title: Case C-567/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 14 November 2011 — Gas Natural SDG, S.A. v Endesa, S.A., Iberdrola, S.A., Hidroeléctrica del Cantábrico, S.A. and Spanish State

text:
               11.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 14 November 2011 — Gas Natural SDG, S.A. v Endesa, S.A., Iberdrola, S.A., Hidroeléctrica del Cantábrico, S.A. and Spanish State
   (Case C-567/11)
   2012/C 39/14
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Gas Natural SDG, S.A.

      Other parties: Endesa, S.A., Iberdrola, S.A., Hidroeléctrica del Cantábrico, S.A. and Spanish State

      Question referred

   May Article 10 of Directive 2003/87/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC be interpreted as not preventing application of national legislative measures of the kind under review in these proceedings, the purpose and effect of which are to reduce remuneration for the activity of electricity production by an amount equivalent to the value of the greenhouse gas emission allowances allocated free of charge during the relevant period?

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32.


title: Case T-195/14: Action brought on 19 March 2014  — Compagnie des gaz de pétrole Primagaz v OHIM — Reeh (PRIMA KLIMA)

text:
               10.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/48

         Action brought on 19 March 2014 — Compagnie des gaz de pétrole Primagaz v OHIM — Reeh (PRIMA KLIMA)
   (Case T-195/14)
   2014/C 175/66
   Language in which the application was lodged: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Compagnie des gaz de pétrole Primagaz SA (Paris, France) (represented by: D. Régnier, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gerhard Reeh (Radnice, Czech Republic)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 7 January 2014 in case R 2304/2012-1

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: Gerhard Reeh

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark including the word elements ‘PRIMA KLIMA’ for goods and services in Classes 11 and 42

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Applicant

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative mark including the word element ‘PRIMAGAZ’ and national word marks ‘PRIMALOTISSEMENT’, ‘PRIMACOMPTEUR’, ‘PRIMAVILLAGE’, ‘PRIMAFAMILLE’, ‘PRIMAPAC’, ‘PRIMAENERGY’, ‘PRIMA CHAUFFAGE’, ‘PRIMA CLIM’, ‘PRIMAGRILL’ and ‘PRIMAWATT’, for goods in Class 11

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Reject the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismiss the appeal

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


title: Case C-275/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 21 May 2013 — Elcogás, S.A. v Administración del Estado and Iberdrola, S.A.

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/2

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 21 May 2013 — Elcogás, S.A. v Administración del Estado and Iberdrola, S.A.
   (Case C-275/13)
   (2013/C 226/04)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo, Spain

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Elcogás, S.A.

      Defendants: Administración del Estado, Iberdrola, S.A.

      Question referred

   Does the interpretation of Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and of the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning that article (in particular, the judgments in Cases C-379/98 (1) and C-206/06 (2)), mean that the annual sums allocated to Elcogás in its capacity as the owner of a particular electricity generating facility, as provided for in the extraordinary viability plans approved for Elcogás by the Council of Ministers, are to be regarded as ‘aid granted by a Member State or through State resources’, where those sums are collected under the general category of ‘permanent costs of the electricity system’, which are paid by all users and are transferred to undertakings in the electricity sector by means of subsequent settlements made by the Comisión Nacional de Energía (National Energy Commission) in accordance with predetermined statutory criteria, for which purpose that Commission has no margin of discretion?

      (1)  2001, ECR I-2099.

      (2)  2008, ECR I-5497.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of  12 January 2006  in Case C-504/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Schwerin in Agrarproduktion Stabelow GmbH v Landrat des Landkreises Bad Doberan (Animal health — Prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies — Slaughter of birth cohorts — Proportionality)

text:
               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/8

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 12 January 2006
   in Case C-504/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Schwerin in Agrarproduktion Stabelow GmbH v Landrat des Landkreises Bad Doberan (1)

   (Animal health - Prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies - Slaughter of birth cohorts - Proportionality)
   (2006/C 60/16)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-504/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Verwaltungsgericht Schwerin (Germany), made by decision of 9 January 2004, received at the Court on 8 December 2004, in the proceedings Agrarproduktion Stabelow GmbH v Landrat des Landkreises Bad Doberan — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of M.A. Rosas (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, J. Malenovský, A. La Pergola, A. Borg Barthet and A.Ó Caoimh, Judges; M.Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; M.B. Fülöp, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 January 2006, in which it ruled as follows:
   Examination of the question referred has not revealed anything capable of affecting, in the light of the principle of proportionality, the validity of Article 13(1), first sentence, (c), of Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1326/2001 of 29 June 2001 laying down transitional measures to permit the changeover to Regulation No 999/2001 and amending Annexes VII and XI to that regulation, in conjunction with Annex VII(2)(a) and the third indent of Annex VII(1)(a) to that regulation.

      (1)  OJ C 57, 5.3.2005.


title: Case C-602/10: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Călărași — Romania) — SC Volksbank România SA v Autoritatea Națională pentru Protecția Consumatorilor — Comisariatul Județean pentru Protecția Consumatorilor Călărași (CJPC) (Consumer protection — Credit agreements for consumers — Directive 2008/48/EC — Articles 22, 24 and 30 — National legislation designed to transpose that directive — Applicability to agreements not included in the material and temporal scope of the directive — Obligations not provided for by the directive — Limitation on the bank charges capable of being levied by the creditor — Articles 56 TFEU, 58 TFEU and 63 TFEU — Obligation to put in place, in national law, adequate and effective out-of-court dispute resolution procedures)

text:
               22.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/6

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Călărași — Romania) — SC Volksbank România SA v Autoritatea Națională pentru Protecția Consumatorilor — Comisariatul Județean pentru Protecția Consumatorilor Călărași (CJPC)
   (Case C-602/10) (1)

   (Consumer protection - Credit agreements for consumers - Directive 2008/48/EC - Articles 22, 24 and 30 - National legislation designed to transpose that directive - Applicability to agreements not included in the material and temporal scope of the directive - Obligations not provided for by the directive - Limitation on the bank charges capable of being levied by the creditor - Articles 56 TFEU, 58 TFEU and 63 TFEU - Obligation to put in place, in national law, adequate and effective out-of-court dispute resolution procedures)
   2012/C 287/09
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Judecătoria Călărași

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: SC Volksbank România SA

      Defendant: Autoritatea Națională pentru Protecția Consumatorilor — Comisariatul Județean pentru Protecția Consumatorilor Călărași (CJPC)

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judecătoria Călărași — Interpretation of Articles 22(1), 24(1) and 30(1) of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66) — Interpretation of Articles 56, 58 and 63(1) TFEU — Application ratione temporis of the national implementing legislation — Failure to comply with the obligation to put in place adequate and effective out-of-court dispute resolution procedures — Application ratione materiae of the national implementing leglislation — Additional obligations for credit institutions not laid down in the directive

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 22(1) of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC must be interpreted as not precluding a national measure designed to transpose that directive into domestic law from including in its material scope credit agreements, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, concerning the grant of credit secured by immovable property, even though such agreements are expressly excluded from the material scope of the directive by virtue of Article 2(2)(a) thereof.

               2.

               Article 30(1) of Directive 2008/48 must be interpreted as not precluding a national measure designed to transpose that directive into domestic law from defining its temporal scope so that the measure also applies to credit agreements, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which are excluded from the material scope of that directive and were existing on the date when that national measure entered into force.

               3.

               Article 22(1) of Directive 2008/48 must be interpreted as not precluding a national measure designed to transpose that directive into domestic law from imposing on credit institutions obligations not provided for by the directive as regards the types of charges that they may levy in connection with consumer credit agreements falling within the scope of that measure.

