title: Case C-283/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van Beroep voor het Bedrĳfsleven by judgment of that Court of 27 June 2003 in the proceedings between A.H. Kuipers and the Productschap Zuivel

text:
C 213/16               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                           6.9.2003
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van                    Bruxelles (Court of Appeal, Brussels) of 19 June 2003, received
Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven by judgment of that Court                  at the Court Registry on 2 July 2003, for a preliminary ruling
of 27 June 2003 in the proceedings between A.H. Kuipers                  in the proceedings between the Belgian State and Temco
                  and the Productschap Zuivel                            Europe S.A. on the following question:
                         (Case C-283/03)
                                                                         May Article 13B(b) of the Sixth Directive be interpreted to
                                                                         mean that transactions, corresponding in Belgian law to a
                         (2003/C 213/26)
                                                                         contract of indefinite duration by which one company, by a
                                                                         number of contracts with associated companies, simul-
                                                                         taneously grants a licence to occupy a single property in return
                                                                         for a payment set partially but essentially on the basis of the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   area occupied, where the inherent insecurity of a licence is
European Communities by judgment of the College van Beroep               absent owing to the fact that the transferees and the transferor
voor het Bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court for Trade and               are under common management, constitute a letting of
Industry) of 27 June 2003, received at the Court Registry on             immovable property within the meaning of Community law,
30 June 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                or, in other words, does the independent Community law
between A.H. Kuipers and the Productschap Zuivel on the                  concept of the ‘letting of immovable property’ in Article 13B(b)
following questions:                                                     of the Sixth Directive (1) cover use, for consideration, of an
                                                                         immovable asset for purposes other than those of the tax-
1.    Is a national system of quality deductions and sup-                payer’s business — which definition is adopted in
      plements for raw milk delivered to the dairy, such as that         Article 44(3)(2) in fine of the Belgian Code de la TVA — that
      at issue, consistent with Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 (1)           is to say, the grant under a licence of indefinite duration of a
      on the common organisation of the market in milk and               non-exclusive right of occupation in return for a monthly
      milk products and in particular with the prohibition of            payment, albeit fluctuating and partly dependent on the profits
      ‘equalisation between the prices’ in Article 24(2) (now,           of one of the contracting parties, where the inherent insecurity
      after consolidation of amendments to the text,                     of a licence is absent owing to the fact that the transferees and
      Article 38(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1255/99)?                      the transferor are under common management?
2.    Is a national system of quality supplements for raw milk
      delivered to the dairy, such as that at issue, consistent          (1 ) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
      with the prohibition of aids in Article 24(1) of Regulation             harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
      (EEC) No 804/68?                                                        turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
                                                                              basis of assessment (OJ L 145 of 13.06.1977, p. 1).
3.    If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative, is such a
      national system to be regarded as aid the grant of which
      must be notified beforehand to the Commission under
      Article 93(3) of the EC Treaty (now Article 88(3) EC)?
( 1) OJ L 148 of 28.06.1968, p. 13.
                                                                         Action brought on 2 July 2003 by the Hellenic Republic
                                                                            against the Commission of the European Communities
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d’Appel                                              (Case C-285/03)
de Bruxelles by judgment of that Court of 19 June 2003
in the proceedings between the Belgian State and Temco
                           Europe S.A.                                                              (2003/C 213/28)
                         (Case C-284/03)
                         (2003/C 213/27)                                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought on 2 July 2003 by the Hellenic Republic,
                                                                         represented by Vasilios Kondolaimos, state legal adviser, and
                                                                         by Yoannis Xhalkias, of the state legal service, with an address
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   for service in Luxembourg at the Greek Embassy, 27 Rue
European Communities by judgment of the Cour d’Appel de                  Marie-Adélaïde.


title: Case T-190/02: Action brought on 17 June 2002 by Anita Jannice Österholm against Commission of the European Communities

