title: Case T-778/14: Action brought on 26 November 2014 — Ugly v OHIM — Group Lottuss (COYOTE UGLY)

text:
               26.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/41

         Action brought on 26 November 2014 — Ugly v OHIM — Group Lottuss (COYOTE UGLY)
   (Case T-778/14)
   (2015/C 026/53)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Ugly, Inc. (New York, United States) (represented by: T. St Quintin, Barrister, K. Gilbert and C. Mackey, Solicitors)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Group Lottuss Corp., SL (Barcelona, Spain)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘COYOTE UGLY’ — Community trade mark application No 1 2 26  198

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 September 2014 in Case R 1369/2013-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decisions of the Opposition Division and of the Board of Appeal and remit the opposition back to the Opposition Division for reconsideration;

               —

               Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of proceedings.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 8(1), 8(2) and 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-365/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 14 July 2015 — Wortmann KG Internationale Schuhproduktionen v Hauptzollamt Bielefeld

text:
               5.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/5

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 14 July 2015 — Wortmann KG Internationale Schuhproduktionen v Hauptzollamt Bielefeld
   (Case C-365/15)
   (2015/C 328/04)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Wortmann KG Internationale Schuhproduktionen

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Bielefeld

      Question referred

   Is Article 241 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the national law referred to therein must, having regard to the general EU-law principle of effectiveness, provide for the payment of interest on reimbursed import duties from the time of payment of those duties up to the time of their reimbursement, even in cases in which the right to reimbursement has not been the subject of a claim before a national court?

      (1)  OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.


title: Case C-450/03: Action brought on 27 October 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
C 289/18                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                       29.11.2003
Action brought on 24 October 2003 by French Republic                       Action brought on 27 October 2003 by the Commission
  against the Commission of the European Communities                       of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy
                                                                                of Luxembourg
                           (Case C-449/03)
                                                                                (Case C-450/03)
                          (2003/C 289/35)
                                                                                (2003/C 289/36)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European               brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
Communities on 24 October 2003 by the French Republic,                     ties on 27 October 2003 by the Commission of the European
represented by M. Konstantinidis and B. Stromsky, acting as                Communities, represented by K. Banks, acting as Agent, with
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                         an address for service in Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                           the Court should:
1.    declare that, by failing to issue a permit for the operation
      of the waste tip situated within the limits of the munici-           1.    Declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations
      pality of Saint-Laurent du Maroni, the French Republic                     and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9 of                    Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of
      Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste,                     the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of
      as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC (1);                                    biotechnological inventions (1) or, in any event, by not
                                                                                communicating those provisions to the Commission, the
                                                                                Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
2.    declare that, by refraining from taking the necessary                      obligations under Article 15 of that directive;
      measures to ensure that the waste on the abovementioned
      tip is treated or disposed of without endangering human              2.    Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
      health and without using processes or methods which
      might harm the environment, the French Republic has
      failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4 of Council
      Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as                    Pleas in law and main arguments
      amended by Directive 91/156/EEC;
3.    declare that, by refraining from taking the necessary                The time-limit fixed for the transposition of the directive
      measures to ensure that the operator of the abovemen-                expired on 30 July 2000.
      tioned tip itself treat or dispose of waste or have it
      handled by a private or public waste collector, the French
      Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8        (1) OJ L 213 of 30.07.1998, p. 13.
      of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on
      waste, as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC;
4.    order the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                           Action brought on 28 October 2003 by the Commission
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                                                                Belgium
The existence of a wild tipping site operated by the munici-                                       (Case C-454/03)
pality of Saint-Laurent du Maroni has resulted in a deterioration
of the environment during an extended period. The French
Republic has not taken steps to close down the illegal tip or to                                   (2003/C 289/37)
rehabilitate it. It has not taken measures to ensure that waste
is deposited in an authorised tip.
                                                                           An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
(1) OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32.                                                   before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                           28 October 2003 by the Commission of the European
                                                                           Communities, represented by K. Banks, acting as Agent, with
                                                                           an address for service in Luxembourg.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Chamber for Labour Disputes of the Pretura Circondariale di Bologna, by order of that court of 2 December 1996 in the case of Annalisa Carbonari and 121 other plaintiffs against 1. Università degli Studi di Bologna, 2. Ministero della Sanità, 3. Minstero dell'Università e della Ricerca Scientifica, 4. Ministero del Tesoro (Case C-131/97)

