,
                                                                           development of 'ABC remail' by relying on the authority
                                                                           or purported authority of Article 25 of the UPU
 — order the Commission to pay the costs .                                 Convention, and ( iii ) the post offices' use of the UPU
                                                                           Convention to restrict 'non-physical remail'.
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                       — Misuse of powers in that the Commission's main
 The applicant, a professional organization composed of                    purpose in rejecting the complaint was in fact to achieve
 certain important private express companies, filed with the               political objectives .
 Commission, on 13 July 1988 , a complaint under Article 3
 ( 2 ) of Regulation No 17/62 concerning the infringement ( i )
 of Article 85 (1 ) of the EC Treaty by certain European public        — Breach of certain principles of Community law in
 postal operators, and ( ii ) of Article 86 of the EC Treaty by            that, in adopting the decision, the Commission
 two post offices which relied upon a market allocation                    violated the principles of legal certainty and of the
 scheme set out in the Universal Postal Convention ( UPU                   protection of legitimate expectations, the principle of
 Convention ). The behaviour in question of the post offices               non-discrimination and the principle of sound
 named in the complaint was directed towards suppressing                   administration .
 or restraining 'remail' competition, a practice whereby a
 mailer prepares international mail in one country but posts
 the mail not with the post office of that country but with a
 post office located in another country .


title: Case C-33/05: Action brought on 31 January 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               2.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/13

         Action brought on 31 January 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-33/05)
   (2005/C 82/27)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 31 January 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Sara Pardo Quintillán and Joanna Hottiaux, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (1) and, in any event, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for transposition of the Directive into national law expired on 22 December 2003.

      (1)  OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1


title: Case C-80/14: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) — United Kingdom) — Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers (USDAW), B. Wilson v WW Realisation 1 Ltd, in liquidation, Ethel Austin Ltd, Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Collective redundancies — Directive 98/59/EC — Article 1(1)(a) — Meaning of ‘establishment’ — Method of calculating the number of workers made redundant)

text:
               29.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/8

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) — United Kingdom) — Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers (USDAW), B. Wilson v WW Realisation 1 Ltd, in liquidation, Ethel Austin Ltd, Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills
   (Case C-80/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Collective redundancies - Directive 98/59/EC - Article 1(1)(a) - Meaning of ‘establishment’ - Method of calculating the number of workers made redundant))
   (2015/C 213/12)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Claimants/Respondents: Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers (USDAW), B. Wilson

      Defendants/Appellants: WW Realisation 1 Ltd, in liquidation, Ethel Austin Ltd, Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills

      Operative part of the judgment

   The term ‘establishment’ in Article 1(1)(a)(ii) of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies must be interpreted in the same way as the term in Article 1(1)(a)(i) of that directive.
   Article 1(1)(a)(ii) of Directive 98/59 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation that lays down an obligation to inform and consult workers in the event of the dismissal, within a period of 90 days, of at least 20 workers from a particular establishment of an undertaking, and not where the aggregate number of dismissals across all of the establishments or across some of the establishments of an undertaking over the same period reaches or exceeds the threshold of 20 workers.

      (1)  OJ C 151, 19.5.2014.


title: Case T-11/07 RENV: Order of the General Court of 21 March 2014  — Frucona Košice v Commission (State aid — Spirit and spirit-based beverages — Cancellation of a tax debt in a collective bankruptcy procedure — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — No longer any legal interest in bringing proceedings — Decision repealing and replacing the contested decision — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               26.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 159/24

         Order of the General Court of 21 March 2014 — Frucona Košice v Commission
   (Case T-11/07 RENV) (1)

   ((State aid - Spirit and spirit-based beverages - Cancellation of a tax debt in a collective bankruptcy procedure - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - No longer any legal interest in bringing proceedings - Decision repealing and replacing the contested decision - No need to adjudicate))
   2014/C 159/32
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Frucona Košice a.s. (Košice, Slovakia) (represented by: K. Lasok QC, J. Holmes and B. Hartnett, Barristers, and O. Geiss, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Armati and K. Walkerová, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: St. Nicolaus — trade a.s. (Bratislava, Slovakia) (represented by: N. Smaho, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2007/254/EC of 7 June 2006 on State aid C 25/05 (ex NN 21/05) implemented by the Slovak Republic for Fruncona Košice a.s. (OJ 2007 L 112, p. 14)

      Operative part of the order

               1)

               There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

               2)

               The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Frucona Košice a.s.