text:
24.8.2002             EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 202/35
Incorrect application of       likelihood of confusion exists              Mark invoked in the           International mark No 516269
Article 8(1)(b) of Regu-       because of the undisputed identity          opposition proceedings:       ‘Roberto’ for goods in Classes 29
lation No 40/94:               or, at least, similarity of the goods,                                    and 30 and the opponent’s trading
                               the visual and phonetic similarity                                        name ‘ROBERTO’
                               of the marks and the inherent
                               distinctiveness of the mark cited           Decision of the oppo-         Dismissal of the opposition
                               in opposition.                              sition division:
                                                                           Decision of the Board of      Annulment of the decision of the
                                                                           Appeal:                       opposition division and remittal
                                                                                of the application
                                                                           Pleas in law relied on:       —     Infringement of Rule 16 of
                                                                                Regulation (EC) No 2868/
                                                                                95 (1);
Action brought on 17 June 2002 by Freiberger Lebensmit-
tel GmbH & Co. Produktions- und Vertriebs KG against                                                     —     Infringement               of
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market                                                            Article 42(1), in conjunction
                  (Trade Marks and Designs)                                                                    with Article 8(2) and (4),
                                                                                of Regulation (EC) No 40/
                                                                                94 (2).
                        (Case T-188/02)
                        (2002/C 202/57)                                    (1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December
                                                                               1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the
                                                                               Community trade mark (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1).
(Language of the case to be determined in accordance with                  (2) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
Article 131(2) of the Rules of Procedure Language in which the                 Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
                  application was made: German)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
17 June 2002 by Freiberger Lebensmittel GmbH & Co.
Produktions- und Vertriebs KG, of Berlin, Germany, represent-              Action brought on 17 June 2002 by Anita Jannice Öster-
ed by K.-D. Rathke. Roberto S.A. of Chevilly, France, was an                holm against Commission of the European Communities
additional party before the Board of Appeal.
                                                                                (Case T-190/02)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (2002/C 202/58)
—     annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the
      Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of                                      (Language of the case: French)
      28.2.2002 in Case R 1155/2000-4;
—     order the opponent to pay the costs.
                                                                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 17 June 2002 by Anita Jannice
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            Österholm, residing in Stockholm, represented by Juan Ramon
                                                                           Iturriagagoitia Bassas, lawyer.
Applicant for the Com-         The applicant
munity trade mark:                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
Trade mark applied for:        Word mark ‘Alberto’ for goods in            —     annul the decision of the appointing authority of
                               Classes 29 and 30 — Application                   11 March 2002 replying to complaint No 389/01 lodged
                               No 26211                                          by J. Österholm;
Proprietor of the trade        Roberto S.A.                                —     annul in part the decision of the Directorate General for
mark right invoked in                                                            Personnel and Administration of the European Com-
the opposition proceed-                                                          mission of 2 July 2001 concerning the computation of
ings:                                                                            annual leave between 8 and 31 July 2000;
 ---pagebreak--- C 202/36              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      24.8.2002
—     convert the period between 8 and 31 July 2000 into sick            Decision of the Exam-         refusal of the application
      leave;                                                             iner:
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                              Decision of the Board of      rejection of the appeal
                                                                         Appeal:
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Grounds of claim:             Violation of article 7(1) (b) of
                                                                                Regulation 40/94 (1). The appli-
                                                                                cant claims the mark is distinctive.
When the applicant submitted a medical certificate attesting
that she was unable to work for one month, she pointed out
to the Commission that she wished to use that certificate to             (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
justify one week’s sick leave and asked that the remainder be                Community trade mark (OJ L 11, p. 1).
regarded as annual leave. The applicant subsequently asked
that the whole of the period be regarded as annual leave and
not set against her annual leave allowance.
In support of her application, the applicant alleges infringe-
ment of Article 59 of the Staff Regulations, erroneous assess-
ment of the facts, misuse of powers, failure to provide reasons          Action brought on 24 June 2002 by Michel Van Beek
and breach of the rights of the defence as well as breach of the             against Commission of the European Communities
principles of sound administration and of the duty to have
regard to the welfare of officials.
                                                                                (Case T-199/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 202/60)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Action brought on 21 June 2002 by G.D. Searle LLC
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                             Market                                      An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                        (Case T-192/02)                                  European Communities on 24 June 2002 by Michel Van Beek,
                                                                         residing in Brussels, represented by Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël
                        (2002/C 202/59)                                  Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers.
                  (Language of the case: English)                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         —     annul the decision of the Commission not to promote
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                 him to Grade A 4 in the 2001 promotions procedure;
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 21 June 2002 by G.D. Searle LLC,                 —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
represented by Graham Farrington, Solicitor,
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Pleas in law and main arguments
—     annul the decision of the defendant’s Third Board of
      Appeal of 10 April 2002;                                           The applicant in the present action, an official in Grade A 5,
                                                                         challenges the appointing authority’s refusal to promote him
—     order the defendant to remit the application to its                to Grade A 4 in the 2001 promotions procedure.
      Examination Division for re-examination of Community
      Trade Mark number 1299833.
                                                                         In support of his arguments, the applicant alleges:
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          —     breach of the duty to state reasons;
                                                                         —     infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and
The Community trade           The figurative mark with trade                   breach of the principle of equal treatment, of the principle
mark concerned:               mark        application      number              that officials should have reasonable career prospects
                              1299833.                                         and of the principles of good management and sound
                                                                               administration.
Goods and services:           Certain goods classified in class 5:
                              pharmaceuticals in the nature of
                              anti-inflammatory analgesics.


9.12.2000             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 355/19
       Removal from the register of Case C-139/99 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-445/99 (1)
                       (2000/C 355/38)                                                     (2000/C 355/41)
By order of 13 July 2000 the President of the Sixth Chamber         By order of 1 August 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has             of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
ordered the removal from the register of Case C-139/99:             the register of Case C-445/99: Commission of the European
Commission of the European Communities v Ireland.                   Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.                                           (1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-22/00 (1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-420/99 (1)
                       (2000/C 355/39)                                                     (2000/C 355/42)
By order of 19 July 2000 the President of the Court of Justice      By order of 2 August 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from            of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-22/00: Commission of the European            the register of Case C-420/99 Commission of the European
Communities v Ireland.                                              Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.                                           (1) OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-437/99 (1)
                       (2000/C 355/40)                                     Removal from the register of Case C-42/00 (1)
By order of 28 July 2000 the President of the Court of Justice                             (2000/C 355/43)
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-437/99: Commission of the European           By order of 3 August 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
Communities v Ireland.                                              of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                    the register of Case C-42/00: Commission of the European
(1) OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.                                           Communities v Kingdom of Sweden.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.


title: Case C-110/05: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 February 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 28 EC — Concept of measures having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions on imports — Prohibition on mopeds, motorcycles, motor tricycles and quadricycles towing a trailer in the territory of a Member State — Road safety — Market access — Obstacle — Proportionality)

text:
               4.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 February 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-110/05) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 28 EC - Concept of ‘measures having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions on imports’ - Prohibition on mopeds, motorcycles, motor tricycles and quadricycles towing a trailer in the territory of a Member State - Road safety - Market access - Obstacle - Proportionality)
   (2009/C 82/02)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Recchia and F. Amato, Agents,)

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: I.M. Braguglia, Agent, assisted by M. Fiorilli, avvocato dello Stato)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Breach of Article 28 EC — National legislation prohibiting motor vehicles (with the exception of tractors) from pulling trailers
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

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

      (1)  OJ C 115, 14.5.2005.


title: Case T-481/10: Action brought on 4 October 2010 — Département du Gers v Commission