text:
31 . 5 . 97           I EN 1                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 166/9
            large a prize can be obtained from the gaming                     the EC Treaty and, according to the rules of national
            machines and whether the opportunity to win is                    procedural law applicable to them, the arbitrators are
            based on chance or on the player's skill ?                        not at liberty to apply those provisions of their own
                                                                              motion ?
(') [ 1994 ] ECR 1-1039 .
( 2 ) [ 1982] ECR 3415 .
                                                                         2 . Notwithstanding the rules of Netherlands procedural
                                                                              law set out in paragraphs 4.2 and 4 .4 above, should a
                                                                              Netherlands court allow a claim, which otherwise
                                                                              complies with statuatory requirements, for the
                                                                              annulment of an arbitration award on the ground that
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                                   the award conflicts with Article 85 of the EC Treaty, if
Arrondissementsrechtbank Alkmaar by order of that court                       it finds that there is in fact such a conflict ?
of 18 March 1997 in the case of A. G. R. Regeling against
Bestuur van de Bedrijfsvereniging voor de Metaalnijver
                                   heid                                  3 . Notwithstanding the rules of Netherlands procedural
                          ( Case C-125 /97 )                                  law set out in paragraph 4.5 above, is the court also
                                                                              required to allow such a claim if the applicability of
                            ( 97/C 166/ 15 )
                                                                              Article 85 of the EC Treaty was outside the scope of
                                                                              the dispute in the arbitration proceedings and the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice                               arbitrators therefore made no decision in regard to it ?
of the European Communities by order of the
Arrondissementsrechtbank Alkmaar ( Alkmaar District
Court) of 18 March 1997, received at the Court Registry                  4 . Does Community law require the rules of Netherlands
on 26 March 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of                     procedural law set out in paragraph 5.3 above to be
A. G. R. Regeling against Bestuur van de Bedrijfsvereni                      disapplied if this is necessary in order to be able to
ging voor de Metaalnijverheid on the following question :                     examine , in proceedings for annulment of a
                                                                              subsequent arbitration award, whether an agreement
Are the requirements of Directive 80/987 (') fully satisfied                  held to be valid in an interim arbitration award with
by rules of national law which may result in a claim                          the force of res judicata may nevertheless be void
relating to pay^being met, as required by that Directive,                     because it conflicts with Article 85 of the EC Treaty ?
only if and in so far as that claim amounts, over the
period referred to in the Directive, to a sum greater than
the amount of pay which the employee received during                     5 . Alternatively, in a case such as that described in
that period but which is attributed, under national civil                     Question 4 , is it necessary to refrain from applying the
law, to a claim relating to pay which arose prior to that                     rule that, in so far as an interim arbitration award is
period ?                                                                      in the nature of a final award, annulment of that
                                                                              award may not be sought simultaneously with that of
(') OJ No L 283 , 1980 , p . 23 .                                             the subsequent arbitration award ?
                                                                         H OJ No C 77, 1996 , p . 1 .
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad
der Nederlanden by order of that court of 21 March 1997
in the case of Eco Swiss China Time Ltd against Benetton
                          International NV                               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Chamber for
                          ( Case C-126/97 )                              Labour Disputes of the Pretura Circondariale di Bologna,
                                                                         by order of that court of 2 December 1996 in the case of
                             ( 97/C 166/ 16 )                            Annalisa Carbonari and 121 other plaintiffs against
                                                                         1 . Università degli Studi di Bologna, 2 . Ministero della Sa
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   nità, 3 . Minstero dell'Università e della Ricerca Scientifica,
European Communities by order of the Hoge Raad der                                            4 . Ministero del Tesoro
Nederlanden ( Supreme Court of the Netherlands ) of                                               ( Case C-131 /97 )
21 March 1997, which was received at the Court Registry
 on 27 March 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of                                          ( 97/C 166/ 17 )
 Eco Swiss China Time Ltd and Benetton International NV
on the following questions :
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
 1 . To what extent is the ruling of the Court of Justice in             European Communities by an order of the Chamber for
        Joined Cases C-430/93 and C-431/93 Van Schijndel                 Labour Disputes of the Pretura Circondariale di Bologna
        and Van Veen v. SPF (') applicable by analogy if, in a           ( Bologna District Magistrates Court) of 2 December 1996,
        dispute concerning a private law agreement which is              which was received at the Court Registry on 1 April 1997,
        decided upon by arbitrators rather than the national             for a preliminary ruling in the case of Annalisa Carbonari
        courts, the parties make no reference to Article 85 of           and 121 other plaintiffs against 1 . Universita degli Studi di
 ---pagebreak--- No C 166/ 10             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        31 . 5 . 97
Bologna, 2 . Ministero della Sanità, 3 . Minstero dell'Uni                   upon as against a national authority by the person
versità e della Ricerca Scientifica , 4 . Ministero del Tesoro,               dealing in such rights as a ground justifying treatment
on the following questions:                                                   of those transactions as taxable transactions ?
                                                                              If, again, that question is answered in the negative, an
'Must the provision of Directive 82/76/EEC (') providing                      answer to the following question is sought:
that the training of trainee medical specialists is to be
" subject to appropriate remuneration " be interpreted, in
so far as no specific provisions have been adopted by the               3 . Can the person dealing in those rights still claim a
Italian Republic in the prescribed terms, as having direct                    right to deduct on the basis of Article 17 ( 2 ) or
effect in favour of trainee medical specialists as against the                another provision of the Directive, that is to say, does
administrative authorities of the Italian Republic, and does                  the provision have direct effect even though the
it confer on trainee medical specialists the right to                         transaction does not give rise to any output tax ?
appropriate payment linked with all the training
undertaken in the departments entrusted with training by                (') ' 11 . The following types of transaction shall be exempt from
the State , with a corresponding obligation on those                               tax: ( l)The grant or assignment of rights covered by
administrative authorities, including the University of                            Article 1 , 4 or 5 of Law 1960 : 729 on Copyright in
Bologna , to pay such remuneration ?'                                              Literary and Artistic Works, but not ...'.
(') OJ No L 43 , 15 . 2 . 1982 , p . 21
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
                                                                        Oberlandesgericht Wien by order of that court of
                                                                        24 March 1997 in the case of Verein zur Forderung des
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                             freien Wettbewerbs im Medienwesen v. MVF Magazin
Skatterattsnamnden by order of that body of 20 February                               Verlag am Fleetrand Gesellschaft mbH
  1997 in the case of Victoria Film A/S v. Riksskatteverket                                       ( Case C-135/97)
                          ( Case C-134/97                                                           ( 97/C 166/19 )
                            ( 97/C 166/ 18 )
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of
                                                                        the European Communities by an order of the Oberlandes
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  gericht Wien ( Higher Regional Court, Vienna ) of 24 March
European Communities by an order of the                                 1997, which was received at the Court Registry on 7 April
Skatterattsnamnden ( Revenue Board ) of 20 February                     1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Verein zur
1997, which was received at the Court Registry on 7 April               Forderung des freien Wettbewerbs im Medienwesen v.
1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Victoria Film             MVF Magazin-Verlag am Fleetrand Gesellschaft mbH on
A/S v. Riksskatteverket on the following questions:                     the following question :
                                                                        'Is Article 30 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as
1 . Does Article 28 ( 3 ) ( b ) of the Sixth VAT Directive in           precluding application of legislation of Member State A
     conjunction with point 2 of Annex F to the Directive,              prohibiting an undertaking established in Member State B
     and having regard to the terms of Annex XV, IX                     from selling in Member State A a periodically published
     Taxation, point 2 aa, of the Treaty of Accession                   magazine produced in Member State B if it contains prize
     between the Member States of the European Union                    puzzles or competitions which are lawfully organized in
     and Sweden concerning Sweden's accession to the                    Member State B ?'
     European Union, mean that Sweden may have
     provisions in its national legislation having the tenor
     of Article 11 ( 1 ) of Title 3 of the Value Added Tax
     Law as worded until 31 December 1996 (')?
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties
     If the answer to that question is in the negative, an
                                                                        Tribunal, Manchester, by direction of that court of 2 April
     answer to the following question is sought.
                                                                        1997, in the case of Norbury Developments Ltd against
                                                                                the Commissioners of Customs and Excise
2 . Does the fact that Article 28 ( 3 ) ( b ) does not allow                                      ( Case C-136/97 )
     national legislation to provide for an exemption from                                          ( 97/C 166/20 )
     tax liability for the transactions referred to in
     Question 1 mean that this provision, Article 6 ( 1 ) or
     any other provision of the Sixth Directive has so-called           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     direct effect in this regard and can therefore be relied           European Communities by direction of the VAT and


title: Case T-478/13: Order of the General Court of 18 June 2014  — NumberFour v OHIM — Inaer Helicópteros (ENFORE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               29.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 339/18

         Order of the General Court of 18 June 2014 — NumberFour v OHIM — Inaer Helicópteros (ENFORE)
   (Case T-478/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate))
   2014/C 339/21
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: NumberFour AG (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: C. Götz, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Inaer Helicópteros, SA (Mutxamel, Spain) (represented by: C. Giner Mas and R. Rodriguez Zaragoza, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 May 2013 (Case R 1000/2012-5), relating to opposition proceedings between NumberFour AG and Inaer Helicópteros, SA

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               The applicant and intervener shall bear their own costs and each shall pay one half of the costs borne by the defendant.