               4.

               The rules of the FEU Treaty concerning the freedom to provide services must be interpreted as not precluding a provision of national law that prohibits credit institutions from levying certain bank charges.

               5.

               Article 24(1) of Directive 2008/48 must be interpreted as not precluding a rule forming part of the national measure designed to transpose that directive that, as regards disputes concerning consumer credit, allows consumers to have direct recourse to a consumer protection authority, which may subsequently impose penalties on credit institutions for infringement of that national measure, without having to use beforehand the out-of-court resolution procedures provided for by national legislation for such disputes.

      (1)  OJ C 89, 19.3.2011.


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 15 December 1999 in Case T-191/98 R II, Cho Yang Shipping Co. Ltd v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Payment of a fine — Bank guarantee — Proceedings for interim relief — Urgency — Interim measures)

text:
C 102/26                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           8.4.2000
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                               3. Until the present proceedings for interim relief have been disposed
                             INSTANCE                                           of, interest at the rate of 7,5 % shall continue to accrue on the
                                                                                fine imposed on the applicant, in accordance with Article 10 of
                                                                                Commission Decision 1999/243/EC of 16 September 1998.
                       of 15 December 1999
                                                                           (1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.
in Case T-191/98 R II, Cho Yang Shipping Co. Ltd v
       Commission of the European Communities (1)
(Competition — Payment of a fine — Bank guarantee
— Proceedings for interim relief — Urgency — Interim
                              measures)
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                          (2000/C 102/52)
                                                                                of 10 February 2000
                                                                           in Case T-5/99 Pantelis Andriotis v Commission of the
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                           European Communities and European Centre for the
                                                                               Development of Vocational Training (CEDEFOP) (1)
In Case T-191/98 R II, Cho Yang Shipping Co., Ltd, established
in Seoul, South Korea, represented by Nicolas Bromfield and                (CEDEFOP — Procedure awarding a public services procure-
Christopher Thomas, Solicitors, with an address for service in             ment contract — Call for tenders for architect’s services —
Luxembourg at the Chambers of De Bandt, Van Hecke, Lagae                   No notice publishing the results of the award procedure
and Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe v Commission of the European                     — Legal interest in bringing proceedings — Manifestly
Communities (agent: M. Richard Lyal) — application for                                                  inadmissible)
suspension of the operation of Commission Decision
1999/243/EC of 16 September 1998 relating to a proceeding
pursuant to Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty (Case                                                 (2000/C 102/53)
No IV/35.134 — Trans-Atlantic Conference Agreement) (OJ
1999 L 95, p. 1) in so far as, in Article 8, it imposes a fine of
EUR 13 750 000 on the applicant, the President of the Court                                      (Language of the case: Greek)
has made an order on 15 December 1999 according to which:
                                                                           In Case T-5/99: Pantelis Andriotis, residing in Thessaloniki
1. The obligation on the applicant to provide a bank guarantee in          (Greece), represented by Stella Ioannidou, of the Thessaloniki
    favour of the Commission as a condition for avoiding the               Bar, with an address in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Evelyn
    immediate recovery of the fine imposed on it by Article 8 of           Korn, 21 Rue de Nassau, against Commission of the European
    Commission Decision 1999/243/EC of 16 September 1998                   Communities (Agent: D. Triantafyllou) and European Centre
    relating to a proceeding pursuant to Articles 85 and 86 of the         for the Development of Vocational Training (CEDEFOP)
    EC Treaty (Case No IV/35.134 — Trans-Atlantic Conference               (Agents: H. Kallipolitis and B. Wägenbaur) application for
    Agreement) (OJ 1999 L 95, p. 1) is suspended until the order           annulment of the defendants’ implied decisions refusing to
    disposing of the present proceedings for interim relief has been       inform the applicant in writing of the publication in the
    made.                                                                  Official Journal of the European Communities of the award of
                                                                           the contract following the notice of CEDEFOP’s invitation to
                                                                           tender APO/97/005 (OJ No S 139 of 19. 7. 1997, p. 44) —
2. The suspension granted in paragraph 1 above shall cease to have         the Court (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, Presi-
    effect if the applicant does not lodge the following documents at      dent, and A. Potocki and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Regis-
    the Registry of the Court of First Instance before 1 April 2000:       trar, has made an order on 10 February 2000 in which it:
                                                                           1. Dismisses the application as manifestly inadmissible;
    (a) its annual accounts (‘balance sheet’; ‘statement of income’;
         ‘statement of cash flow’) for the financial year ending on
                                                                           2. Orders the applicant to bear his own costs and those incurred by
         31 December 1999, drawn up and certified by a firm of
                                                                                the Commission and CEDEFOP.
         auditors of international repute;
    (b) a letter from the firm referred to in (a) above certifying that    (1) OJ No C 71 of 13.3.1999.
         those annual accounts reflect the amount, by way of both
         principal sum and interest, of the fine imposed on the
         applicant by the contested decision.


title: Case T-321/13: Order of the General Court of 26 March 2014  — Adorisio and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Aid granted to banks during the crisis — Recapitalisation of SNS Reaal and SNS Bank — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market — Expropriation of holders of subordinated bonds — No legal interest in bringing proceedings — No standing to bring proceedings — Manifestly inadmissible)

text:
               26.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 159/27

         Order of the General Court of 26 March 2014 — Adorisio and Others v Commission
   (Case T-321/13) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - State aid - Aid granted to banks during the crisis - Recapitalisation of SNS Reaal and SNS Bank - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market - Expropriation of holders of subordinated bonds - No legal interest in bringing proceedings - No standing to bring proceedings - Manifestly inadmissible))
   2014/C 159/37
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Stefania Adorisio (Rome, Italy) and the 363 other applicants whose names are listed in the Annex to the order (represented by: F. Sciaudone, L. Dezzani, R. Sciaudone, S. Frazzani and D. Contini, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and P.-J. Loewenthal, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2013) 1053 final of 22 February 2013 relating to State aid SA.35382 (2013/N) — Kingdom of the Netherlands — Rescue SNS Reaal 2013

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Ms Stefania Adorisio and the 363 other applicants listed in the Annex hereto shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 233, 10.8.2013.


title: Case F-104/07: Action brought on 8 October 2007 — Hoppenbrouwers v Commission

text:
               24.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/46

         Action brought on 8 October 2007 — Hoppenbrouwers v Commission
   (Case F-104/07)
   (2007/C 283/83)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Micheline Hoppenbrouwers (Dilbeek, Belgium) (represented by: L. Vogel, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the Authority Responsible for Concluding Contracts of Employment of 25 June 2007 rejecting the applicant's complaint of 16 March 2007 against the administrative decision notified on 18 December 2006 refusing to employ the applicant as a member of the contract staff under Article 2(1) of the Annex to the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants (CEOS);

               —

               Insofar as is necessary, annul also the said decision of 18 December 2006;

               —

               Order the Defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The first plea in law in the action is derived from the infringement of Article 82(3)(d) of the CEOS, Article 83 of the CEOS, Article 33 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities and Article 2(1) of the Annex to the CEOS as well as from a manifest error of assessment.
   The applicant states, first, that the administration refused to offer her a contract as a member of the contract staff for an indefinite period because she was in a state of temporarily unfitness to work on 1 May 2005, the date which, according to the Authority Responsible for Concluding Contracts of Employment, was the final date for contracts for members of the contract staff to take effect under the transitional measures provided for by Article 2(1) of the Annex to the CEOS. The applicant submits that only a permanent unfitness to work could justify the rejection of her candidature.
   The second plea in law in the action is derived from an infringement of the principle of non-discrimination, inasmuch as the applicant was, without legitimate or reasonable justification, unfairly disadvantaged in comparison with other persons who, having worked, like the applicant, in nurseries and after-school childcare pursuant to a contract governed by Belgian law, benefited from a contract as a member of the contract staff for an indefinite period.