               3)

               St. Nicolaus — trade a.s. shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 56, 10.3.2007.


title: Case C-346/16: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Kehl (Germany) lodged on 21 June 2016 — Criminal proceedings against C

text:
               12.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 335/34

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Kehl (Germany) lodged on 21 June 2016 — Criminal proceedings against C
   (Case C-346/16)
   (2016/C 335/46)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Kehl

      Parties to the main proceedings

   C

      Other party: Staatsanwaltschaft Offenburg

      Questions referred

               ‘1.

               Must Article 67(2) TFEU and Article 20 and Article 21 of Regulation No 562/2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (1) (Schengen Borders Code), or any other rules of EU law, be interpreted as precluding national legislation which grants the police authorities of the Member State in question the power to search, within an area of up to 30 kilometres from the land border of that Member State with the States party to the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 (Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement), for an article, irrespective of the behaviour of the person carrying this article and of specific circumstances, with a view to impeding or stopping unlawful entry into the territory of that Member State or to preventing certain criminal acts directed against the security or protection of the border or committed in connection with the crossing of the border, in the absence of any temporary reintroduction of border controls at the relevant internal border pursuant to Article 23 et seq. of the Schengen Borders Code?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative: Must Article 67(2) TFEU and Article 20 and Article 21 of Regulation No 562/2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code), or any other rules of EU law, be interpreted as precluding national legislation or practice which permits a criminal court in that Member State to use evidence to the detriment of the accused, although that evidence was obtained as a result of a State measure that infringes EU law?’

      (1)  OJ L 105, p. 1.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 1999 in Case T-12/96: Area Cova and Others v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Fisheries - Conservation of the resources of the sea - Convention on future Multilateral Cooperation in the North-West Atlantic fisheries - Greenland halibut - Quota for catches granted to the Community fleet - Action for annulment - Inadmissibility)