      (1)  OJ C 344, 23.11.2013.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 November 2000 in Case C-294/98 P: Metsä-Serla Oyj and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 — Joint and several liability for payment of a fine)

text:
10.2.2001                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 45/3
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the appeal;                                4.    Orders Sarrió SA to bear its own costs and to pay two-thirds
                                                                                of those of the Commission of the European Communities
3.    Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance;                        before the Court of Justice;
4.    Reserves the costs.                                                   5.    Order the Commission of the European Communities to bear
                                                                                one third of its own costs before the Court of Justice.
(1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                                             (Fifth Chamber)
                       of 16 November 2000                                                         of 16 November 2000
                                                                            in Case C-294/98 P: Metsä-Serla Oyj and Others v Com-
in Case C-291/98 P Sarrió SA v Commission of the
                                                                                mission of the European Communities (1)
                    European Communities (1)
                                                                            (Appeal — Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 — Joint and
(Appeal — Competition — Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty,                                   several liability for payment of a fine)
now Article 81(1) EC — Concept of single infringement —
Information exchange — Order — Fine Determination of                                                    (2001/C 45/06)
the amount — Method of calculation — Statement of
                reasons Mitigating circumstances)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: German)
                            (2001/C 45/05)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    (Language of the Case: Italian)                                             in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            In Case C-294/98 P, Metsä-Serla Oyj, formerly Metsä-Serla Oy,
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      established in Espoo (Finland), UPM-Kymmene Oyj, formerly
                    in the European Court Reports)                          United Paper Mills Ltd, established in Helsinki (Finland),
                                                                            Tamrock Oy, formerly Tampella Corporation, established in
                                                                            Tampere (Finland), Kyro Oyj Abp, formerly Oy Kyro Ab,
In Case C-291/98 P, Sarrió SA, established in Barcelona, Spain,
                                                                            established in Tampere, represented by H. Hellmann, Rechtsan-
represented by A. Mazzoni, of the Milan Bar, M. Siragusa, of
                                                                            walt, Cologne, and H.-J. Hellmann, Rechtsanwalt, Mannheim,
the Rome Bar, and F. Maria Moretti, of the Venice Bar, with an
                                                                            with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger,
                                                                            Loesch and Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe — appeal against the
Hoss & Prussen, 2 Place Winston Churchill — appeal against
                                                                            judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                            Communities (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) of
Communities (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) of
                                                                            14 May 1998 in Cases T-339/94 to T-342/94 Metsä-Serla and
14 May 1998 in Case T-334/94 Sarrió v Commission [1998]
                                                                            Others v Comission [1998] ECR II-1727, seeking to have that
ECR II-1439, seeking to have that judgment set aside,the other
                                                                            judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings being
party to the proceedings being Commission of the European
                                                                            Commission of the European Communities, represented by
Communities, represented by R. Lyal, of its Legal Service,
                                                                            R. Lyal, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, assisted by
acting as Agent, assisted by A. Dal Ferro — the Court (Fifth
                                                                            D. Schroeder — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La
Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola, President of the
                                                                            Pergola, President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur),
Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann
                                                                            D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; J. Mischo,
and L. Sevón, Judges; J. Mischo Advocate General; R. Grass,
                                                                            Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 November 2000 in
                                                                            on 16 November 2000 in which it:
which it:
                                                                            1.    Dismisses the appeal.
1.    Sets aside paragraph 2 of the operative part of the judgment of
      the Court of First Instance of 14 May 1998 in Case T-334/94           2.    Orders Metsä-Serla Oyj, UPM-Kymmene Oyj, Tamrock Oy
      Sarrió v Commission;                                                       and Kyro Oyk Abp to pay the costs.
2.    Fixes the amount of the fine imposed on Sarrió SA at
      EUR 13 750 000;                                                       (1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.
3.    Dismisses the remainder of the appeal;


title: Case C-102/11 P: Appeal brought on 2 March 2011 by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Seventh Chamber) on 16 December 2010 in Case T-513/09 José Manuel Baena Grupo, S.A. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Herbert Neuman and Andoni Galdeano del Sel

text:
               30.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 130/14

         Appeal brought on 2 March 2011 by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Seventh Chamber) on 16 December 2010 in Case T-513/09 José Manuel Baena Grupo, S.A. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Herbert Neuman and Andoni Galdeano del Sel
   (Case C-102/11 P)
   2011/C 130/25
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: J. Crespo Carillo and A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: José Manuel Baena Grupo, S.A. and Herbert Neuman and Andoni Galdeano del Sel

      Form of order sought

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal;

               —

               deliver a new judgment on the merits of the case, dismissing the action brought against the contested decision, or refer the case back to the General Court;

               —

               order the applicant at first instance to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   OHIM submits that the judgment under appeal should be set aside on the ground that the General Court infringed Article 61 CDR. (1) In support of that plea, OHIM puts forward the reasons set out below, which may be summarised as follows:

               (a)

               By substituting its assessment of the facts for that of the Board of Appeal, without having found any ‘manifest errors of assessment’, the General Court went beyond what Article 61 CDR permits in relation to Community designs. Instead of reviewing the lawfulness of the decision, the General Court exercised the same jurisdiction as that reserved to the Board of Appeal under Article 60 CDR.

               (b)

               The General Court infringed Article 25(1)(c) CDR, together with Article 6 CDR, in that it:

                           —

                           applied an incorrect test in examining whether the designs compared produce a different overall impression on informed users. The error of law arises from the fact that the General Court examined whether the similarities and differences would be ‘preserved in the memory’ of an informed user (see paragraphs 22 and 23 of the judgement under appeal). However, the comparison cannot be based on the memory of the user. As this case involves designs — and not trade marks — the correct test consists in determining whether the similarities and differences between the designs produce a different overall impression when an informed user makes a direct comparison of the designs.

                           —

                           analysed perception only from the point of view of one section of the relevant public and did not give any reasons at all concerning the perception of users of some of the goods in question, namely, ‘printed material, including advertising material’.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs (OJ 2002 L 3, p. 1).


title: Case T-49/14: Action brought on 17 January 2014 — Zentralverband des Deutschen Bäckerhandwerks v Commission

text:
               14.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/46

         Action brought on 17 January 2014 — Zentralverband des Deutschen Bäckerhandwerks v Commission
   (Case T-49/14)
   2014/C 112/59
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Zentralverband des Deutschen Bäckerhandwerks e.V. (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: I. Jung, M. Teworte-Vey, A. Renvert and J. Saatkamp, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Implementing Decision of 14 November 2013 concerning the rejection of a request to cancel a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Kołocz śląski/kołacz śląski (PGI)) (notified under document C(2013) 7626).

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging an incorrect legal basis

                           —

                           The applicant claims that the defendant based the contested decision, unlawfully, on the new version of Regulation (EU) 1151/2012 (1) applicable when the decision was adopted rather than on the older version Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 (2) applicable at the time of the applicant’s request. The defendant thereby infringed the principle expressed by the maxim ‘tempus regit actum’.

                           —

                           The applicant also argues that the request to cancel the entry is admissible and well founded under Regulation No 510/2006. It states in this context inter alia that there are two reasons for the cancellation (the indication at issue is a generic name within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 510/2006; the geographical area Silesia is incorrectly defined in the specification of the registration) within the meaning of Article 12(2) of Regulation No 510/2006 and that a divergent interpretation and application of that provision would impinge upon the fundamental rights of bakery businesses in the Federal Republic.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Regulation No 1151/2012

                           —

                           The applicant claims that the request would even be admissible and well founded were it to be assessed on the basis of Regulation No 1151/2012.