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/50

         Action brought on 4 October 2010 — Département du Gers v Commission
   (Case T-481/10)
   ()
   2010/C 346/98
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Département du Gers (Auch, France) (represented by: S. Mabile and J.-P. Mignard, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul Decision 2010/429/EU of the European Commission of 28 July 2010 authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize MON 88017 x MON 810 (MON-88Ø17-3 x MON-ØØ81Ø-6) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and the main arguments raised by the applicant are identical or essentially the same as those raised in Case T-478/10 Département du Gers v Commission.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 July 2004 in Case C-443/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Pordenone): Nicolas Schreiber (Article 28 EC — Directive 98/8/EC — Placing of biocidal products on the market — National measure requiring authorisation for the placing on the market of blocks of red cedar wood having natural anti-moth properties)

text:
               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/9

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 15 July 2004
   in Case C-443/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Pordenone): Nicolas Schreiber (1)

   (Article 28 EC - Directive 98/8/EC - Placing of biocidal products on the market - National measure requiring authorisation for the placing on the market of blocks of red cedar wood having natural anti-moth properties)
   (2004/C 228/17)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case C-443/02: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC from the Tribunale di Pordenone (Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings before that court against Nicolas Schreiber — on the interpretation of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (OJ 1998 L 123, p. 1), and Article 28 EC — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, A. Rosas, S. von Bahr, R. Silva de Lapuerta and K. Lenaerts, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 July 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               Article 3(2)(ii) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market does not preclude a Member State from requiring prior authorisation for the marketing of blocks of red cedar wood having natural anti-moth properties.
               Such blocks cannot be classed as a product containing only a ‘basic substance’ such that they may be placed on the market in Italy without prior authorisation or registration, but must be classed as a ‘biocidal product’ within the meaning of Directive 98/8.

               2.

               Article 4(1) of Directive 98/8 does not preclude a Member State from requiring prior authorisation for the marketing of blocks of red cedar wood having natural anti-moth properties, which have been lawfully placed on the market in another Member State in which there is no requirement of authorisation or registration.

               3.

               The fact that a Member State requires prior authorisation for the marketing of blocks of red cedar wood having natural anti-moth properties, which have been lawfully placed on the market in another Member State in which there is no requirement of authorisation or registration, constitutes a measure having equivalent effect contrary to Article 28 EC, which may nevertheless be regarded as justified on grounds of the protection of public health under Article 30 EC.

      (1)  OJ C 31 of 8.2.2003.


title: Case C-466/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany), lodged on 22 October 2007 — Dietmar Klarenberg v Ferrotron Technologies GmbH

text:
               12.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 8/5

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany), lodged on 22 October 2007 — Dietmar Klarenberg v Ferrotron Technologies GmbH
   (Case C-466/07)
   (2008/C 8/09)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Landesarbeitsgericht Düsseldorf
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Dietmar Klarenberg

      Defendant: Ferrotron Technologies GmbH
   Question referred
   Is a part of an undertaking or business only transferred to another employer within the meaning of Article 1(1)(a) and (b) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses (1), if the new employer operates the part of an undertaking or business as an organisationally autonomous part of an undertaking or business?

      (1)  OJ L 82, 12.3.2001, p. 16.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 September 2001 in Case T-129/00: Procter & Gamble Company v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Shape of a product for washing machines or dishwashers — Three-dimensional mark — Absolute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
5.1.2002                 EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 3/29
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                       of 19 September 2001                                                          of 19 September 2001
in Case T-128/00: Procter & Gamble Company v Office                           in Case T-129/00: Procter & Gamble Company v Office
for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks                         for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
                      and Designs) (OHIM) (1)                                                       and Designs) (OHIM) (1)
(Community trade mark — Shape of a product for washing                        (Community trade mark — Shape of a product for washing
machines or dishwashers — Three-dimensional mark —                            machines or dishwashers — Three-dimensional mark —
Absolute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation                   Absolute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation
                            (EC) No 40/94)                                                                (EC) No 40/94)
                             (2002/C 3/49)                                                                 (2002/C 3/50)
                    (Language of the case: English)                                               (Language of the case: English)
In Case T-128/00: Procter & Gamble Company, established in                    In Case T-129/00: Procter & Gamble Company, established in
Cincinnati, Ohio (United States of America), represented by                   Cincinnati, Ohio (United States of America), represented by
C.J.J.C. van Nispen and G. Kuipers, lawyers, with an address                  C.J.J.C. van Nispen and G. Kuipers, lawyers, with an address
for service in Luxembourg, against Office for Harmonisation                   for service in Luxembourg against Office for Harmonisation in
in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)                       the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents:
(Agents: A. von Mühlendahl, D. Schennen and C. Røhl Søberg)                   A. von Mühlendahl, D. Schennen and C. Røhl Søberg) —
— application brought against the decision of the First Board                 application brought against the decision of the First Board of
of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                     Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 March 2000 (Case                        (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 March 2000 (Case
R-506/1999-1), which was notified to the applicant on                         R-508/1999-1), which was notified to the applicant on
13 March 2000 — the Court of First Instance (Second                           13 March 2000 — the Court of First Instance (Second
Chamber), composed of A.W.H. Meij, President, A. Potocki                      Chamber), composed of A.W.H. Meij, President, A. Potocki
and J. Pirrung, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the                and J. Pirrung, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 September 2001, in                      Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 September 2001, in
which it:                                                                     which it:
1.    Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office          1.    Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office
      for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and                     for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
      Designs) of 8 March 2000 (Case R-506/1999-1) in so far                        Designs) of 8 March 2000 (Case R-508/1999-1) in so far
      as it concerns products falling within Class 3 of the Nice                    as it concerns products falling within Class 3 of the Nice
      Agreement corresponding to the description ‘perfumery, essential              Agreement corresponding to the description ‘perfumery, essential
      oils, cosmetics, hair lotions; dentifrices’;                                  oils, cosmetics, hair lotions; dentifrices’;
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the action;                                  2.    Dismisses the remainder of the action;
3.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.                             3.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
(1) OJ C 192 of 8.7.2000.                                                     (1) OJ C 192 of 8.7.2000.