text:
2.10.1999              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 281/15
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                           of July 1999                                                              of 8 July 1999
in Case T-194/95: Area Cova and Others v Council of the                    in Case T-12/96: Area Cova and Others v Council of
                       European Union (1)                                  the European Union and Commission of the European
(Fisheries — Conservation of the resources of the sea                                               Communities (1)
— Convention on future Multilateral Cooperation in the
North-West Atlantic fisheries — Greenland halibut —                        (Fisheries — Conservation of the resources of the sea
Quota for catches granted to the Community fleet — Action                  — Convention on future Multilateral Cooperation in the
              for annulment — Inadmissibility)                             North-West Atlantic fisheries — Greenland halibut —
                                                                           Quota for catches granted to the Community fleet — Action
                         (1999/C 281/29)                                                  for annulment — Inadmissibility)
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)                                                   (1999/C 281/30)
In Case T-194/95: Area Cova SA, established in Vigo (Spain),
Armadora José Pereira SA, established in Vigo, Armadores                                     (Language of the case: Spanish)
Pesqueros de Aldan SA, established in Vigo, Centropesca SA,
established in Vigo, Chymar SA, established in Vigo, Eloymar               In Case T-12/96: Area Cova SA, established in Vigo (Spain),
SA, established in Estribela (Spain), Exfaumar SA, established             Armadora José Pereira SA. established in Vigo, Armadores
in Bueu (Spain), Farpespan SA, established in Moaña (Spain),              Pesqueros de Aldan SA, established in Vigo, Centropesca SA,
Freiremar SA, established in Vigo, Hermanos Gandon SA,                     established in Vigo, Chymar SA, established in Vigo, Eloymar
established in Cangas (Spain), Heroya SA, established in Vigo,             SA, established in Estribela (Spain), Exfaumar SA, established
Hiopesca SA, established in Vigo, José Pereira e Hijos SA,                 in Bueu (Spain), Farpespan SA, established in Moaña (Spain),
established in Vigo, Juana Oya Perez, residing in Marı́n (Spain),          Freiremar SA, established in Vigo, Hermanos Gandon SA,
Manuel Nores González, residing in Marı́n, Moradiña SA,                  established in Cangas (Spain), Heroya SA, established in Vigo,
established in Cangas, Navales Cerdeiras SL, established in                Hiopesca SA, established in Vigo, José Pereira e Hijos SA,
Camariñas (Spain), Nugago Pesca SA, established in Bueu,                  established in Vigo, Juana Oya Perez, residing in Marı́n (Spain),
Pesquera Austral SA, established in Vigo, Pescaberbés SA,                  Manuel Nores González, residing in Marı́n, Moradiña SA,
established in Vigo, Pesquerias Bigaro Narval SA, established              established in Cangas, Navales Cerdeiras SL, established in
in Vigo, Pesquera Cies SA, established in Vigo, Pesca Herculina            Camariñas (Spain), Nugago Pesca SA, established in Bueu,
SA, established in Vigo, Pesquera Inter SA, established in                 Pesquera Austral SA, established in Vigo, Pescaberbés SA,
Cangas, Pesquerias Marinenses SA, established in Marı́n, Pes-              established in Vigo, Pesquerias Bigaro Narval SA, established
querias Tara SA, established in Cangas, Pesquera Vaqueiro SA,              in Vigo, Pesquera Cies SA, established in Vigo, Pesca Herculina
established in Vigo, Sotelo Dios SA, established in Vigo,                  SA, established in Vigo, Pesquera Inter SA, established in
Asociación Nacional de Armadores de Buques Congeladores                   Cangas, Pesquerias Marinenses SA, established in Marı́n, Pes-
de Pesca de Merluza (Anamer), established in Vigo, Asociación             querias Tara SA, established in Cangas, Pesquera Vaqueiro SA,
Nacional de Armadores de Buques Congeladores de Pesquerias                 established in Vigo, Sotelo Dios SA, established in Vigo,
Varias (Anavar), established in Vigo, and Asociación de                   Asociación Nacional de Armadores de Buques Congeladores
Sociedades Pesqueras Españolas (ASPE), established in Vigo,               de Pesca de Merluza (Anamer), established in Vigo, Asociación
represented by Antonio Creus Carreras, of the Barcelona Bar,               Nacional de Armadores de Buques Congeladores de Pesquerias
Eva Contreras Ynzenga, of the Madrid Bar, and Maria Ventura                Varias (Anavar), established in Vigo, and Asociación de
Arasanz, of the Barcelona Bar, with an address for service                 Sociedades Pesqueras Españolas (ASPE), established in Vigo,
c/o Cabinet Quatrecasas, 78 avenue d’Auderghem, Brussels,                  represented by Anntonio Creus Carreras, of the Barcelona Bar,
supported by Xunta de Galicia, represented by Victor Manuel                Eva Contreras Ynzenga, of the Madrid Bar, and Maria Ventura
Vázquez-Portomeñe Seijas, of the Santiago de Compostela Bar,             Arasanz, of the Barcelona Bar, with an address for service c/o
and Antonio Hierro Hernández-Mora, of the Madrid Bar, c/o                 Cabinet Cuatrecasas, 78 Avenue d’Auderghem, Brussels, v
Fundación Galicia-Europa, 105 avenue Milcamps, Brussels,                  Council of the European Union (Agents: John Carbery, Ger-
v Council of the European Union (Agents: John Carbery,                     mán-Luis Ramos Ruano and Ramón Torrent) and Commission
Germán-Luis Ramos Ruano and Ramón Torrent) — appli-                      of the European Communities (Agents: Thomas Van Rijn and
cation for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1761/95                 Juan Guerra Fernandez) — application for annulment of
of 29 June 1995 amending, for the second time, Regulation                  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2565/95 of 30 October 1995
(EC) No 3366/94 laying down for 1995 certain conservation                  concerning the stopping of fishing for Greenland halibut by
and management measures for fishery resources in the Regulat-              vessels flying the flag of a Member State (OJ 1995 L 262,
ory Area as defined in the Convention on Future Multilateral               p. 27) — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber),
Cooperation in the North-West Atlantic Fisheries (OJ 1995                  composed of M. Jaeger, President, and K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi,
L 171, p. 1) — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber),                Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 8 July 1999, the
composed of M. Jaeger, President, and K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi,            operative part of which is as follows:
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 8 July 1999, the              1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible;
operative part of which is as follows:
1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.                           2. The applicants are to bear their own costs and to pay the costs of
                                                                               the Council and of the Commission.
2. The applicants are to bear their own costs and to pay the costs of
    the Council. The intervener is to bear its own costs.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 77 of 16.3.1996.
(1) OJ C 315 of 25.11.1995.


title: Case C-67/06: Order of the President of the Court of 11 September 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/37