      (1)  Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 2012 L 343, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 2006 L 93, p. 12).


title: Case T-24/06: Action brought on  24 January 2006  — Medienanstalt Berlin-Brandenburg v Commission

text:
               8.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/32

         Action brought on 24 January 2006 — Medienanstalt Berlin-Brandenburg v Commission
   (Case T-24/06)
   (2006/C 86/66)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Medienanstalt Berlin-Brandenburg (MABB) (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: M. Schütte, B. Immenkamp, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Commission of the European Communities (C(2005) 3903 final) of 9 November 2005 on the State aid which the Federal Republic of Germany has implemented for the introduction of digital terrestrial television (DVB-T) in Berlin-Brandenburg;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant is challenging Commission Decision C(2005) 3903 final of 9 November 2005 on the State aid for the introduction of digital terrestrial television (DVB-T) in Berlin-Brandenburg. In the contested decision the Commission stated that the aid granted to the commercial broadcasters participating in DVB-T was incompatible with the common market and ordered the Federal Republic of Germany to recover from the beneficiaries the aid which was unlawfully made available to them. The applicant is expressly referred to as an issuer of aid in the contested decision.
   In support of its action the applicant puts forward three pleas in law.
   First, it states that the contested decision errs in law as essential formal requirements have been infringed. The Commission has, in particular, infringed the obligation to state reasons as it has not explained comprehensively why this should be regarded as a case involving State aid.
   Second, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 87 EC. On the one hand, it contends that there is no aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC. On the other hand, it claims that if there has in fact been aid, that would be compatible with the common market under Article 87(3)(c) and (d).
   Finally, the applicant bases its action on the fact that the contested decision infringes Article 86(2) EC since, in so far as there has been aid, that would be compatible with the common market.


title: Case T-768/14: Action brought on 19 November 2014  — ANKO v Commission

text:
               23.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/35

         Action brought on 19 November 2014 — ANKO v Commission
   (Case T-768/14)
   (2015/C 065/49)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: ANKO Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               declare that the sum of EUR 3 77  733,93, which the Commission paid to the applicant in respect of the POCEMON project, constitutes eligible costs and that accordingly the applicant is under no obligation to repay that sum as unduly paid; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant’s legal costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   This action concerns the liability of the Commission under the agreement No 216088 for the performance of the project ‘Point Of CarE MONitoring and Diagnostics for Autoimmune Diseases’ (POCEMON), under Article 272 TFEU. In particular, the applicant maintains that, although it performed its contractual obligations, the Commission, contrary to the terms of that agreement, the principle of good faith, the prohibition of abuse of rights and the principle of proportionality, sought the recovery of sums paid to ΑΝΚΟ as not being eligible costs.
   For that reason, the applicant maintains, first, that the Commission relies on wholly unfounded and in any event unproven grounds in order to reject almost all the costs incurred by ANKO as being ineligible and to seek the repayment of the sum paid to ΑΝΚΟ in respect of the POCEMON project. The applicant maintains, second, that the Commission, in rejecting 98,68 % of the contribution it is obliged to pay, because that allegedly did not correspond to eligible costs, which the applicant incurred for the requirements of the project, infringes the principles of the prohibition of abuse of rights and of proportionality.


title: Case T-293/05: Action brought on 26 July 2005 by Maurizio Caldarone against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               17.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 229/38

         Action brought on 26 July 2005 by Maurizio Caldarone against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-293/05)
   (2005/C 229/79)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 26 July 2005 by Maurizio Caldarone, resident in Brussels, represented by Stéphane Rodrigues and Alice Jaume, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the decision of the Appointing Authority of 12 April 2005 answering the applicant's complaint and annulling the career development report drawn up for him for the period from 1 January 2003 to 21 August 2003;

               —

               set out to the Commission the consequences of that annulment, in particular, the annulment of the career development report for 2003 for the subsequent period from 15 September 2003 to 31 December 2003, which was drawn up on the basis of the contested career development report;

               —

               establish the non-contractual liability of the European Community incurred by virtue of the contested decision;

               —

               award the applicant damages for the harm suffered, particularly in respect of non-pecuniary damage, in the amount of EUR 3 000;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the entire costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, a Commission official, challenges with the present action his partial career development report for the period from 1 January 2003 to 21 August 2003, by alleging, inter alia, inconsistency between the assessments of the appraiser and the co-appraiser, and manifest errors of assessment. He further contends that there has been an infringement of the duty to give reasons, of the rights of the defence, and of the principles of good administration and legitimate expectations.


C 166/12              EN              Official Journal of the European Communities                                  30.5.98
      Removal from the register of Case C-251/96 (1)                   Removal from the register of Case C-305/95 (1)
                        (98/C 166/20)                                                    (98/C 166/24)
By order of 29 October 1997, the President of the Court          By order of 29 January 1998 the President of the Sixth
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the               Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European
removal from the register of Case C-251/96: (Reference           Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di       Case C-305/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
Rovigo): Criminal proceedings against Giuseppe Cordella.         the Cour du Travail, Mons): UniversiteÂ Catholique de
                                                                 Louvain v Francine Plapied and Danielle Gallez.
(1) OJ C 294 of 5.10.1996.
                                                                 (1) OJ C 299 of 11.11.1995.
      Removal from the register of Case C-224/96 (1)
                                                                       Removal from the register of Case C-325/97 (1)
                        (98/C 166/21)
                                                                                (98/C 166/25)
By order of 13 November 1997, the President of the               By order of 11 February 1998 the President of the Court
Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered the         of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-224/96: Promotion            removal from the register of Case C-325/97: Commission
LeÂopold SA v European Parliament.                               of the European Communities v Federal Republic of
                                                                 Germany.
(1) OJ C 269 of 14.9.1996.
                                                                 (1) OJ C 331 of 1.11.1997.
       Removal from the register of Case C-91/97 (1)
                        (98/C 166/22)                                  Removal from the register of Case C-238/97 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 166/26)
By order of 27 January 1998 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the              By order of 18 February 1998 the President of the Court
removal from the register of Case C-91/97 (reference for a       of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht): Arif           removal from the register of Case C-238/97: Commission
Altiney v Bundesanstalt für Arbeit.                              of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
(1) OJ C 131 of 26.4.1997.                                       (1) OJ C 252 of 16.8.1997.
                                                                       Removal from the register of Case C-146/96 (1)
      Removal from the register of Case C-142/97 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 166/27)
                        (98/C 166/23)
                                                                 By order of 3 March 1998 the President of        the Sixth
By order of 27 January 1998 the President of the Court of        Chamber of the Court of Justice of the           European
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the              Communities has ordered the removal from the    register of
removal from the register of Case C-142/97: Commission           Case     C-146/96:     Commission     of  the    European
of the European Communities v Italian Republic.                  Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
(1) OJ C 181 of 14.6.1997.                                       (1) OJ C 197 of 6.7.1996.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 20 February 1997 in Case C-344/95: Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Article 48 of the EC Treaty - Directive 68/360/EEC)