title: Action brought on 30 October 1995 by International Express Carriers Conference (IECC) against Commission of the European Communities (Case T-204/95)

text:
30 . 12 . 95            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 351 / 17
— order the Commission to pay the sum of Bfrs 750 000,                 Lastly, the applicant pleads infringement of Articles 25 and
      subject to increase or decrease in the course of the             88 of the Staff Regulations, in that the decision to suspend
      proceedings , by way of compensation for the combined            him did not fulfil the requirement to provide a statement of
      material and non-material damage suffered by the                 reasons in the light of the conditions governing the
      applicant as a result of the press campaign and malicious        application of the suspension provided for by the
      and defamatory allegations to which he has been                  aforementioned Article 88 .
      subjected ,
                                                                       As regards the application for compensation, the applicant
— order that the operative part of the judgment to be                  states, first, that the pursuit of irregular disciplinary
      delivered in the case be published, at the Commission's          proceedings constitutes wrongful conduct on the part of the
      expense, in the following newspapers : The Times, the            defendant and that he has suffered considerable material
      Daily Telegraph and the Financial Times,                         and non-material damage as a result of the matters set out.
                                                                       He maintains, second, that the publicity indulged in by the
— order the Commission to pay all of the costs .                       defendant in relation to him has caused him undeniable
                                                                       harm, and he seeks, by way of reparation, an order that the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    judgment to be delivered in the case be published at the
                                                                       expense of the Commission in the principal British
The applicant, who is a Head of Unit in the Commission's               newspapers which have taken up this matter.
Diectorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs,
states that he several times requested, without success,
permission to publish articles and contributions of an
analytical nature concerning the European monetary
system . Following the refusal by the Commission, he sought
and was granted leave on personal grounds, justified by
family reasons, in the course of which he completed a                  Action brought on 30 October 1995 by International
synthetical version of his analyses which was published                Express Carriers Conference ( IECC ) against Commission of
under the title : ' The rotten heart of Europe — The dirty war                           the European Communities
for Europe 's money '.                                                                          ( Case T-204/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 351 /34 )
The applicant states that the publication of the work met
with      an  immediate      reaction   from   the   Commission
 authorities : on 5 September 1995 , The Times published a                             (Language of the case: English)
 statement by the Commission's spokesman maintaining
 that there was no place in the Commission for an official              An action against the Commission of the European
 who had written such a work . On the day after that                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
 statement of principle was made, the appointing authority              Instance of the European Communities on 30 October 1995
 notified the applicant of its intention to institute disciplinary      by International Express Carriers Conference (IECC ),
 proceedings against him ( the first contested act ). On                represented by Eric Morgan de Rivery and Jacques Derenne,
 27 September 1995 a decision was taken to suspend him on               with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
 the basis of Article 88 of the Staff Regulations of officials          of Bonn & Schmitt, 62 Avenue Guillaume, L-1650 .
 ( the second contested act ). The applicant maintains that the
 Commission meanwhile took part in a press campaign
 which it substantially fuelled : a number of his 'colleagues'          The applicant claims that the Court should :
 were quoted by the press in support of statements which
 were mendacious , defamatory or derogatory and which                   — declare the Commission's letter No SG(95)D/10794
 concerned his person , his state of health and his professional            non-existent,
 reputation. On 4 October 1995 the Commission finally
 decided to bring the matter before the Disciplinary Board              — in the alternative, annul Commission Decision No
  ( the third contested act ).                                               SG(95)D/ 10794 of 14 August 1995 and order such
                                                                             further or other relief as the Court considers appropriate
 The applicant considers that the Commission has failed to                   in order for the Commission to comply with Article 176
  observe the second paragraph of Article 87 of the Staff                    of the EC Treaty ,
  Regulations of officials, Annex IX to those Regulations, in
  particular Article 1 and the second paragraph of Article 8 ,          — order the Commission to pay the costs .
  and the principles governing ' disciplinary policy' as
  expressed in the note of 24 November 1983 , in that it has
  prejudged the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings and              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
  has breached the principle of confidentiality inherent to
   proceedings of that kind .                                            The applicant, a professional organization composed of
                                                                         certain important private express companies, filed with the
   He also pleads a breach of the principle of equality, in that         Commission, on 13 July 1988 , a complaint under
   the Commission failed in his case to follow its usual practice,       Article 3 ( 2 ) of Regulation No 17/62 concerning the
   which is to authorize public utterances made without prior            infringement ( i ) of Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty by certain
   permission by officials who are not in active service .               European public postal operators and ( ii ) of Article 86 of the
 ---pagebreak--- No C 351 / 18           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    30 . 12 . 95
Treaty by two post offices which relied upon a market                            legitimate expectations, non-discrimination and
allocation     scheme     set  out   in  the  Universal     Postal               sound administration .
Convention. The behaviour in question of the post offices
named in the complaint was directed towards suppressing                (>) OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 , p . 12 .
or restraining 'remail' competition , a practice whereby a             ( 2 ) OJ No C 189 , 22 . 7 . 1995 , p . 17.
mailer prepares international mail in one country but posts            (<) OJ No C 229 , 2 . 9 . 1995 , p . 22 .
the mail not with the post office of that country but with a
post office located in another country .
On 23 November 1994 , the applicant called on the
Commission to act, under Article 175 , by adopting a                   Action brought on 3 November 1995 by Josef Gierse against
definitive position on the complaint as far as Article 85 is           the Council of the European Union and the Commission of
concerned . On 15 February 1995 , not having received any                                 the European Communities
decision from the Commission, the applicant lodged at the
                                                                                ( Case T-206/95 )
Court of First Instance an application under Article 175
against the Commission for failure to act ( Case T-28/95 ) ( ! ).                                  ( 95/C 351 /35 )
On 17 February 1995 , the Commission adopted Decision
SG(95 ) D/ 1790, rejecting as regards Article 85 of the EC                              (Language of the case: German)
Treaty, the complaint made by the applicant. The applicant
challenged that Decision by its application of 18 April 1995           An action against the Council of the European Union and
( Case T-l 10/95 ) ( 2 ). On 6 April 1995 , the Commission             the Commission of the European Communities was brought
adopted Decision SG(95)D/4438 , rejecting the second part              before the Court of First Instance of the European
of the aforementioned complaint. The applicant sought the               Communities on 3 November 1995 by Josef Gierse, residing
annulment of that Decision by its application of 20 June               at Schmallenberg ( Federal Republic of Germany ),
 1995 ( Case T-133/95 ) ( 3 ). On 14 August 1995 , the                 represented by Bernd Meisterernst, Mechtild Düsing,
Commission further adopted the purported Decision, which                Dietrich Manstetten, Dr Frank Schulze and Dr Winfried
is contested here, rejecting the complaint with respect to the          Haneklaus, Rechtsanwälte, Münster, with an address for
application of Article 25 of the Universal Postal Convention            service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Dupong &
solely to ABC remail by the German, UK and French post                  Associés, 14a Rue des Bains .
offices .
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
In this respect the applicant submits the following pleas in
 law:                                                                   ( 1 ) order the defendants jointly and severally to pay to the
                                                                              applicant milk quota compensation ( SLOM-III ) for the
— as a principal plea, that the Commission's purported                        period from 2 April 1984 to 31 March 1993 ,
    Decision of 14 August 1995 should be declared                             amounting to DM 14 219,09, together with 8%
    non-existent because it constitutes a manifestly illegal                  interest from 19 May 1992 , and to pay the costs of the
    act ,                                                                     proceedings;
— in the alternative, that the Decision should be annulled,             ( 2 ) stay the proceedings .
    on the grounds of:
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    — infringement of Article 190 of the EC Treaty in that
          the Commission fails to state its reasons ( i ) as to the     The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
          allegation that the Post Offices' use of Article 25 of        in Case T-20/94 .
          the UPU Convention infringes Article 85 of the EC
          Treaty, and ( ii ) as to the fact that it adopted two
          different positions in respect of the same factual and
          legal situation,
     — infringement of Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty               Action brought on 2 November 1995 by Maria de los
          through the Commission 's failure to condemn the               Angeles Ibarra Gil against the Commission of the European
          Post Offices' efforts to restrain the development of                                       Communities
          ABC remail through the use of the authority and                                        ( Case T-207/95 )
          purported authority of Article 25 of the UPU                                              ( 95/C 351 /36 )
          Convention,
     — misuse of powers in that the Commission's main                                    (Language of the case: French)
          purpose in rejecting the complaint was in fact to
          achieve political objectives,                                  An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities was brought before the Court of First
     — breach of certain general principles of law in that, in           Instance of the European Communities on 2 November
          adopting the decision, the Commission infringed the             1 995 by Maria de los Angeles Ibarra Gil, residing in Brussels
          principles of legal certainty, the protection of               ( Belgium ), represented by Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Liege