         Order of the President of the Court of 11 September 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-67/06) (1)

   (2006/C 294/72)

      Language of the case: Greek

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

      (1)  OJ C 96, 22.04.2006.


title: Case T-415/06 P: Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 July 2007 — De Smedt v Commission (Appeals — Staff Cases — Contractual agents — Former auxiliary agent — Application for revision of the classification fixed at the time of recruitment — Appeal manifestly unfounded)

text:
               22.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/11

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 July 2007 — De Smedt v Commission
   (Case T-415/06 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Staff Cases - Contractual agents - Former auxiliary agent - Application for revision of the classification fixed at the time of recruitment - Appeal manifestly unfounded)
   (2007/C 223/15)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Elisabeth De Smedt (Wezembeek-Oppem, Belgium) (represented by: L. Vogel and R. Kechiche, lawyers)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and G. Berscheid, Agents); and Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Arpio Santacruz and I. Sulce, Agents)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 19 October 2006 in Case F-59/05 De Smedt v Commission, not yet published in the ECR-SC, seeking to have that judgment set aside.
   Operative part of the order
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Ms Elisabeth De Smedt to bear her own costs and to pay those of the Commission;

               3.

               Orders the Council to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.


title: Case T-384/10: Action brought on 8 September 2010 — Spain v Commission

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/64

      Action brought on 8 September 2010 — Spain v Commission
      (Case T-384/10)
      ()
      (2010/C 288/115)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: J. Rodríguez Cárcamo)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  Annul Commission Decision C(2010) 4147 of 30 June 2010, reducing the assistance granted from the Cohesion Fund to the following (groups of) projects: ‘Water supply to settlements in the Guadiana basin: Andévalo area’ (2000.ES.16.C.PE.133), ‘Drainage and water treatment in the Guadalquivir basin: Guadaira, Aljarafe and the areas of natural protection of the Guadalquivir’ (2000.16.C.PE.066) and ‘Water supply to multi-municipal systems in the provinces of Granada and Málaga’ (2002.ES.16.C.PE.061), and

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In the context of the Cohesion Fund, the Commission granted assistance to various projects, in relation to ‘Water supply to settlements in the Guadiana basin: Andévalo area’ (2000.ES.16.C.PE.133) [Decision C(2001) 4113 of 18 December 2001], ‘Drainage and water treatment in the Guadalquivir basin: Guadaira, Aljarafe and the areas of natural protection of the Guadalquivir’ (2000.16.C.PE.066) [Decision C(2000) 4316 of 29 December 2000], and ‘Water supply to multi-municipal systems in the provinces of Granada and Málaga’ (2002.ES.16.C.PE.061) [Decision C(2002) 4689 of 24 December 2002].
      The different projects were to be carried out by means of various contracts for work.
      The contested decision reduces the assistance initially granted by the Cohesion Fund, by means of the corresponding financial corrections.
      In support of its claims, the applicant relies on the following pleas in law:

                  1.

                  Breach of Article H.2 of Regulation No 1994/1164 EC, (1) in so far as:

                              —

                              a financial correction is being applied for breaches of EU public procurement directives to contracts which are not, however, subject to those directives;

                              —

                              a financial correction is being applied for a breach of EU legislation which has not, however, taken place, since the subject-matter of the contracts has not been unlawfully split up.

                  2.

                  Alternatively, in relation to the all of the foregoing, breach of the regulation referred to, in so far as Directive 93/37/EEC on public works contracts has not been infringed in relation to experience or average price.

                  3.

                  In the further alternative, the applicant alleges that the principle of proportionality has been breached in a number of respects.

         (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 of 16 May 1994 establishing a Cohesion Fund (OJ 1994 L 130, p. 1).