text:
5 . 4 . 97               EN 1                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 108/7
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                           residence and by requiring payment for that
                                                                                document,
                          ( Sixth Chamber)
                        of 20 February 1997                                  — the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
                                                                                obligations under Article 48 of the EC Treaty
in      Case    C-344/95 : Commission of the European                            and under Council Directive 68/360/EEC of
             Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium ( ] )                             15 October 1968 on the abolition of restrictions
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                           on movement and residence within the Community
     Article 48 of the EC Treaty — Directive 68/360/EEC)                         for workers of Member States and their families.
                            { 97IC 108/11 )
                                                                        2 . orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
                  (Language of the case: French)                        (') OJ No C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
            published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
In Case C-344/95 : Commission of the European
                                                                                ( Sixth Chamber)
Communities ( Agent: Pieter van Nuffel ) v. Kingdom of
Belgium ( Agent: Jan Devadder ) — application for a                                           of 20 February 1997
declaration that by: ( i ) requiring nationals of other
                                                                        in   Case    C-135/96: Commission of the European
Member States who are seeking employment in Belgium to
                                                                                Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium ( ')
leave its territory after a period of three months; ( ii )
issuing, during the first six months of their residence, to             (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations —
persons holding employment for a period of at least one                       Directive 91/659/EEC — Failure to implement)
year two successive registration certificates instead of a
                                                                                { 97/C 108/12 )
residence permit for a national of a Member State and
requiring payment for those certificates; and (iii ) issuing to
employed persons and to seasonal workers whose activity                                 (Language of the case: French)
is expected to last for more than three months a document
relating to their residence and by requiring payment for
that document, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
its obligations under Article 48 of the EC Treaty and                             published in the European Court Reports)
under Council Directive 68/360/EEC of 15 October 1968
on the abolition of restrictions on movement and                        In Case C-135/96: Commission of the European
residence within the Community for workers of Member                    Communities (Agents: Hendrik van Lier and Jean-Francis
States and their families ( OJ, English Special Edition 1968            Pasquier) v. Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: Jan Devadder)
( II ), p. 485 ) — the Court ( Sixth Chamber), composed of:             — application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt
G. F. Mancini, President of the Chamber ( Rapporteur),                  within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
C. N. Kakouris, G. Hirsch, H. Ragnemalm and R.                          administrative measures necessary in order to comply with
Schintgen, Judges; C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General; R.                     Commission Directive 91 /659/EEC of 3 December 1991
Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 February                   adapting to technical progress Annex I to Council
1997, in which it:                                                      Directive 76/769/EEC on the approximation of the laws,
                                                                        regulations and administrative provisions of the Member
                                                                        States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of
1.     declares that:                                                   certain dangerous substances and preparations ( asbestos)
                                                                        ( OJ No L 363 , 31 . 12 . 1991 , p. 36 ), the Kingdom of
       — by requiring nationals of other Member States who              Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC
           are seeking employment in Belgium to leave its               Treaty — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: G. F.
           territory after a period of three months,                    Mancini, President of the Chamber, J. L. Murray, P. J. G.
                                                                        Kapteyn, G. Hirsch ( Rapporteur ) and H. Ragnemalm,
                                                                        Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; R. Grass,
       — by issuing, during the first six months of their               Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 February 1997, in
           residence, to persons holding employment for a               which it:
           period of at least one year two successive
           registration certificates instead of a residence
           permit for a national of a Member State and by
                                                                         1 . declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
                                                                             period the laws, regulations and administrative
           requiring payment for those certificates,
                                                                             measures necessary in order to comply with
                                                                             Commission Directive 91 /659/EEC of 3 December
       — by issuing to employed persons and to seasonal                      1991 adapting to technical progress Annex I to
           workers whose activity is expected to last for more               Council Directive 76/769/EEC on the approximation
           than three months a document relating to their                    of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions


title: Case F-87/13: Action brought on 13 September 2013 — ZZ v Parliament

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/69

         Action brought on 13 September 2013 — ZZ v Parliament
   (Case F-87/13)
   2013/C 344/129
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: ZZ and others (represented by: A. Salerno, B. Cortese, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of the European Parliament relating to the new distribution of rights of access to the mail box of the SAFE union.

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               declare that the European Parliament is responsible for the material and non-material damage suffered by the applicants as a result of the contested decision, and award them compensation with respect to all of that damage;

               —

               order the defendant to pay all the costs of the proceedings.


title: Case C-506/11 P: Appeal brought on 30 September 2011 by ThyssenKrupp AG against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2011 in Joined Cases T-144/07, T-147/07, T-148/07, T-149/07, T-150/07 and T-154/07 ThyssenKrupp Liften Ascenseurs and Others v Commission

text:
               26.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/24

         Appeal brought on 30 September 2011 by ThyssenKrupp AG against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2011 in Joined Cases T-144/07, T-147/07, T-148/07, T-149/07, T-150/07 and T-154/07 ThyssenKrupp Liften Ascenseurs and Others v Commission
   (Case C-506/11 P)
   2011/C 347/34
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: ThyssenKrupp AG (represented by: M. Klusmann and S. Thomas, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) in Joined Cases T-144/07, T-147/07, T-148/07, T-149/07, T-150/07 and T-154/07 ThyssenKrupp Liften Ascenseurs and Others v European Commission in so far as it dismisses the action and concerns the appellant;

               —

               In the alternative, appropriately further reduce the fine imposed on the appellant in Article 2 of the contested decision of the European Commission of 21 February 2007;

               —

               In the further alternative, refer the action back to the General Court for a new decision;

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present appeal, the appellant alleges the lack of competence of the Commission, infringement of essential procedural requirements, infringement of the EC and FEU Treaties, the legal norms applicable in the implementation of those Treaties and misuse of powers and breach of fundamental rights in a total of seven grounds of appeal:

               First, the appellant claims that the General Court has erred in law in holding that the Commission had powers to initiate the proceeding. In their submission, the General Court ought to have declared the Commission’s decision null and void on grounds of the inapplicability of Article 101 TFEU (formerly Article 81 EC) in the absence of inter-State effect of the local infringement alleged. Even if the General Court declares Article 101 TFEU applicable, it would have to take account of the fact that the Commission’s competence in any event ran counter to the parallel powers under the European Competition Network Notice under Regulation No 1/2003. (1) Finally, the General Court has disregarded the fact that the subsequent initiation of the proceeding by the Commission constitutes an infringement of the legally protected principle of legal certainty and legality as regards penalties.

               Second, the General Court has disregarded the fact that there is infringement of the principle ne bis in idem, since the Commission failed to comply with the amnesty decisions of national cartel authorities in favour of the appellant taken before proceedings were instituted.

               Third, the appellant alleges that the General Court has erred in law by confirming the Commission decision which held the appellant to be jointly liable with its subsidiaries. It cannot be disputed that the appellant did not itself participate in the infringements. An attribution of third-party acts on the basis of the incorrect premiss of the liability of the economic unit infringes the principle of personal liability, the principle of in dubio pro reo and the right to a fair trial.

               Fourth, the General Court has erred in law by disregarding the fact that the confirmation of the appellant’s joint and several liability infringes the principle of personal liability. In the alternative, the appellant alleges that the General Court has unlawfully confirmed the Commission decision as regards the lack of liability allocation within the group and the judgment is thus vitiated by a defect in reasoning.