title: Case C-205/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 18 April 2013 — Hauck GmbH & Co. KG v Stokke A/S and Others

text:
               29.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 189/7

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 18 April 2013 — Hauck GmbH & Co. KG v Stokke A/S and Others
   (Case C-205/13)
   2013/C 189/13
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Hauck GmbH & Co. KG

      Respondents: Stokke A/S, Stokke Nederland BV, Peter Opsvik, Peter Opsvik A/S

      Questions referred

               1.

                           (a)

                           Does the ground for refusal or invalidity in Article 3(1)(e)(i) of Directive 89/104/EEC, (1) as codified in Directive 2008/95/EC, (2) namely that shape trade marks may not consist exclusively of a shape which results from the nature of the goods themselves, refer to a shape which is indispensable to the function of the goods, or can it also refer to the presence of one or more substantial functional characteristics of goods which consumers may possibly look for in the goods of competitors?

                           (b)

                           If neither of those alternatives is correct, how should the provision then be interpreted?

               2.

                           (a)

                           Does the ground for refusal or invalidity in Article 3(1)(e)(iii) of Directive 89/104/EEC, as codified in Directive 2008/95/EC, namely, that (shape) trade marks may not consist exclusively of a shape which gives substantial value to the goods, refer to the motive (or motives) underlying the relevant public’s decision to purchase?

                           (b)

                           Does a ‘shape which gives substantial value to the goods’ within the meaning of the aforementioned provision exist only if that shape must be considered to constitute the main or predominant value in comparison with other values (such as, in the case of high chairs for children, safety, comfort and reliability) or can it also exist if, in addition to that value, other values of the goods exist which are also to be considered substantial?

                           (c)

                           For the purpose of answering Questions 2(a) and 2(b), is the opinion of the majority of the relevant public decisive, or may the court rule that the opinion of a portion of the public is sufficient in order to take the view that the value concerned is ‘substantial’ within the meaning of the aforementioned provision?

                           (d)

                           If the latter option provides the answer to Question 2(c), what requirement should be imposed as to the size of the relevant portion of the public?

               3.

               Should Article 3(1) of Directive 89/104/EEC, as codified in Directive 2008/95/EC, be interpreted as meaning that the ground for exclusion referred to in subparagraph (e) of that article also exists if the shape trade mark consists of a sign to which the content of sub-subparagraph (i) of subparagraph (e) applies, and which, for the rest, satisfies the contents of sub-subparagraph (iii) of subparagraph (e)?

      (1)  First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1).

      (2)  Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (Codified version) (OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25).


title: Case T-299/10: Order of the General Court of 28 October 2010 — Babcock Noell v Entreprise commune Fusion for Energy

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/58

         Order of the General Court of 28 October 2010 — Babcock Noell v Entreprise commune Fusion for Energy
   (Case T-299/10) (1)

   ()
   2010/C 346/116
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 234, 28.8.2010.


Avis juridique important

|

E2003P0001

Action brought on 20 January 2003 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Republic of Iceland (Case E-1/03)

Official Journal C 075 , 27/03/2003 P. 0013 - 0013

Action brought on 20 January 2003 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Republic of Iceland(Case E-1/03)(2003/C 75/13)An action against the Republic of Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 20 January 2003 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Niels Fenger and Elisabethann Wright, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, Rue de Trèves/Trierstraat 74, B-1040 Brussels.The applicant claims that the Court should:1. Declare that by maintaining in force the Icelandic Act on Air Transport Infrastructure Budget and Revenues for Aviation Affairs No 31/1987 (Lög nr. 31 frá 27. mars 1987 um flugmálaáætlun og fjáröflun til framkvæmda í flugmálum), which subjects flights from Iceland to other EEA States to a higher tax rate than that charged for domestic flights and flights to Greenland and the Faroe Islands, the Republic of Iceland has failed to respect its obligations under Article 36 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area and Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes; and2. Order the Republic of Iceland to pay the costs of the proceedings.Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:- Article 36 of the EEA Agreement requires the abolition of all restrictions on the provision of services within the EEA in respect of nationals of EC Member States and EFTA States who are established in an EC Member State or an EFTA State other than that of the person for whom the services are intended.- Article 38 of the EEA Agreement states that the freedom to provide services in the field of transport shall be governed by the provisions of Chapter 6 of the Agreement governing transport. Article 39 of the EEA Agreement provides that Articles 30, 32-34 shall also apply to the freedom to provide services.- Article 49 of the EC Treaty, which corresponds to Article 36 of the EEA Agreement, excludes the application of national provisions that, without objective justification, restrict a service provider from exercising the freedom for which that Article provides. Moreover, Article 49 of the EC Treaty excludes the application of a national provision that makes the provision of services between Member States more difficult than the provision of services exclusively within a single Member State.- According to the Court of Justice of the European Communities, Article 49 of the EC Treaty requires not only the elimination of all discrimination against a person providing services on the ground of his nationality, but also the abolition of any restriction, including a charge set by law for the performance of a service connected to a transport service.- According to the Court of Justice of the European Communities, the purpose of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes is, inter alia, to define the conditions for applying in the air transport sector the principle of the freedom to provide services, and to eliminate, with regard to air travel, restrictions on the freedom to provide services within the framework of the common transport policy.- According to a translation of the Icelandic Act on Air Transport Infrastructure Budget and Revenues for Aviation Affairs No 31/1987 (Lög nr. 31 frá 27. mars 1987 um flugmálaáætlun og fjáröflun til framkvæmda í flugmálum), Article 5(1), as amended, provides that "a separate airport tax shall be paid in respect of each individual travelling by aircraft from Iceland to other countries;" Article 6(1) provides that "the airport tax shall amount to ISK 1250 for each passenger travelling from Iceland to other countries;" and, Article 7(1) provides that "airlines engaged in the transport of passengers within Iceland or to the Faroe Islands or Greenland shall pay a tax amounting to ISK 165 for each passenger travelling on these routes."