title: Case T-361/12: Action brought on 6 August 2012 — Premiere Polish v OHIM — Donau Kanol (ECOFORCE)

text:
               20.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/11

         Action brought on 6 August 2012 — Premiere Polish v OHIM — Donau Kanol (ECOFORCE)
   (Case T-361/12)
   2012/C 319/21
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Premiere Polish Co., Ltd (Cheltenham, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Jones and M. Carter, Solicitors)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Donau Kanol GmbH & Co KG (Ried im Traunkreis, Austria)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 June 2012 in case R 851/2011-4;

               —

               Allow the applicant’s Community trade mark application No 8777005 in its entirety or in the alternative, the proceedings be remitted to the Board of Appeal; and

               —

               Order the Office to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ECOFORCE’ for goods in class 3 — Community trade mark application No 8777005

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 7243173 of the figurative mark ‘ECO FORTE’ for goods in classes 1, 3 and 5

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

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


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 October 2004 in Case T-144/02: Richard J. Eagle and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Staff employed at the JET Joint Undertaking — Equal treatment — Failure to confer status of temporary servant — Article 152 EA — Reasonable time — Material damage sustained)

text:
               18.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/15

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 5 October 2004
   in Case T-144/02: Richard J. Eagle and Others v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Staff employed at the JET Joint Undertaking - Equal treatment - Failure to confer status of temporary servant - Article 152 EA - Reasonable time - Material damage sustained)
   (2004/C 314/39)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case T-144/02: Richard J. Eagle, residing in Oxfordshire (United Kingdom), and the 12 applicants whose names appear in the annex, represented by D. Beard, Barrister, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and L. Escobar Guerrero, with an address for service in Luxembourg), supported by Council of the European Union (Agents: J.-P. Hix and A. Pilette) — application for damages for the material loss sustained as a result of the failure to recruit the applicants as temporary servants of the Communities during the time they worked at the Joint European Torus (JET) Joint Undertaking — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, M. Jaeger and H. Legal, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 5 October 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Orders the Commission to pay damages for the financial loss sustained by each of the applicants as a result of the fact that they were not recruited as temporary servants of the Communities during the time they worked at the Joint European Torus (JET) Joint Undertaking;

               2.

               Orders the parties to produce to the Court of First Instance within six months of this judgment an agreement on the quantum of damages due in reparation of the said loss;

               3.

               In the absence of agreement orders the parties to put before the Court of First Instance within the same period their submissions on the quantum of damages;

               4.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 169 of 13.7.2002.


title: Case C-68/11: Action brought on 16 February 2011 — European Commission v Italian Republic

text:
               14.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/8

         Action brought on 16 February 2011 — European Commission v Italian Republic
   (Case C-68/11)
   2011/C 145/10
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and S. Mortoni, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by exceeding for a number of consecutive years the limit values for PM10 particles in ambient air throughout Italian territory, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of Council Directive 1999/30/EC (1) of 22 April 1999 relating to limit values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient air (now Article 13(1) of Directive 2008/50/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe;

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Under Article 5(1) of Directive 1999/30, Member States are to take the measures necessary to ensure that concentrations of PM10 in ambient air do not exceed the limit values laid down in Section I of Annex III to that directive as from the dates specified therein. The relevant date in the present context is 1 January 2005.
   The assessment made by the Commission in the annual reports for the years 2005 to 2007 revealed that the limit values for PM10 particles had been exceeded in a great number of urban zones and agglomerations. Moreover, the most recent data forwarded by Italy, which relate to the year 2009, indicate that the exceeding of daily and/or annual limit values has continued in 70 zones at least.
   It follows that Italy has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of Directive 1999/30 in terms both of zones and of years.

      (1)  OJ 1999 L 163, p. 41.

      (2)  OJ 2008 L 152, p. 1.


title: Case T-491/13: Action brought on 11 September 2013 — Perfetti Van Melle Benelux v OHIM — Kraft Foods Global Brands (TRIDENT PURE)

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/60

         Action brought on 11 September 2013 — Perfetti Van Melle Benelux v OHIM — Kraft Foods Global Brands (TRIDENT PURE)
   (Case T-491/13)
   2013/C 344/110
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Perfetti Van Melle Benelux BV (Breda, Netherlands) (represented by: P. Perani, G. Ghisletti and F. Braga, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kraft Foods Global Brands LLC (Northfield, United States)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 July 2013 given in Case R 706/2012-4; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of present proceedings and the other party to pay the costs of present proceedings, as well as those incurred before the Board of Appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘TRIDENT PURE’ for goods in Class 30 — Community trade mark registration No 9 352 642

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The figurative mark in black and white containing the verbal elements ‘PURE WHITE’ for goods in Class 30 — Community trade mark No 6 771 869; the figurative mark in black and white containing the verbal elements ‘mentos PURE FRESH PURE BREATH’ for goods in Class 30 — Community trade mark No 8 813 487; the figurative mark in white, light blue, blue and green containing the verbal element ‘PURE’ for goods in Class 30 — Community trade mark registration 9 291 634; the word mark ‘PURE FRESH’ for goods in Class 30 — French trade mark No 63 431 610; the figurative mark in various shades of blue and white containing the verbal elements ‘mentos PURE FRESH’ for goods in Class 30 — International registration No 932 886 with effect in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Spain, France, Hungary, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Slovakia, Finland and Sweden; the figurative mark in black and white containing the verbal elements ‘mentos PURE FRESH’ for goods in Class 30 — Italian trade mark No 1 280 532; the figurative mark in various shades of blue and white containing the verbal elements ‘mentos PURE FRESH’ for goods in Class 30 — Benelux trade mark No 820 421; the figurative mark in black and white containing the verbal elements ‘mentos PURE WHITE’ for goods in Class 30 — Benelux trade mark No 864 652

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Admitted the appeal and rejected the opposition

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR.


title: Case T-387/13: Judgment of the General Court of 18 September 2015 — Federación Nacional de Cafeteros de Colombia v OHIM — Hautrive (COLOMBIANO HOUSE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark COLOMBIANO HOUSE — Earlier protected geographical indication Café de Colombia — Articles 13 and 14 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               3.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 363/31

         Judgment of the General Court of 18 September 2015 — Federación Nacional de Cafeteros de Colombia v OHIM — Hautrive (COLOMBIANO HOUSE)
   (Case T-387/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark COLOMBIANO HOUSE - Earlier protected geographical indication Café de Colombia - Articles 13 and 14 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 363/39)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Federación Nacional de Cafeteros de Colombia (Bogota, Colombia) (represented by: A. Pomares Caballero and M. Pomares Caballero, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Bertoli and Ó. Mondéjar Ortuño, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Nadine Hélène Jeanne Hautrive (Chatou, France) (represented by: J. Beaumont, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 May 2013 (Case R 757/2012-5) relating to opposition proceedings between the Federación Nacional de Cafeteros de Colombia and Nadine Hélène Jeanne Hautrive.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 17 May 2013 (Case R 757/2012-5);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Federación Nacional de Cafeteros de Colombia;

               3.