               Fifth, the appellant claims that, in its judgment, the General Court has infringed its comprehensive and legally imposed duty of investigation, in that it examined only to an insufficient degree the disproportionality of the fixing of the starting amount of the fines, the deterrence multiplier, the repeated imposition of fines for parallel infringements and the insufficiently high evaluation of the cooperation of the appellant by the Commission and thus infringed the fundamental right to a fair trial and the guarantee of legal protection included therein. In any event, the judgment is vitiated by a defect of reasoning, in that it confirms the repeated imposition of fines which departs from the Commission’s decision-making practice.

               Sixth, it is alleged that the principle of proportionality and that of equal treatment have been infringed as regards the fixing of the starting amount of the fines for the infringement concerning Germany, because unconnected turnover was included in the starting amount for calculation of the fines, despite the fact that there were compelling grounds against it. The General Court has thus applied an appropriately differentiated basis to Schindler, but erred in law by failing to apply that differentiation to the appellant.

               Seventh, it is alleged that the starting amount of the fines was incorrect also so far as concerns the fine in respect of the Netherlands market, the market volume of which was fully taken into account despite the merely slight involvement in the cartel.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).


title: Case C-446/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Première Instance de Bruxelles by judgment of that court of  7 December 2005  in Crown Prosecutor — Parties claiming damages: L'Union des Dentistes et Stomatologistes de Belgique U.P:R. and Jean Totolidis v Ioannis Doulamis

text:
               25.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/16

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Première Instance de Bruxelles by judgment of that court of 7 December 2005 in Crown Prosecutor — Parties claiming damages: L'Union des Dentistes et Stomatologistes de Belgique U.P:R. and Jean Totolidis v Ioannis Doulamis
   (Case C-446/05)
   (2006/C 48/30)
   Language of the case: French
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal de Première Instance de Bruxelles (Court of First Instance Brussels) of 7 December 2005, received at the Court Registry on 14 December 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between the Crown Prosecutor — Parties claiming damages: L'Union des Dentistes et Stomatologistes de Belgique U.P.R. (The Belgian Association of Dentists and Stomatologists) and Jean Totolidis and Ioannis Doulamis on the following question:
   Must Article 81 EC, read in conjunction with Article 3(1)(g) EC and the second paragraph of Article 10 EC, be interpreted as precluding a national law — in the present case the Law of 15 April 1958 on advertising in dental care matters — which prohibits (any person or) dental care providers, in the context of professional services or a dental surgery, from engaging in advertising of any kind, whether directly or indirectly, in the dental care sector?


title: Case F-97/10: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 16 June 2011 — Kerstens v Commission

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/58

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 16 June 2011 — Kerstens v Commission
   (Case F-97/10) (1)

   2011/C 252/131
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2011, p 41.


title: Case T-538/13: Action brought on 10 October 2013 — Verein Natura Havel and Vierhaus v Commission

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/66

         Action brought on 10 October 2013 — Verein Natura Havel and Vierhaus v Commission
   (Case T-538/13)
   2013/C 344/122
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Verein Natura Havel eV (Berlin, Germany) and H.-P. Vierhaus (Berlin) (represented by: O. Austilat, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the Decision of the European Commission — Directorate-General Environment — of 24 June 2013 and of the European Commission — Secretariat-General — of 3 September 2013 by which access to the letter of formal notice of the Commission opening infringement procedure No 2013/4000 against the Federal Republic of Germany of 30 May 2013 was refused;

               —

               order the defendant to bear its own costs and to pay the applicants’ costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicants’ right to access information
               The applicants maintain, in the first place, that the contested Commission decision infringes their right to information conferred by Article 15(3) TFEU, Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, Article 10(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. (1) The applicants submit that the provisions referred to were designed to create maximum transparency and that exceptions must be narrowly construed. In addition, according to case-law, stringent requirements must be set as regards the proof of serious interference with the investigation. The contested decision does not fulfil that requirement.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an error of law in the examination of partial access
               The applicants further claim that the examination carried out by the Commission, refusing a merely partial access to information, is vitiated by an error of law. The considerations mentioned to that effect in the decision are, they submit, incorrect and infringe the principle of proportionality.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons
               In addition, the applicants submit, the contested decision does not satisfy the requirements to be set in respect of the obligation to state reasons.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the second sentence of Article 10(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
               The applicants also allege infringement of their right, arising from the second sentence of Article 10(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, to receive information without interference by public authority.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).


title: Case C-409/13: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 April 2015 — Council of the European Union v European Commission (Action for annulment — Macro-financial assistance to third countries — Decision of the Commission to withdraw a proposal for a framework regulation — Articles 13(2) TEU and 17 TEU — Article 293 TFEU — Principle of conferral of powers — Principle of institutional balance — Principle of sincere cooperation — Article 296 TFEU — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               15.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 198/4

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 April 2015 — Council of the European Union v European Commission
   (Case C-409/13) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Macro-financial assistance to third countries - Decision of the Commission to withdraw a proposal for a framework regulation - Articles 13(2) TEU and 17 TEU - Article 293 TFEU - Principle of conferral of powers - Principle of institutional balance - Principle of sincere cooperation - Article 296 TFEU - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2015/C 198/05)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Council of the European Union (represented by: G. Maganza, A. de Gregorio Merino and I. Gurov, Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Smulders, P. Van Nuffel and M. Clausen, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Vláčil and J. Škeřic, Agents), Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze, Agent), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Sampol Pucurull, Agent), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, D. Colas and N. Rouam, Agents), Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, Agent, and P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. Bulterman, B. Koopman and J. Langer, Agents), Slovak Republic (represented by: B. Ricziová, Agent), Republic of Finland (represented by: H. Leppo, Agent), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: U. Persson and A. Falk, Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: V. Kaye, Agent, and R. Palmer, Barrister).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Czech Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 274, 21.9.2013.


title: Case C-351/10: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria)) — Zollamt Linz Wels v Laki DOOEL (Community Customs Code — Regulation implementing the Customs Code — Articles 555(1)(c) and 558(1) — Vehicle which has entered the customs territory under the temporary importation procedure with total relief from import duties — Vehicle used for internal traffic — Unlawful use — Incurring of a customs debt — National authorities competent to levy customs duties)

text:
               30.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/7

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria)) — Zollamt Linz Wels v Laki DOOEL
   (Case C-351/10) (1)

   (Community Customs Code - Regulation implementing the Customs Code - Articles 555(1)(c) and 558(1) - Vehicle which has entered the customs territory under the temporary importation procedure with total relief from import duties - Vehicle used for internal traffic - Unlawful use - Incurring of a customs debt - National authorities competent to levy customs duties)
   2011/C 226/12
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Zollamt Linz Wels

      Defendant: Laki DOOEL

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Interpretation of Articles 204(1)(a) and 215 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1), Articles 555(1)(c) and 558(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1) and Article 61 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Transport of goods by road in the European Union — Use of a vehicle that is not authorised in the Member State of destination of the goods — Place where the customs debt arises — Competence of the Member State of origin or of the Member State of destination

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 555(1) and Article 558(1)(c) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 993/2001 of 4 May 2001, must be interpreted as meaning that the irregularity in respect of the use of a vehicle imported into the European Union under the temporary importation procedure with total relief from import duties which is used for internal traffic must be regarded as occurring at the moment of crossing the border of the Member State in which the vehicle is used in breach of the national provisions in the field of transport, that is to say, without authorisation to unload given by the Member State of unloading, the authorities of that Member State being responsible for levying those duties.