title: Action brought on 11 March 1998 by Krupp Thyssen Stainless GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-45/98)

text:
30.5.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 166/17
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European         Ð alternatively, annul the fine imposed on the applicant
Communities on 15 December 1997 by JoaÄo Luís de                        by Article 2 of the decision together with Article 4 in
Sousa Abreu and Others, residing in Portugal, represented               conjunction with Article 1 of the decision;
by Cristina Ferreira, Francisco Espregueira Mendes, Teresa
Fonseca and Rui GuimaraÄes Lopes, of the Oporto Bar.               Ð in the further alternative, reduce the fine imposed on
                                                                        the applicant by Article 2 of the decision and annul
The applicants claim that the Court should:                             Article 4 in conjunction with Article 1 of the decision;
Ð declare the Council and the Commission jointly and               Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
    severally liable, pursuant to Articles 215 and 178 of
    the EC Treaty, for the damage caused by virtue of the          Pleas in law and main arguments:
    transitional and training measures necessary in the
    sector to which the applicant belongs;
                                                                   By the contested decision, which is addressed inter alia to
                                                                   the applicant, the Commission found that, following a
Ð order the Council and the Commission jointly and
                                                                   meeting in Madrid in December 1993, the applicant,
    severally to pay ESC 3 126 768 by way of
                                                                   along with other European producers of stainless steel,
    compensation for the abovementioned damage,
                                                                   had infringed Article 65(1) of the ECSC Treaty by
    together with the interest accrued, at the rate of 10 %,
                                                                   modifying and by applying in a concerted fashion the
    as prescribed by law, from the date of the summons to
                                                                   reference values used to calculate the alloy surcharge (the
    the date on which payment is actually made;
                                                                   alloy surcharge formula') (Article 1 of the decision). In
                                                                   the Commission's view, that practice had been served to
Ð order the Council and the Commission to pay the                  bring about a price increase.
    costs.
                                                                   The applicant was fined ECU 8 100 000 on account of
Pleas in law and main arguments:                                   that infringement (Article 2 of the decision).
The pleas in law and main arguments are identical with             Furthermore, the applicant and four other undertakings
those relied upon in Case T-316/97 Hermínia Fernanda               involved in the concertation were required to put an end
dos Santos Morais Antas v Council and Commission.                  to the infringements of Article 65(1) of the ECSC Treaty
                                                                   and to refrain from repeating the acts or conduct
                                                                   complained of and from adopting any measure having an
                                                                   equivalent effect (Article 4 of the decision).
                                                                   The applicant contests in its entirety that decision
Action brought on 11 March 1998 by Krupp Thyssen                   imposing a fine. In support of its claim, it pleads non-
Stainless GmbH against the Commission of the European              compliance with essential procedural requirements laid
                         Communities                               down by the ECSC Treaty and by the applicable
                       (Case T-45/98)                              legislation implementing that Treaty.
                        (98/C 166/44)
                                                                   In its first head of claim (alleging formal defects and
              (Language of the case: German)                       erroneous findings of fact), the applicant complains of the
                                                                   following:
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                  Ð it was not given adequate access to the files in the pre-
Instance of the European Communities on 11 March 1998                   litigation procedure;
by Krupp Thyssen Stainless GmbH, Bochum (Federal
Republic of Germany), represented by Otfried                       Ð there was no pre-litigation procedure with regard to
Lieberknecht,     Karlheinz    Moosecker      and    Martin             the activities of Thyssen AG in the flat stainless steel
Klusmann, Rechtsanwälte, of Messrs Bruckhaus Westrick                   sector;
Heller Löber, Düsseldorf (Federal Republic of Germany),
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                   Ð errors in the adoption of the decision;
Chambers of Axel Bonn, of Messrs Bonn & Schmitt, 7 Val
Ste Croix.
                                                                   Ð erroneous assumptions concerning the application of
                                                                        the alloy surcharge formula;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                   Ð the matters discussed at a meeting in Madrid between
Ð annul, in so far as it concerns the applicant, the
                                                                        various producers were incorrectly described;
    defendant's decision of 21 January 1998, as amended
    by the defendant's decision of 2 February 1998,
    communicated to the applicant on 6 February 1998,              Ð erroneous assessment of the practice followed in fixing
    concerning a concerted practice engaged in by                       prices;
    European producers of stainless steel with regard to
    alloy surcharges;                                              Ð incorrect assumptions in the various language versions;
 ---pagebreak--- C 166/18             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       30.5.98
Ð inaccurate translation of items of evidence                       Action brought on 1 April 1998 by the Netherlands
                                                                          Antilles against the Commission of the European
Ð erroneous assessment of the effects of the formula on                                       Communities
    prices;
                                                                                (Case T-53/98)