title: Case T-391/16: Action brought on 19 July 2016 — Ayuntamiento de Madrid v Commission

text:
               5.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/32

         Action brought on 19 July 2016 — Ayuntamiento de Madrid v Commission
   (Case T-391/16)
   (2016/C 326/55)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Ayuntamiento de Madrid (Spain) (represented by: F. Zunzunegui Pastor, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               declare the action admissible and uphold the pleas of annulment raised in the application;

               —

               declare Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/646 of 20 April 2016, amending Regulation (EC) No 692/2008 as regards emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 6), the subject of the action, null and void;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the contested regulation is null and void for lack of competence as a result of the Commission’s improper use of the regulatory procedure with scrutiny.
               In that regard, it is submitted that the Commission infringed Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information (OJ 2007 L 171, p. 1).
               It is also submitted that in so far as the contested regulation establishes a European system of new, increased thresholds for NOx emissions, it alters an essential element of a basic act, as a result of which the Commission failed to observe the formal requirements provided for its adoption, thereby infringing an essential procedural requirement.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of EU primary and secondary law rules and general principles of EU law
               The applicant submits that the contested regulation disregards the provisions of Article 3 TFEU, Article 11 TFEU, Article 114(3) TFEU and Article 191 TFEU and Articles 35 and 37 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
               The applicant also submits that the contested regulation:

                           —

                           infringes the provisions of Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (OJ 2008 L 152, p. 1), as regards the limitation of the maximum nitrogen-emission levels for diesel vehicles;

                           —

                           infringes Article 4 of above-mentioned Regulation No 715/2007;

                           —

                           also infringes Commission Regulation (EC) No 692/2008 of 18 July 2008 implementing and amending Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council on type-approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information (OJ 2008 L 199, p. 1).

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a misuse of powers:

                           —

                           since there was objective, relevant and consistent evidence that the purpose pursued by the Commission in the contested regulation, which increased the limit values of NOx emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles, does not accord with that expressed in EU law, nor that advocated by the Commission itself;

                           —

                           because the procedure specifically prescribed by the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union for dealing with the circumstances of the case has been circumvented. In so far as the Commission followed the regulatory procedure with scrutiny and not the ordinary legislative procedure, it infringed substantive procedural requirements in the procedure for adopting the contested regulation, which renders it invalid on the ground of a lack of competence exercised;

                           —

                           lastly, because the regulation referred to is also not in the interest of the Community.


title: Case T-59/13 P: Appeal brought on 30 January 2013 by BT against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 3 December 2012 in Case F-45/12 BT v Commission

text:
               20.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 114/37

         Appeal brought on 30 January 2013 by BT against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 3 December 2012 in Case F-45/12 BT v Commission
   (Case T-59/13 P)
   2013/C 114/59
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: BT (Bucarest, Romania) (represented by: N. Visan, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Cancel the EU Civil Service Tribunal’s Order of 3 December 2012 in case F-45/12;

               —

               Re-judge the case and accept the application made by the applicant/appellant; and

               —

               Make the defendant/respondent pay for the judgment costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on seven pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging breaching one of the principles that governs the administrative procedure, the principle of the active role, since the Civil Service Tribunal considered that the application did not contain pleas in law, without making a verification of its own motion on the legality of the decision questioned in the first court that would not limit to the reasons mentioned by the applicant.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging breaching article 6-line 1 and article 47-lines 1&2 from the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Breach of the principle of ‘access to the court’ and the principle of impartiality of the Tribunal since the Civil Service Tribunal rejected the action of the appellant as manifestly inadmissible without giving her the possibility to make-right/complete the application, a right provisioned for and recognized in the legislation of any European country but also of the European courts (for example the European Court of Human Rights).

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging breaching the right of ‘access to the court’ that has also materialized by the non-acceptance by the Tribunal of the right of lodging a reply to the defendant’s defense –and this while the applicant/appellant has expressly requested the second exchange of pleadings. Non-granting this right (to lodge a reply) has deprived the appellant from the chance to make right the irregularity claimed by the Tribunal — and this at a time when the appellant could no longer lodge a new action that would comply with the legal requirements since the deadline to introduce an action had expired (article 78 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal).

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging breaching the principle referring to the right to sustain the case before a court and breaching the principle of the public character of the procedure, since there has not been an open court; this principle is provided in the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal and by article 6-line 1/European Convention on Human Rights.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging breaching the principle of equity of the procedure since the Civil Service Tribunal has not heard the appellant regarding the inadmissibility cause of her action (article 6-line 1/European Convention on Human Rights).

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging breaching article 21 first paragraph of the Statute of the Court of Justice and article 44 line (1) letter (c) from the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance since the Civil Service Tribunal has applied in reality a ‘rule of crystallizing the legal proceedings’ considering that the application did not contain pleas in law.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging that ordering the appellant to pay the judgment costs when the Tribunal has not adjudicated on the substance of the case, at a time when the appellant is at present a social case following the consequences of ending the employment contract with the European Commission infringes Article 89 point (6) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal ‘where a case does not proceed to judgment, the costs shall be in the discretion of the Tribunal’.


title: Case T-1/09: Action brought on 5 January 2009 — Dornbracht v OHIM — Metaform Lucchese (META)

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/44

         Action brought on 5 January 2009 — Dornbracht v OHIM — Metaform Lucchese (META)
   (Case T-1/09)
   (2009/C 69/98)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Aloys F. Dornbracht GmbH & Co. KG (Iserlohn, Germany) (represented by: P. Mes, C. Graf von der Groeben, G. Rother, J. Bühling, A. Verhauwen, J. Künzel, D. Jestaedt and M. Bergermann, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Metaform Lucchese SpA (Monsagrati, Italy)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Design) of 3 November 2008 (R 1152/2006-4);

               —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Aloys F. Dornbracht GmbH & Co. KG.

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘META’ for goods in Classes 9, 11, 20 and 21 (Application No 3 081 271).

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Metaform Lucchese SpA.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the figurative mark ‘METAFORM’ for goods in Classes 6, 11, 20, 21 and 24 (Community trade mark No 1 765 361), the Italian figurative mark (Trade mark No 587 108) and the international figurative mark (Trade mark No 603 054) also for goods in Classes 6, 11, 20, 21 and 24.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), in that there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.

      (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-353/08: Action brought on 26 August 2008 — vwd Vereinigte Wirtschaftsdienste v Commission