               Orders Ms Nadine Hélène Jeanne Hautrive to bear her own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 274, 21.9.2013.


title: Case F-59/07: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 30 June 2008 — Feral v Comité des Régions

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/74

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 30 June 2008 — Feral v Comité des Régions
   (Case F-59/07) (1)

   (2008/C 209/138)

      Language of the case: French

   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register, following amicable settlement.

      (1)  OJ C 199, 25.8.2007, p. 51.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 September 1999 in Case C-257/98 P: Arnaldo Lucaccioni v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal - Action for damages)

text:
C 352/6                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           4.12.1999
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 14 September 1999
                          (First Chamber)
                                                                           in Case C-249/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                           the Landesgericht Linz): Gabriele Gruber v Silhouette
                      of 9 September 1999                                             International Schmied GmbH & Co. KG (1)
                                                                           (Equal pay for men and women — Payments on termination
in Case C-257/98 P: Arnaldo Lucaccioni v Commission of
                                                                                of employment — Indirect discrimination)
                 the European Communities (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 352/12)
                (Appeal — Action for damages)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                          (1999/C 352/11)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           In Case C-249/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                                                                           the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Landesgericht
                                                                           (Regional Court) Linz (Austria) for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                           proceedings pending before that court between Gabriele
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     Gruber and Silhouette International Schmied GmbH & Co. KG
                   in the European Court Reports)                          — on the interpretation of Article 119 of the EC Treaty
                                                                           (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have been replaced by
                                                                           Articles 136 EC to 143 EC) —the Court, composed of:
In Case C-257/98 P: Arnaldo Lucaccioni, a former official of               G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur),
the Commission of the European Communities, residing in                    J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann (Presidents of Cham-
Paris, represented by Georges Vandersanden, Laure Levi and                 bers), J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann, J.L. Murray,
Olivier Eben, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in          D.A.O. Edward, H. Ragnemalm, L. Sevón, M. Wathelet and
Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue                 R. Schintgen, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,
de Cessange — appeal against the judgment of the Court of                  Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
First Instance (Second Chamber) of 14 May 1998 in Case                     on 14 September 1999, in which it has ruled:
T-165/95 Lucaccioni v Commission[1998] ECR-SC I-A-203
and II-627, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other             1. Article 119 of the EC Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC
party to the proceedings being Commission of the European                       Treaty have been replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC) does
Communities (Agent: Julian Currall, assisted by Jean-Luc                        not preclude national legislation under which a termination
Fagnart) — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann,                     payment is granted to workers who end their employment
President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and L. Sevón                           relationship prematurely in order to take care of their children
(Rapporteur), Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,                    owing to a lack of child-care facilities for them, where that
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment                payment is reduced in relation to that received, for the same
on 9 September 1999, in which it:                                               actual period of employment, by workers who give notice of
                                                                                resignation for an important reason related to working conditions
                                                                                in the undertaking or to the employer’s conduct.
1. Dismisses the appeal;
                                                                           2. The fact that in the Member State concerned nurseries are mostly
2. Orders Mr Lucaccioni to pay the costs.                                       run by the public services or with their financial support does not
                                                                                affect the answer given to the first question.
(1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 271 of 6.9.1997.


title: Case C-144/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 26 March 2015 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën; other party: Customs Support Holland BV

text:
               15.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 198/21

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 26 March 2015 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën; other party: Customs Support Holland BV
   (Case C-144/15)
   (2015/C 198/28)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Other party: Customs Support Holland BV

      Questions referred

               1)

               Must heading 2304 of the Combined Nomenclature (CN) be interpreted as meaning that that tariff heading also covers a soya protein concentrate obtained following the removal of residual fats, carbohydrates (or food fibres) and harmful substances from solid residues (so-called soya meal) resulting from the extraction of oil from soya beans, which, by means of that removal, has been made suitable for use as an ingredient in compound feeds for very young calves?

               2)

               If Question 1 is answered in the negative, is CN heading 2308 or CN heading 2309 then applicable to a soya protein concentrate obtained in the manner described in Question 1?


title: Case C-87/05: Action brought on 18 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
               16.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/19

         Action brought on 18 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
   (Case C-87/05)
   (2005/C 93/35)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 18 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by B. Schima and D. Recchia, acting as Agents.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2003/12/EC (1) of 3 February 2003 on the reclassification of breast implants in the framework of Directive 93/42/EEC (2) concerning medical devices or, in any event, by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(1) of that directive;

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The period for transposition of the directive expired on 1 August 2003.

      (1)  OJ L 28 of 04.02.2003, p. 43.