Ð the decision ignored the fact that the concerted                                           (98/C 166/45)
    practice was admitted.
In its second head of claim, the applicant advances the                             (Language of the case: Dutch)
following arguments in support of its plea alleging
defective legal assessment of the infringement:
                                                                    An action against the Commission of the European
Ð the infringement was referable to a specific point in             Communities was brought before the Court of First
    time and was not continuous;                                    Instance of the European Communities on 1 April 1998
                                                                    by the Netherlands Antilles, represented by P. Bos and M.
Ð (in the alternative) for the purposes of assessing the            Slotboom, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an address for
    fine, the period during which the proceeding took               service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of M. Loesch,
    place should have been left out of account.                     11 Rue Goethe.
In its third head of claim, the applicant complains that the
fine was incorrectly assessed; it advances the following            The applicant claims that the Court should:
arguments in support of its plea:
Ð insufficient weight was attached to the fact that the             Ð annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 2553/97 of
    defendant's legal submissions were not contested;                    17 December 1997 on rules for issuing import licences
                                                                         for certain products covered by CN codes 1701, 1702,
Ð failure to take account of the fact that a group of                    1703 and 1704 and qualifying as ACP/OCT
    undertakings was involved;                                           originating products (OJ L 349 of 19.12.1997, p. 26);
Ð failure to have regard to the principle of the protection
    of legitimate expectations;                                     Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
Ð a token fine was not imposed;
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments:
Ð the infringement was erroneously regarded as having
    taken place over a lengthy period;
                                                                    The applicant seeks annulment of the sugar
Ð the applicant was placed              in   a    particularly      implementation regulation, which lays down the detailed
    disadvantageous position;                                       implementing rules for imports of sugar qualifying under
                                                                    the rules relating to ACP/OCT cumulation of origin in
Ð erroneous assessment of the cooperation afforded by               accordance with Article 108b of the OCT decision.
    the applicant, having regard to the scope thereof; and
Ð the same aspects concerning the apportionment of                  The sugar implementation regulation is intended to secure
    blame were taken into account several times over.               the limitation by the Community of imports of sugar
                                                                    originating, in particular, in the Netherlands Antilles. The
Finally, in its fourth head of claim, the applicant asserts         Commission has restricted trade between the Netherlands
that the provisions of Article 1 in conjunction with                Antilles and the Community, contrary to Community law.
Article 4 of the decision are unlawful; in particular, it           Those restrictions must be lifted for the remaining
pleads:                                                             duration of the OCT decision. The application also
                                                                    includes a claim that the legal infringements complained
Ð that they are nugatory;
                                                                    of should not be repeated in the future. Lastly, the
Ð that the provision contained in Article 1 in                      contested regulation imposes serious restrictions on, and
    conjunction with Article 4 of the decision is imprecise;        thus severely affects, an important infant industry' in the
    and                                                             Netherlands Antilles, namely the sugar refining sector.
Ð that Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty affords no
    sufficient legal basis for the provision requiring a            The pleas in law advanced in opposition to the contested
    particular type of conduct in the future.                       regulation allege lack of competence, infringement of
                                                                    essential procedural requirements and infringement of the
Summing up, the applicant therefore asserts that the                Treaty or of rules for the implementation thereof and/or
decision imposing the fine is wholly unlawful; it claims            breach of general principles of Community law, in
that, in any event, the operative part of the decision, as          particular: illegality of Article 101(1) of the OCT decision,
regards Articles 1 and 4 thereof, should be annulled in its         illegality of the origin rules contained in Title I of Annex II
entirety and that the fine imposed on the applicant by              to the OCT decision, illegality of the amending decision
Article 2 of the decision should be substantially reduced.          on which the sugar implementation regulation is based,
                                                                    the fact that the sugar implementation regulation is ultra
                                                                    vires, infringement of Article 234 of the OCT decision,


title: Case T-472/07: Judgment of the Court of 3 February 2010 — Enercon v OHIM — Hasbro (ENERCON) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark ENERCON — Earlier Community word mark TRANSFORMERS ENERGON — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               27.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/24

         Judgment of the Court of 3 February 2010 — Enercon v OHIM — Hasbro (ENERCON)
   (Case T-472/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark ENERCON - Earlier Community word mark TRANSFORMERS ENERGON - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2010/C 80/41
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Enercon GmbH (Aurich, Germany) (represented by: R. Böhm and V. Henke, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court: Hasbro Inc. (Pawtucket, Rhode Island, United States) (represented by: M. Edenborough, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 25 October 2007 (Case R 959/2006-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Hasbro, Inc. and Enercon GmbH

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Enercon GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 79, 29.3.2008.