      (1)  OJ C 274, 9.10.2010.


title: Case C-87/11 P: Appeal brought on 25 February 2011 by Fidelio KG against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2010 in Case T-286/08 Fidelio KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               21.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 152/10

         Appeal brought on 25 February 2011 by Fidelio KG against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2010 in Case T-286/08 Fidelio KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-87/11 P)
   2011/C 152/19
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Fidelio KG (represented by: M. Gail, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 16 December 2010 in Case T-286/08;

               —

               Uphold the claims presented at first instance;

               —

               Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The General Court incorrectly accepted that the registration of the sign ‘Hallux’ for ‘orthopaedic article’ and ‘footwear’ falls within the scope of the absolute ground for refusal under Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94. It is impossible to ascertain why the General Court, contrary to the submissions of the applicant, followed the arguments of OHIM and took the view that ‘hallux’, the Latin word for the big toe, is the usual abbreviation of ‘hallux valgus’, a disease of the big toe. That method of proceeding by the General Court fails to take account of the significance of the principle of ex proprio motu investigation and, further, infringes the duty to state reasons.
   Further, the General Court incorrectly defined the goods and categories of goods. Since the expression ‘orthopaedic article’ is very broad and it is sufficient for the absolute ground for refusal to apply to part of the goods, it was possible for OHIM, had it so wished, to consider many types of goods in order to refuse a specific type of goods. That was not taken into account by the General Court.
   So far as footwear is concerned, the General Court incorrectly assumed that a category of goods of ‘comfortable shoes’ exists. In reality, there is no difference between general footwear and so-called comfortable shoes.
   In addition, in its definition of the relevant public in respect of ‘orthopaedic article’ and ‘footwear’, the General Court allowed itself to be guided by inappropriate considerations. In the submission of the applicant, the characteristics of the average consumer must be determined. However, an average consumer neither has knowledge of the Latin language nor is familiar with the foot disease hallux valgus. The mark ‘Hallux’ cannot therefore be understood as descriptive.
   Finally, the General Court has also infringed Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94, since it failed to examine the mark ‘Hallux’ in the light of that provision.


title: Case C-166/05: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 September 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Heger Rudi GmbH v Finanzamt Graz-Stadt (Sixth VAT Directive — Place of supply for tax purposes — Article 9 — Supply of services connected with immovable property — Transmission of the fishing rights over a particular part of a stretch of water)

text:
               28.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/6

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 September 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Heger Rudi GmbH v Finanzamt Graz-Stadt
   (Case C-166/05) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Place of supply for tax purposes - Article 9 - Supply of services connected with immovable property - Transmission of the fishing rights over a particular part of a stretch of water)
   (2006/C 261/10)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Heger Rudi GmbH

      Defendant: Finanzamt Graz-Stadt
   Re:
   Request for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Higher Administrative Court, Austria) — Interpretation of Article 9(2)(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Determination of place of supply for tax purposes — Concept of supply of services connected with immoveable property — Transmission for valuable consideration of the fishing rights over a particular part of a river
   Operative part of the judgment
   The transmission of the right to fish by means of a transfer of fishing permits for valuable consideration constitutes a supply of services connected with immovable property within the meaning of Article 9(2)(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment.

      (1)  OJ C 143, 11.06.2005.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (First Chamber, Extended Composition) of 30 June 1998 in Case T-73/97: British Shoe Corporation Footwear Supplies Ltd v Commission of the European Communities (Dumping - Textile footwear originating in the People's Republic of China and Indonesia - Commission Regulation imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty - Action for annulment - Subsequent regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty - No need to adjudicate)

text:
C 258/34              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     15.8.98
Champagne (France), represented by FrancËois Sarda, of              Ramos, J. Pirrung and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung,
the Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg            Registrar, made an order on 30 June 1998, the operative
at the Chambers of Messrs Bonn & Schmitt, 7 Val Sainte-             part of which is as follows:
Croix, v Council of the European Union (Agent: John
Carbery), supported by Commission of the European                   1. There is no need to adjudicate on the action in this
Communities (Agent: GeÂrard Berscheid) Ð application for                case.
annulment of Article 1(4) of Council Regulation (EC)
No 2222/96 of 18 November 1996 amending Regulation                  2. There is no need to adjudicate             either on the
(EEC) No 805/68 on the common organization of the                       applications to intervene by the          Foreign Trade
market in beef and veal (OJ L 296 of 21.11.1996, p. 50)                 Association and the ConfeÂdeÂration      EuropeÂenne de
Ð the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed                 l'Industrie de la Chaussure, or on        the applicants'
of: J. Azizi, President, and R. García-Valdecasas and M.                application for confidential treatment.
Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
25 June 1998, the operative part of which is as follows:            3. The Commission is ordered to pay its own costs and
                                                                        one-half of the costs of the applicants, who are
                                                                        ordered to bear the remainder thereof.
1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
                                                                    4. The applicants to intervene are ordered to bear their
2. The applicants shall bear their own costs and shall be               own costs.
    jointly and severally liable to pay the costs of the
    Council. The Commission shall bear its own costs.               (1) OJ C 166 of 31.5.1997.
(1) OJ C 94 of 22.3.1997 and OJ C 166 of 31.5.1997.
                                                                         ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 8 June 1998
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                           in Case T-148/97: David T. Keeling v Office for
          (First Chamber, Extended Composition)                     Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                       of 30 June 1998                                                        Designs) (1)
in Case T-73/97: British Shoe Corporation Footwear                  (Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
Supplies Ltd v Commission of the European                           Marks and Designs) Ð Decision of the President of the
                       Communities (1)                              Office concerning the organisation of the Boards of
                                                                    Appeal Ð Action for annulment Ð Article 173 of the EC
(Dumping Ð Textile footwear originating in the People's                               Treaty Ð Inadmissibility)
Republic of China and Indonesia Ð Commission
                                                                                (98/C 258/60)
Regulation imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty Ð
Action for annulment Ð Subsequent regulation imposing                              (Language of the case: English)
 a definitive anti-dumping duty Ð No need to adjudicate)
                        (98/C 258/59)                               In Case T-148/97: David T. Keeling, member of a Board
                                                                    of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
               (Language of the case: English)                      Market (Trade Marks and Designs), residing in Alicante
                                                                    (Spain), represented by Arthur Alan Dashwood, Barrister,
                                                                    of the Bar of England and Wales, instructed by Edward
In Case T-73/97: British Shoe Corporation Footwear
                                                                    Lewis, Solicitors, with an address for service in
Supplies Ltd, with its registered office in Leicester (United
                                                                    Luxembourg at the Chambers of ArseÁne Kronshagen, 22
Kingdom), Clarks International Ltd, with its registered
                                                                    Rue Marie-AdeÂlaïde, against Office for Harmonisation in
office in Somerset (United Kingdom), Deichmann-Schuhe
                                                                    the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Agents:
GmbH & Co. Vertriebs KG, with its registered office in
                                                                    Oreste Montalto and JoaÄo Paulo Miranda de Sousa) Ð
Essen (Germany), Groupe AndreÂ SA, with its registered
                                                                    application for annulment of Decision No ADM-97-3 of
office in Paris, Reno Versandhandel GmbH, with its
                                                                    the President of the Office for Harmonisation in the
registered office in Thaleischweiler-Froschen (Germany),
                                                                    Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 February
Leder & Schuh AG, with its registered office in Graz
                                                                    1997 concerning the organisation of the Boards of Appeal
(Austria), represented by Alasdair Bell and Mark Powell,
                                                                    Ð the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed
Solicitors, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                    of: V. Tiili, President, C. P. BrieÈt and A. Potocki, Judges;
the Chambers of Marc Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe, against
                                                                    H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 8 June 1998, the
the Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
                                                                    operative part of which is as follows:
Nicholas Khan) Ð application for the annulment of
Commission Regulation (EC) No 165/97 of 28 January                  1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
1997 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on
imports of certain footwear with textile uppers originating         2. The applicant shall bear the costs.
in the People's Republic of China and Indonesia (OJ L 29
of 31.1.1997, p. 3) Ð the Court of First Instance (First            (1) OJ C 199 of 28.6.1997.
Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of B.
Vesterdorf, President, C. W. Bellamy, R. M. Moura