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/41

         Action brought on 26 August 2008 — vwd Vereinigte Wirtschaftsdienste v Commission
   (Case T-353/08)
   (2008/C 301/70)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: vwd Vereinigte Wirtschaftsdienste AG (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by R. Bechtold, U. Soltész and C. von Köckritz, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul in its entirety, in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 231 EC, the Commission's decision of 19 February 2008, COMP/M.4726 — Thomson Corporation/Reuters Group;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs, in accordance with Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant contests the Commission's decision of 19 February 2008 in Case No COMP/M.4726 — Thomson Corporation/Reuters Group, declaring the concentration of financial information providers Thomson Corporation and Reuters Group compatible with the common market in accordance with Article 8(2) of the EC Merger Regulation (1).
   In support of its application, the applicant submits that the contested decision is vitiated by manifest errors of assessment, errors of law and breaches of essential procedural requirements. In this respect the applicant puts forward ten pleas in law.
   First, the market for ‘real time datafeeds’ was wrongly delimited, so that the decision is contradictory and conflicts with the decision-making practice of the Commission.
   Second, the market position of the parties and the effects of the concentration on the ‘real time datafeeds’ markets were incorrectly assessed, the competitive pressure emanating from Thomson being wrongly assessed in evaluating the horizontal effects of the concentration and the vertical effects of the concentration being misunderstood.
   Third, in the market for ‘market data platforms’, the competitive pressure emanating from Thomson in combination with Wombat as the only serious potential competitor was disregarded when assessing the horizontal effects of the concentration.
   Fourth, the strengthening as a result of the concentration of Reuters' incentives to foreclose access by third parties to ‘contribution data’ was not assessed.
   Fifth, in the market for ‘news’, the market position of the parties and the effects of the concentration were assessed wrongly, and the creation of a monopoly on the ‘upstream’ market was made possible without comprehensible reasons being given.
   Sixth, in the markets for ‘desktop products in research and asset management’, and in particular in the national markets for ‘wealth management desktop products’, no adequate investigation was made of the effects on competition of the concentration.
   Seventh, the negative overall effects of the concentration across market boundaries were not examined, even though the Commission recognised in the decision that the relevant markets overlapped.
   Eighth, commitments which did not relate to all the markets on which the concentration hindered effective competition were regarded as sufficient.
   Ninth, the commitments in the areas covered were furthermore incapable of ensuring effective competition.
   Tenth, the applicant's right to a fair hearing was infringed by procedural errors.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (the EC Merger Regulation) (OJ 2004 L 24, p. 1).


title: Case T-459/08: Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2013 — EuroChem MCC v Council (Dumping — Imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia — Request for a partial interim review — Expiry review — Normal value — Export price — Articles 1, 2 and 11(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (now Articles 1, 2 and 11(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009))

text:
               6.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 101/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2013 — EuroChem MCC v Council
   (Case T-459/08) (1)

   (Dumping - Imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia - Request for a partial interim review - Expiry review - Normal value - Export price - Articles 1, 2 and 11(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (now Articles 1, 2 and 11(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009))
   2013/C 101/33
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: EuroChem Mineral and Chemical Company OAO (EuroChem MCC) (Moscow, Russia) (represented: initially by P. Vander Schueren and B. Evtimov, lawyers, and subsequently by B. Evtimov and D. O’Keeffe, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix and B Driessen, Agents, and initially by G. Berrisch and G. Wolf, lawyers, and subsequently by G. Berrisch)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet and M. França, Agents); and Fertilizers Europe (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: B. O’Connor, Solicitor, and S. Gubel, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 661/2008 of 8 July 2008 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) and a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (OJ 2008 L 185, p.1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders EuroChem Mineral and Chemical Company OAO (EuroChem MCC) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union and by Fertilizers Europe;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 327, 20.12.2008.


title: Case C-393/02: Action brought on 8 November 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic

text:
21.12.2002             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 323/27
Action brought on 8 November 2002 by the Commission                     The applicant claims that the Court should :
of the European Communities against the Portuguese
                             Republic
                                                                        1.    Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
                         (Case C-393/02)                                      within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
                                                                              administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                         (2002/C 323/39)                                      Articles 4, 9 and 13 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC (1)
                                                                              of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council
                                                                              Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 ( 2), the Kingdom
                                                                              of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought                         directive;
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
8 November 2002 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by C. Tufvesson and M. França,                 2.    Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
acting as Agents.
The applicant claims that the Court should :
—     Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
      within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with                Pleas in law and main arguments
      Directive 1999/42/EC of the European Parliament and of
      the Council of 7 June 1999 establishing a mechanism
      for the recognition of qualifications in respect of the
      professional activities covered by the Directives on liberal-     —     Infringement of Article 9 of Directive 75/442/EEC:
      isation and transitional measures and supplementing the                 Although the Spanish authorities in their reply to the
      general systems for the recognition of qualifications (1),              formal notice and the reasoned opinion respectively
      the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations            claimed that the disposal site at La Bañeza had been
      under that directive; and                                               authorised in 1979 to 1980 and that it complied with
                                                                              the requisite conditions, they have not forwarded any
—     Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.                         copies of such authorisation. Accordingly, the Com-
                                                                              mission takes the view that, in the absence of any such
                                                                              information, there was no authorisation or, if it exists,
                                                                              that it cannot be in conformity with the requirements of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               Article 9 of Directive 75/442/EEC.
The period prescribed for transposing the directive expired on                Moreover, the obligation to obtain authorisation is dis-
31 July 2001.                                                                 charged only when the waste disposal site is finally closed
                                                                              or sealed, but when the period prescribed by the reasoned
                                                                              opinion expired the disposal site at La Bañeza was
( 1) OJ 1999 L 201, p. 77.                                                    still open pending the construction of the Centro de
                                                                              Tratamiento de Residuos (waste disposal processing cen-
                                                                              tre) at San Román de la Vega.
                                                                        —     Infringement of Article 4 of Directive 75/442/EEC:
                                                                              Although the Spanish authorities claim to have carried
Action brought on 11 November 2002 by the Com-                                out a range of work to ‘improve’ the deficient conditions
mission of the European Communities against the                               at the waste disposal site in question, it continues to
                        Kingdom of Spain                                      operate and it is still in its deficient state, entailing a
                                                                              steady deterioration in the environment and causing
                         (Case C-398/02)                                      serious problems for the local population.
                         (2002/C 323/40)
                                                                        —     Infringement of Article 13 of Directive 75/442/EEC:
                                                                              Although, according to Article 14 of Directive 1999/31/
                                                                              EC ( 3), Annex II to that directive is not immediately
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before                     applicable to existing waste disposal sites, its provisions
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 11 No-                    make clear the type of regular inspections to which
vember 2002 by the Commission of the European Communi-                        Article 13 of Directive 75/442/EEC refers. The Spanish
ties, represented by G. Valero Jordana and M. Konstantinidis,                 authorities have not responded to the request for detailed
acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                  information on the inspections carried out nor have they


title: Case C-292/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Helsingin hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 25 May 2016 — A Oy

text:
               25.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/31

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Helsingin hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 25 May 2016 — A Oy
   (Case C-292/16)
   (2016/C 270/35)
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Helsingin hallinto-oikeus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: A Oy

      Other parties: Veronsaajien oikeudenvalvontayksikkö

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 49 TFEU preclude Finnish legislation under which, where a Finnish company by way of a transfer of business disposes of assets of a permanent establishment situated in another EU Member State to a company established in that State in return for new shares, the transfer of the assets is taxed immediately in the year of transfer, but in a corresponding national situation is not taxed until the time of realisation?

               2.

               Is there indirect or direct discrimination if Finland levies tax immediately in the year of the transfer of business before the income has been realised, and in a domestic situation not until the time of realisation?

               3.

               If the answer to Questions 1 and 2 is in the affirmative, may the restriction of the right of establishment be justified on grounds such as an overriding reason of the public interest or the preservation of the national power of taxation? Does the prohibited restriction comply with the principle of proportionality?