      (2)  OJ L 169 of 12.07.1993, p. 1.


title: Case T-322/99: Action brought on 16 November 1999 by Karl L. Meyer against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 63/24               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     4.3.2000
Action brought on 15 November 1999 by Garage en                          — order the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of
Tankstation Milder V.O.F. against the Commission of the                      FF 20 000 in respect of the unrecoverable expenditure
                    European Communities                                     which he was obliged to incur in the defence of his
                                                                             interests.
                        (Case T-321/99)
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
                         (2000/C 63/47)
                                                                         The applicant submits that the Commission unlawfully failed
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)                         to reply to the request which he had made to it for access to
                                                                         certain documents, thereby infringing Article 232 EC (ex
                                                                         Article 175) and Commission Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC,
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         Euratom (1) of 8 February 1994 on public access to Com-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         mission documents.
European Communities on 15 November 1999 by Garage en
Tankstation Milder V.O.F., of Gendt (Netherlands), represented
by M.J.C. Deriks, of the Rotterdam Bar.                                  (1) OJ L 46 of 18.2.1994, p. 58.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
(a) annul the Commission’s decision [C(1999) 2539 final] (1)
    of 20 July 1999 concerning State aid granted by the
    Netherlands to 633 service stations in the region bordering
    Germany;
                                                                         Action brought on 17 November 1999 by Generale
(b) order the Commission to pay the costs.                               Conserve Spa against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                  (Case T-325/99)
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Cases                                      (2000/C 63/49)
T-273/99 to T-278/99.
(1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.                                                          (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 17 November 1999 by Generale
                                                                         Conserve Spa, with Carlo Cigolini and Giuseppe Durazzo, of
                                                                         the Genoa Bar, and Mathis Hengel, of the Luxembourg Bar,
                                                                         with an address for service in Luxembourg at the latter’s
Action brought on 16 November 1999 by Karl L. Meyer                      Chambers, 12 Avenue de la Porte Neuve.
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                        (Case T-322/99)
                                                                         — annul the contested decision;
                         (2000/C 63/48)
                                                                         — order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               The applicant contests the Commission decision of 17 June
European Communities on 16 November 1999 by Karl                         1999 rejecting its application for exemption from the post-cle-
L. Meyer, domiciled in Raiatea (French Polynesia), represented           arance recovery of customs duties in respect of 9 IM4
by Jean-Dominique des Arcis, of the Papeete Bar, with an                 certificates — representing a total of ITL 330 517 600 —
address for service in Luxembourg c/o M. Pakowski, 20-22                 relating to 9 consignments of processed and tinned tuna
Avenue Emile Reuter.                                                     deriving from raw material declared as being of Turkish origin
                                                                         but later regarded as being of third-country origin on the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              ground that the Turkish supplier allegedly failed to keep raw
                                                                         material of Turkish or Community origin separate from stocks
— rule that Commission DG VIII has infringed Article 175 of              of third-country origin and it was impossible therefore to issue
    the EC Treaty;                                                       the related ATR 1 certificates.


title: Case C-119/02: Action brought on 3 April 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
1.6.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 131/9
Action brought on 27 March 2002 by the Commission of                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour de
 the European Communities against the French Republic                   cassation, chambre commerciale, financiere et econo-
                                                                        mique by judgment of that Court of 26 March 2002 in the
                                                                        case of Administration des Douanes et Droits Indirects
                         (Case C-114/02)                                            against Rioglass SA and Transremar SL
                                                                                (Case C-115/02)
                        (2002/C 131/15)
                                                                                (2002/C 131/16)
An action against the French Republic was brought before the            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 March                European Communities by judgment of the Cour de cassation,
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,                     chambre commerciale, financiere et economique (Court of
represented by L. Ström, acting as Agent, with an address for           Cassation, Commercial, Financial and Economic Chamber) of
service in Luxembourg.                                                  26 March 2002, received at the Court Registry on 29 March
                                                                        2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Administration
                                                                        des Douanes et Droits Indirects against Rioglass SA and
                                                                        Transremar SL on the following question:
The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:
                                                                        Must Article 30 of the EC Treaty, (now, after amendment,
                                                                        Article 28 EC) be interpreted as meaning that it precludes
                                                                        the implementation, pursuant to the Code de la Propriété
—     declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations       Intellectuelle, of procedures for the detention by the customs
      and administrative measures necessary in order to comply          authorities of goods lawfully manufactured in a Member State
      with Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and             of the European Community which are intended, following
      of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the                 their transit through French territory, to be placed on the
      placing of biocidal products on the market (1), or at any         market in a non-member country, in the present case Poland?
      rate by failing to communicate the same, the French
      Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
      directive;
—     order the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                        Action brought on 3 April 2002 by the Commission of
                                                                        the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
                                                                                (Case C-119/02)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (2002/C 131/17)
The Commission claims that only a small part of Directive
98/8/EC has been transposed. France has communicated                    An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
transposition measures in respect of Article 3(1), (2), (3) and         the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 3 April
(6) and Articles 5, 6, 7 and 9 of the directive. The obligations        2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
imposed by the directive which required to be transposed but            represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana and Minas Konstantin-
have not been transposed or, at any rate, have not been                 idis, Legal Advisers.
communicated, therefore include transposition measures in
respect of Article 3(4), (5) and (7) and Articles 4, 8, 11, 12, 14,
17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25 and 26 of the directive. The             The Commission claims that the Court should:
time-limit for transposition expired on 13 May 2000.
                                                                        —     declare that, by not adopting measures to instal a
                                                                              collecting system for urban waste water from the area of
                                                                              Thriasio Pedio and not subjecting urban waste water from
                                                                              that area to more stringent secondary treatment before
(1) OJ L 123 of 24.4.1998, p. 1.
                                                                              its discharge into the ‘sensitive area’ of the Bay of Elefsina,
                                                                              the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                              under Articles 3(1) and 5(2) of Council Directive 91/
                                                                              271/EEC (1) concerning urban waste-water treatment, as
                                                                              amended by Commission Directive 98/15/EC (2) of
 ---pagebreak--- C 131/10               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      1.6.2002
       27 February 1998 which amended Directive 91/271/                   Action brought on 5 April 2002 by the Commission of
       EEC with respect specifically to certain requirements              the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
       established in Annex I thereto;                                                              Luxembourg
—      order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                                              (Case C-120/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 131/18)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                                                          brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
In order for Article 3(1) of the directive to be properly                 ties on 5 April 2002 by the Commission of the European
implemented, collecting systems must exist for urban waste                Communities, represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana and
water which enters ‘sensitive areas’ within the meaning of                Joelle Adda, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
Article 5(1) of the directive. Also, in order for Article 5(2) to         Luxembourg.
be properly implemented, more stringent secondary treatment
is required for urban waste water before its discharge into
‘sensitive areas’ within the meaning of Article 5(1) of the               The applicant claims that the Court should:
directive — by 31 December 1998 at the latest for agglomer-
ations with a population equivalent (‘p.e.’) of more than                 —     declare that, by failing hitherto to adopt all the laws,
10 000.                                                                         regulations and administrative measures necessary in
                                                                                order to comply fully with Council Directive 1998/83/
                                                                                EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended
The Bay of Elefsina was classified as a ‘sensitive area’ by Joint               for human consumption (1), or at any rate by failing fully
Ministerial Decision 19661/1982 of 2 August 1999. It is not                     to inform the Commission thereof, the Grand Duchy of
disputed that the overall population of the area of Thriasio                    Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
Pedio exceeds 10 000 inhabitants. It is also accepted that the                  directive;
area’s waste water is discharged into the Bay of Elefsina, which
has been defined as a ‘sensitive area’ since 1999.                        —     order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
Consequently, the Greek authorities were obliged, under
Article 3(1) of the directive, to ensure that there was a collecting      Pleas in law and main arguments
system for that area’s urban waste water by 31 December 1998
at the latest. Nevertheless, as the letter of 8 October 2001              The time-limit for transposition expired on 25 December
from the Greek Permanent Representation to the European                   2000 but the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has not adopted
Union also makes clear, such a system does not exist today.               the measures required.
Article 5(2) of the directive obliges the Member States, by               (1) OJ L 330 of 5.12.1998, p. 32.
31 December 1998 at the latest, to subject urban waste water
entering collecting systems which is from agglomerations with
a p.e. exceeding 10 000 to more stringent secondary treatment
before its discharge into sensitive areas.
It is not in dispute that today urban waste water from the area           Action brought on 4 April 2002 by the Commission of
of Thriasio Pedio is discharged without treatment into an area            the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
which has been classified as ‘sensitive’ by the joint ministerial                                   Luxembourg
decision of 2 August 1999, in breach of Article 5(2) of the
directive.                                                                                (Case C-121/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 131/19)
The Greek authorities do not dispute the absence of a treatment
system for urban waste water from the area of Thriasio Pedio.
                                                                          An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
(1) OJ L 135 of 30.5.1991, p. 40.                                         brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
(2) OJ L 67 of 7.3.1998, p. 29.                                           ties on 4 April 2002 by the Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities, represented by Mikko Huttunen and Hendrik
                                                                          van Lier, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
                                                                          Luxembourg.