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 December 2002 in Case C-281/01: Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Union (International agreements — Community competence — Legal basis — Articles 133 EC and 175(1) EC — Energy Star Agreement — Energy-efficient labelling programmes for office equipment)

text:
8.2.2003                 EN                            Official Journal of the European Union                                                 C 31/3
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                      cation for annulment of Council Decision 2001/469/EC of
court between F. W. L. de Groot and Staatssecretaris van                       14 May 2001 concerning the conclusion on behalf of the
Financiën, on the interpretation of Article 48 of the EC Treaty                European Community of the Agreement between the Govern-
(now, after amendment, Article 39 EC) and Article 7 of                         ment of the United States of America and the European
Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October                       Community on the coordination of energy-efficient labelling
1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the                             programs for office equipment (OJ 2001 L 172, p. 1), the Court
Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475), the                 (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet (Rapporteur),
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet (Rappor-                       President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola,
teur), President of the Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans,                            P. Jann and S. von Bahr, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General;
D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann and A. Rosas, Judges; P. Léger,                         H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Administrator, for the Regis-                  a judgment on 12 December 2002, in which it:
trar, has given a judgment on 12 December 2002, in which it
has ruled:
                                                                               1.    Annuls Council Decision 2001/469/EC of 14 May 2001
1.    Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39                  concerning the conclusion on behalf of the European Community
      EC) precludes rules such as those at issue in the main                         of the Agreement between the Government of the United States
      proceedings — irrespective of whether or not they are laid down                of America and the European Community on the coordination
      in a convention for the avoidance of double taxation — whereby                 of energy-efficient labelling programs for office equipment;
      a taxpayer forfeits, in the calculation of the income tax payable
      by him in his State of residence, part of the tax-free amount of         2.    Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.
      that income and of his personal tax advantages because, during
      the year in question, he also received income in another Member
      State which was taxed in that State without his personal and             (1 ) OJ C 275 of 29.9.2001.
      family circumstances being taken into account.
2.    Community law contains no specific requirement with regard to
      the way in which the State of residence must take into account
      the personal and family circumstances of a worker who, during
      a particular tax year, received income in that State and in
      another Member State, except that the conditions governing the
      way in which the State of residence takes those circumstances
      into account must not constitute discrimination, either direct or
      indirect, on grounds of nationality, or an obstacle to the exercise                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      of a fundamental freedom guaranteed by the EC Treaty.
                                                                                of 10 December 2002
( 1) OJ C 372 of 23.12.2000.
                                                                               in Case C-491/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                               the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s
                                                                               Bench Division (Administrative Court): The Queen v
                                                                               Secretary of State for Health, ex parte: British American
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                        Tobacco (Investments) Ltd and Imperial Tobacco Ltd,
                                                                               supported by Japan Tobacco Inc. and JT International
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                                                       SA (1)
                       of 12 December 2002                                     (Directive 2001/37/EC — Manufacture, presentation and
                                                                               sale of tobacco products — Validity — Legal basis —
in Case C-281/01: Commission of the European Communi-                          Articles 95 EC and 133 EC — Interpretation — Applicability
            ties v Council of the European Union ( 1)                          to tobacco products manufactured in the Community and
                                                                                intended for export to non-member countries)
(International agreements — Community competence —
Legal basis — Articles 133 EC and 175(1) EC — Energy
Star Agreement — Energy-efficient labelling programmes                                                     (2003/C 31/06)
                        for office equipment)
                            (2003/C 31/05)                                                         (Language of the case: English)
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                               In Case C-491/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
In Case C-281/01, Commission of the European Communities                       EC by the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Queen’s
(Agents: H. van Lier and B. Martenczuk) v Council of the                       Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) for a
European Union (Agents: J.-P. Jacqué and E. Karlsson): Appli-                  preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that


title: Case F-83/09: Action brought on 15 October 2009 — Kalmár v Europol

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/80

         Action brought on 15 October 2009 — Kalmár v Europol
   (Case F-83/09)
   2010/C 24/152
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Andreas Kalmár (The Hague, The Netherlands) (represented by: D. Coppens, lawyer)

      Defendant: Europol

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decisions of Europol of 4 and 24 February 2009 concerning, respectively, the applicant’s dismissal of 4 May 2009 and his suspension. In addition, the application made by the applicant for reintegration and damages for the material and non-material harm suffered.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the initial decisions of Europol of 4 and 24 February 2009 and the decision on the complaint of 18 July 2009 and order Europol to allow Mr Kalmár to resume his work there;

               —

               order Europol to pay compensation calculated from the date on which his contract was unduly terminated to the date on which his contract should actually have expired;

               —

               order Europol to pay EUR 25 000 in compensation for non-material harm suffered;

               —

               order Europol to pay the costs.


title: Case T-194/09: Judgment of the General Court of 8 February 2011 — Lan Airlines v OHIM — Air Nostrum (LÍNEAS AÉREAS Del MEDITERRÁNEO LAM) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark LINEAS AEREAS DEL MEDITERRANEO LAM — Earlier Community word and figurative marks LAN — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity between the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               19.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 8 February 2011 — Lan Airlines v OHIM — Air Nostrum (LÍNEAS AÉREAS Del MEDITERRÁNEO LAM)
   (Case T-194/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark LINEAS AEREAS DEL MEDITERRANEO LAM - Earlier Community word and figurative marks LAN - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity between the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2011/C 89/36
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Lan Airlines, SA (Renca, Chile) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri and A. Castán Pérez-Gómez, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Air Nostrum, Líneas Aéreas del Mediterráneo, SA (Manises, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 February 2009 (Case R 107/2008-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Lan Airlines, SA and Air Nostrum, Líneas Aéreas del Mediterráneo, SA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Lan Airlines, SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 167, 18.7.2009.