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 September 2004 in Case T-156/94: Siderúrgica Aristrain Madrid SL v Commission of the European Communities (ECSC Treaty — Competition — Agreements and concerted practices — European producers of beams — Imputability of the unlawful conduct — Fine — Appeal — Case referred back to the Court of First Instance)

text:
               20.11.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 284/14

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 14 September 2004
   in Case T-156/94: Siderúrgica Aristrain Madrid SL v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (ECSC Treaty - Competition - Agreements and concerted practices - European producers of beams - Imputability of the unlawful conduct - Fine - Appeal - Case referred back to the Court of First Instance)
   (2004/C 284/28)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   In Case T-156/94: Siderúrgica Aristrain Madrid SL, established in Madrid (Spain), represented by A. Creus Carreras and N. Lacalle Mangas, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and W. Wils, assisted by J. Rivas Andrés and J.J. Gutiérrez Gisbert, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for annulment of Commission Decision 94/215/ECSC of 16 February 1994 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty concerning agreements and concerted practices engaged in by European producers of beams (OJ 1994 L 146, p. 1) — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of J. Pirrung, President, V. Tiili, A.W.H. Meij, M. Vilaras and N.J. Forwood, Judges; B. Pastor, Deputy Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 September 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 4 of Commission Decision 94/215/ECSC of 16 February 1994 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty concerning agreements and concerted practices engaged in by European producers of beams is fixed at EUR 2 540 000;

               2.

               The applicant is ordered to pay 35 % of the costs incurred by it and by the defendant in connection with the proceedings before the Court of First Instance, including the interlocutory proceedings, and also with the proceedings on appeal before the Court of Justice. The defendant is ordered to pay 65 % of the costs incurred by it and by the applicant in connection with the same proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 146 of 28.5.2004.


title: Case F-93/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 5 July 2007 — Dethomas v Commission (Staff cases — Former member of the temporary staff — Appointment as an official — Amendment of the Staff Regulations of 1 May 2004 — Third paragraph of Article 32 of the Staff Regulations — Classification by step)

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/48

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 5 July 2007 — Dethomas v Commission
   (Case F-93/06) (1)

   (Staff cases - Former member of the temporary staff - Appointment as an official - Amendment of the Staff Regulations of 1 May 2004 - Third paragraph of Article 32 of the Staff Regulations - Classification by step)
   (2007/C 199/92)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Bruno Dethomas (Rabat, Morocco) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: initially V. Joris and H. Kraemer, subsequently H. Kraemer alone)
   Re:
   Annulment of the Commission's decision of 11 January 2006, appointing the applicant, a member of the temporary staff classified in grade A1*14, step 8, as a probationary official of the European Communities, inasmuch as it fixes his classification in grade A*14, step 2.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 11 January 2006 inasmuch as it classifies Mr Dethomas, Head of the European Commission Delegation to the Kingdom of Morocco, in grade A*14, step 2;

               2.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 237, 30.9.2006, p. 22.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 3 February 1998 in Case T-68/96: Dimitrios Polyvios v. Commission of the European Communities (Fisheries - Community financial assistance for projects by joint enterprises - Regulation No 4028/86 - Extra-contractual liability - Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
28.3.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 94/23
2. orders the Economic and Social Committee to pay all             Bahnhofstraûe 43c, Konz (Germany), represented by Theo
    of the costs.                                                  Baltes and Bernward Wittschier, Rechtsanwälte, of Trier,
                                                                   with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
(1) OJ C 54, 22.2.1997.                                            Chambers of ReneÂ Weber, 3 Rue de la Loge, v. Court of
                                                                   Justice of the European Communities (Agents: Timothy
                                                                   Millett and Bernd Zimmermann), supported by Council of
                                                                   the European Union (Agents: Diego Canga Fano and
                                                                   Martin Bauer) Ð application, first, for annulment of the
                                                                   decision of the Complaints Committee of the Court of
                                                                   Justice of 1 July 1996, second, for the recalculation and
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                          definitive determination of the applicant's pension for the
                     of 3 February 1998                            period from 1 July 1991 to 30 June 1994 on the basis of
                                                                   the weightings for Berlin fixed annually by the Council,
in Case T-68/96: Dimitrios Polyvios v. Commission of the           and, thirdly and in the alternative, for the designation of a
                  European Communities (1)                         date in the near future when that calculation and
(Fisheries Ð Community financial assistance for projects           determination are to take place Ð the Court of First
by joint enterprises Ð Regulation No 4028/86 Ð Extra-              Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili,
      contractual liability Ð Manifest inadmissibility)            President, and C. P. BrieÈt and A. Potocki, Judges; H. Jung,
                                                                   Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 January 1998, in
                         (98/C 94/59)                              which it:
                (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                   1. dismisses the application as manifestly inadmissible;
In Case T-68/96: Dimitrios Polyvios, residing at Piraeus
(Greece), represented by Vassilios Zangas, of the Athens           2. orders the parties to bear their own costs.
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Catherine Thill-Kamitaki, 15 Avenue du                 (1) OJ C 370, 7.12.1996.
Bois, v. Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: Maria Condou Durande and Hubertus van Vliet)
Ð application for compensation for the material damage
allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the
negligence of the Commission on the adoption of a
decision approving an application for financial aid for the
formation of a joint enterprise in Senegal Ð the Court of               ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: P. Lindh,                                  (Third Chamber)
President, and K. Lenaerts and J. D. Cooke, Judges; H.
Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 3 February 1998,                               of 14 January 1998
in which it:                                                       in Case T-30/97: Juana de la Cruz Vela Palacios v.
                                                                         Economic and Social Committee of the European
1. dismisses the application as manifestly inadmissible;                                  Communities (1)
                                                                   (Officials Ð Action for annulment and for damages Ð
2. orders the applicant to pay the costs.                                Time-limit for bringing an action Ð Inadmissible)
                                                                                (98/C 94/61)
(1) OJ C 210, 20.7.1996.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                   In Case T-30/97: Juana de la Cruz Vela Palacios, former
                                                                   official of the Economic and Social Committee of the
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                          European Communities, residing in Brussels, represented
                                                                   by Jaime Creus, of the Barcelona Bar, with an address for
                     of 20 January 1998                            service at 377 C/ Consell de Cent, Barcelona, against
in Case T-160/96: Max Kögler v. Court of Justice of the            Economic and Social Committee of the European
                  European Communities (1)                         Communities (Agent: Moises Bermejo Garde) Ð
                                                                   application for the annulment of, first, a decision
(Officials Ð Pension Ð Weighting Ð Change of capital of            imposing on the applicant the disciplinary measure of
           a Member State Ð Retroactive effect)                    relegation in step and, secondly, a decision to reduce her
                         (98/C 94/60)                              annual leave and a claim for compensation for the non-
                                                                   material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a
                                                                   result of those measures Ð the Court of First Instance
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                   (Third Chamber), composed of V. Tiili, President, C. P.
                                                                   BrieÈt and A. Potocki, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an
In Case T-160/96: Max Kögler, a former official of the             order on 14 January 1998, the operative part of which is
Court of Justice of the European Communities, residing at          as follows:


title: Joined Cases C-90/11 and C-91/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 March 2012 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht — Germany) — Alfred Strigl v Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt (Case C-90/11), Securvita Gesellschaft zur Entwicklung alternativer Versicherungskonzepte mbH v Öko-Invest Verlagsgesellschaft mbH (C-91/11) (Trade marks — Directive 2008/95/EC — Grounds for refusal or invalidity — Verbal expressions which consist of a word combination and a sequence of letters identical to the initial letters of those words — Distinctive character — Descriptive character — Assessment criteria)

text:
               5.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 133/9

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 March 2012 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht — Germany) — Alfred Strigl v Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt (Case C-90/11), Securvita Gesellschaft zur Entwicklung alternativer Versicherungskonzepte mbH v Öko-Invest Verlagsgesellschaft mbH (C-91/11)
   (Joined Cases C-90/11 and C-91/11) (1)

   (Trade marks - Directive 2008/95/EC - Grounds for refusal or invalidity - Verbal expressions which consist of a word combination and a sequence of letters identical to the initial letters of those words - Distinctive character - Descriptive character - Assessment criteria)
   2012/C 133/15
   Language of the cases: German

      Referring court

   Bundespatentgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Alfred Strigl (C-90/11), Securvita Gesellschaft zur Entwicklung alternativer Versicherungskonzepte mbH (C-91/11)

      Defendants: Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt (Case C-90/11), Öko-Invest Verlagsgesellschaft mbH (C-91/11)

      Re:

   References for a preliminary ruling — Bundespatentgericht — Interpretation of Article 3(1)(b) and (c) of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (codified version) (OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25) — Distinctive character of a word mark composed of a combination of descriptive words and a sequence of non-descriptive letters that are identical to the initial letters of those words

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 3(1)(b) and (c) of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that it is applicable to a word mark which consists of the juxtaposition of a descriptive word combination and a letter sequence which is non-descriptive in itself, if the relevant public perceives that sequence as being an abbreviation of that word combination by reason of the fact that it reproduces the first letter of each word of that combination, and that the mark in question, considered as a whole, can thus be understood as a combination of descriptive indications or abbreviations which is therefore devoid of distinctive character.