title: Case T-517/10: Action brought on 4 November 2010 — Pharmazeutische Fabrik Evers v OHIM — Ozone Laboratories Pharma (HYPOCHOL)

text:
               15.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/31

         Action brought on 4 November 2010 — Pharmazeutische Fabrik Evers v OHIM — Ozone Laboratories Pharma (HYPOCHOL)
   (Case T-517/10)
   ()
   2011/C 13/60
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Pharmazeutische Fabrik Evers GmbH & Co. KG (Pinneberg, Germany) (represented by: R. Kaase and R. Möller, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ozone Laboratories Pharma SA (București, Romania)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1st September 2010 in case R 1332/2009-4; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘HYPOCHOL’, for goods in class 5 — Community trade mark application No 5718069

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

      Mark or sign cited: German trade mark registration No 1171145 of the figurative mark ‘HITRECHOL’, for goods in class 5

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly assumed that there was no likelihood of confusion between the trade marks due to a lacking similarity between the signs.


title: Case C-399/13 P: Appeal brought on 11 July 2013 by Stichting Corporate Europe Observatory against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 7 June 2013 in Case T-93/11: Stichting Corporate Europe Observatory v European Commission

text:
               21.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/13

         Appeal brought on 11 July 2013 by Stichting Corporate Europe Observatory against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 7 June 2013 in Case T-93/11: Stichting Corporate Europe Observatory v European Commission
   (Case C-399/13 P)
   2013/C 274/21
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Stichting Corporate Europe Observatory (represented by: S. Crosby, Solicitor)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Federal Republic of Germany

      Form of order sought

   The Appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               uphold the appeal, set aside the judgment of 7 June 2013 of the General Court, and annul the Commission’s decision of 6 December 2010;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the Appellant’s costs for this appeal and for the action in annulment before the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Appellant submits that the General Court made three errors in law.

               1.

               An error in law in holding the DG Trade Vademecum on Access to Documents (the Vademecum) was not intended to produce external effects;

               2.

               An error in law by disregarding the presumption that the documents were intended to be seen by a large number of people;

               3.

               An error in law in holding in the circumstances that there was no implicit waiver of confidentiality.