      (1)  OJ C 173, 11.6.2011.


title: Case C-61/05: Action brought on 10 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic

text:
               2.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/19

         Action brought on 10 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-61/05)
   (2005/C 82/40)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 10 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by P.Andrade and W.Wils, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that the Portuguese Republic, by creating in Portuguese law a rental right in favour of producers of videograms, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 92/100/EEC (1) of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property, and in particular under Article 2(1) thereof;

               —

               declare that the Portuguese Republic, by creating in Portuguese law some doubt as to who is responsible for paying the remuneration owed to artists on termination of the rental right, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 92/100/EEC, in particular under Article 4 in conjunction with Article 2(5) and (7) thereof;

               —

               order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission submits that by failing to an grant exclusive rental right to the producer of the first fixation of a film, the Portuguese State is in breach of Directive 92/100 since it transposed the provisions of Article 2(1) of the directive incorrectly.
   Moreover, the use of the term ‘producer’ in the Portuguese legislation creates confusion as to who must pay the artists the remuneration to which they are entitled, constituting an incorrect transposition of the directive, in particular of Article 2(5) and (7) in conjunction with Article 4 thereof.

      (1)  OJ 1992 L 346, p. 61.


title: Case C-223/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 7 de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria — Spain) — Tecom Mican SL, José Arias Domínguez (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Service of judicial and extrajudicial documents — Concept of an ‘extrajudicial document’ — Private documents — Cross-border implications — Functioning of the internal market)

text:
               18.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/9

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 7 de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria — Spain) — Tecom Mican SL, José Arias Domínguez
   (Case C-223/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Service of judicial and extrajudicial documents - Concept of an ‘extrajudicial document’ - Private documents - Cross-border implications - Functioning of the internal market))
   (2016/C 016/10)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 7 de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Tecom Mican SL, José Arias Domínguez

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents), and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000, must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of an ‘extrajudicial document’ referred to in that article encompasses not only documents drawn up or certified by a public authority or official but also private documents of which the formal transmission to an addressee residing abroad is necessary for the purposes of exercising, proving or safeguarding a right or a claim in civil or commercial law.

               2.

               Regulation No 1393/2007 must be interpreted as meaning that service of an extrajudicial document, pursuant to the detailed rules laid down by that regulation, can be effected even where the applicant has already effected an earlier service of that document through a means of transmission not provided for in the regulation, or through another of the means of transmission put in place by it.

               3.

               Article 16 of Regulation No 1393/2007 must be interpreted as meaning that, where the conditions of that article are satisfied, it is not necessary to ascertain, on a case-by-case basis, whether the service of an extrajudicial document has cross-border implications and is necessary for the proper functioning of the internal market.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.


title: NOTICE OF AN OPEN COMPETITION

text:
No C 169/ 16     I EN I            Official Journal of the European Communities                             5 . 7 . 95
                                      COURT OF JUSTICE
                                       NOTICE OF AN OPEN COMPETITION
                                                    (95 /C 169/ 12)
           The Court of Justice of the European Communities will be publishing in the Official Journal of
           the European Communities No C 169 A of 5 July 1995 the following notice of open
           competition :
           Italian edition
           CJ/A/ 11 (Administrators with Italian legal education)
           To obtain a copy of this Official Journal please apply to the Personnel Division of the Court of
           Justice of the European Communities, L-2925 Luxembourg.
           Closing date for application : 28 September 1995


title: Case T-336/09: Action brought on 25 August 2009 — Häfele v OHIM — Topcom Europe (Topcom)

text:
               24.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/32

         Action brought on 25 August 2009 — Häfele v OHIM — Topcom Europe (Topcom)
   (Case T-336/09)
   2009/C 256/57
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Häfele GmbH & Co. KG (Nagold, Germany) (represented by: J. Dönch, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Topcom Europe NV (Heverlee, Belgium)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Repeal the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 5 June 2009 in case R 1500/2008-2; and

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark “Topcom”, for goods in classes 7, 9 and 11

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited: Community trade mark registration of the word mark “TOPCOM” for goods in class 9; Benelux trade mark registration of the word mark “TOPCOM” for goods in class 9.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Upheld the appeal, allowed the opposition and annulled the decision of the Opposition Division

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) Council Regulation 40/94 (which became Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 207/2009) as the Board of Appeal wrongly held that there was a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned, due to the fact that the goods in question are not similar nor complementary.


title: Case C-165/12: Action brought on 3 April 2012 — European Commission v Council of the European Union

text:
               2.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 157/6

         Action brought on 3 April 2012 — European Commission v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-165/12)
   2012/C 157/10
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet and E. Paasivirta, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Council Decision 2012/19/EU (1) of 16 December 2011 on the approval, on behalf of the European Union, of the Declaration on the granting of fishing opportunities in EU waters to fishing vessels flying the flag of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in the exclusive economic zone off the coast of French Guiana, inasmuch as it is based on Article 218(6)(b) TFEU in conjunction with Article 43(3) TFEU;

               —

               Maintain the effects of the annulled decision until the entry into force of a new decision adopted, within a reasonable period, on an appropriate legal basis, namely Article 218(6)(a) TFEU in conjunction with Article 43(2) TFEU, or, in the event of a refusal by the Parliament to give its approval, until expiry of a reasonable short period after the Parliament’s decision refusing approval, and

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission seeks the annulment, with maintenance of its effects until adoption of a new measure, of Council Decision 2012/19/EU, inasmuch as the choice of legal basis departs fundamentally from that proposed by the Commission, namely Article 218(6)(a) TFEU (in conjunction with Article 43(2) TFEU), with the approval of the Parliament.
   The Commission submits that, by so acting, the Council has erred and that, in accordance with the Commission’s proposal, it should seek the approval of the Parliament before adopting the measure in question.
   In support of its action, the Commission puts forward three pleas in law: the first plea in law, split into three parts, alleging, firstly, infringement of Article 218(6)(a) TFEU and Article 43(2) TFEU in that the Council has used Article 218(6)(b) TFEU and Article 43(3) TFEU as the legal basis for the contested measure and, secondly, infringement of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU in that the Council has given contradictory reasons for its choice of legal basis.
   The second plea in law, following from the first, also alleges infringement of Article 218(6)(a) TFEU in that the Council has disregarded the institutional prerogatives of the European Parliament by failing to obtain its approval despite the fact that that approval is required by the article in question.
   The third plea in law alleges infringement of Articles 17 TEU and 218(6) TFEU in that the Council has distorted the Commission’s proposal.

      (1)  OJ 2012 L 6, p. 8.