title: Case C-372/99: Action brought on 6 October 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
C 352/28                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       4.12.1999
Is Article 11(1) of Italian Law No 448 of 23 December 1998                 Action brought on 4 October 1999 by the Commission
(G.U.R.I. No 302 of 29 December 1998, ordinary supplement)                         of the European Communities against Ireland
compatible with Community law, in particular with Articles 10
and 12 of Council Directive 69/335/EEC (1) of 17 July 1969
concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, inasmuch                                       (Case C-370/99)
as it provides that the administrative charge is payable at a flat
annual rate for registration of ‘other company documents’ for                                       (1999/C 352/46)
each of the years from 1985 to 1992, equal to the sum of
the sum of ITL 750 000 for public limited companies and
partnerships limited by shares and ITL 400 000 for private                 An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
limited companies?                                                         Justice of the European Communities on 4 October 1999 by
                                                                           the Commission of the European Communities, represented
                                                                           by Karen Banks, Legal Adviser, and by Manuel Desantes, a
Is Article 11(3) of Law No 448/98 compatible with Com-                     national expert seconded to its Legal Service, with an address
munity law, inasmuch as it provides that interest on the sums              for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
to be reimbursed in so far as they exceed the sum provided for             Cruz, also of its Legal Service, Centre Wagner, Kirchberg,
by Article 11(1) should be calculated according to the legal               Luxembourg.
rate in force at the date on which that Law entered into force
(2,5 % per annum) and not according to the rate provided for
by Article 5 with respect to Article 1 of Law No 29 of                     The Applicant claims that the Court should:
26 January 1961, as subsequently amended?
                                                                           — find that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or
                                                                               administrative provisions necessary to comply with Euro-
(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (11), p. 412.                             pean Parliament and Council Directive 96/9/EC of
                                                                               11 March 1996 concerning the legal protection of databas-
                                                                               es (1), Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
                                                                               said Directive, and
                                                                           — order Ireland to bear the costs of this procedure.
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht
Korneuburg (Austria) by order of that court of 21 Sep-
tember 1999 in the case of Hugo BOSS Aktiengesellschaft                    Article 249 EC (ex Article 189 of the EC Treaty) under which
                           v Coalle FA-93                                  a directive shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved,
                                                                           upon each Member State, carries by implication an obligation
                                                                           on the Member States to observe the period for compliance
                          (Case C-367/99)                                  laid down in the directive. That period expired on 1 January
                                                                           1998 without Ireland having enacted the provisions necessary
                          (1999/C 352/45)                                  to comply with the directive referred to in the conclusions of
                                                                           the Commission.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Landesgericht                         (1) OJ L 77 of 27.3.1996, p. 20.
(Regional Court) Korneuburg (Austria) of 21 September 1999,
received at the Court Registry on 4 October 1999, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Hugo BOSS Aktiengesellschaft
v Coalle FA-93 on the following question:
On a proper construction of Article 1 thereof, is Council
Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 of 22 December 1994 laying
down measures to prohibit the release for free circulation,
export, re-export or entry for a suspensive procedure of                   Action brought on 6 October 1999 by the Commission
counterfeit and pirated goods (Official Journal of the European            of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
Communities L 341 of 30 December 1994) also applicable to
situations in which goods of the type specified therein are, in                                     (Case C-372/99)
the course of transit between two countries not belonging to
the European Community, temporarily detained by the cus-
toms authorities in a Member State on the basis of that                                             (1999/C 352/47)
regulation, at the request of a holder of rights who claims that
his rights have been infringed and whose undertaking has                   An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
its registered office in a Member State of the European                    Court of Justice of the European Communities on 6 October
Community?                                                                 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                           represented by Paolo Stancanelli, of its Legal Service, acting as
                                                                           Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
                                                                           of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
 ---pagebreak--- 4.12.1999              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 352/29
The applicant claims that the Court, rejecting all contrary            The applicant claims that the Court should:
applications, objections or inferences, should:
                                                                       1. Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
— declare that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its               administrative provisions necessary to comply with
    obligations under Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April
    1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (1), in that it
    has omitted to adopt the measures necessary in order to:               (a) Council Directive 96/51/EC (1) of 23 July 1996
                                                                                amending Directive 70/524/EEC concerning additives
    — apply the provisions of that directive to all contracts                   in feedingstuffs;
         concluded between consumers and sellers or suppliers;
                                                                           (b) Directive 96/93/EC (2) of 17 December 1996 on the
    — transpose the third sentence of Article 5 of that                         certification of animals and animal products;
         directive;
    — transpose in its entirety Article 6(2) of that directive;            or in any event by failing to communicate such provisions,
                                                                           the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                           the Treaty and those directives;
    — transpose in its entirety Article 7(3) of that directive;
— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                         2. Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
The Commission claims that the Italian legislation transposing
Directive 93/13/EEC does not fulfil all the requirements of that       Under Article 249 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
directive. In particular, the Commission asserts that the Italian      directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
Republic has committed the following infringements:                    each Member State to which it is addressed, Member States are
                                                                       required to observe the time-limits laid down in directives for
                                                                       their transposition. That time-limit expired without the Italian
— the scope of application of the national legislation is more         Republic having brought into force the necessary provisions
    restricted than that of the directive;                             in order to comply with the directive referred to in the
                                                                       Commission’s application.
— the third sentence of Article 5 of the directive has not been
    transposed;
— Articles 6(2) and 7(3) of the directive have not been                (1) OJ 1996 L 235, p. 39.
    transposed in their entirety.                                      (2) OJ 1997 L 13, p. 18.
(1) OJ L 95 of 21.4.1993, p. 29.
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-336/98 (1)
Action brought on 12 October 1999 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic                                        (1999/C 352/49)
                         (Case C-395/99)                               By order of 21 June 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                       of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                       the register of Case-336/98 (reference for a preliminary
                         (1999/C 352/48)                               ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la
                                                                       Lombardia): Agenzia R di Recapito Srl v Poste Italiane SpA
                                                                       and Rinaldi Angenzia di Recapito Srl.
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 12 October
1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                       (1) OJ C 340 of 7.11.1998.
represented by Francesco P. Ruggeri Laderchi, of its Legal
Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.


title: Case T-684/13: Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2015 — Copernicus-Trademarks v OHIM (BLUECO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark BLUECO — Prior Community word mark BLUECAR — Relative ground for refusal — Distinctive character of the earlier mark — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Application for alteration made by the intervener — Article 65(4) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               23.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 389/42

         Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2015 — Copernicus-Trademarks v OHIM (BLUECO)
   (Case T-684/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark BLUECO - Prior Community word mark BLUECAR - Relative ground for refusal - Distinctive character of the earlier mark - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Application for alteration made by the intervener - Article 65(4) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 389/44)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Copernicus-Trademarks Ltd (Borehamwood, United Kingdom) (represented by: L. Pechan and S. Körber, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Bolloré SA (Érgue-Gaberic, France) (represented initially by: B. Fontaine, and subsequently by: O. Legrand, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 October 2013 (Case R 2029/2012-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Bolloré SA and Copernicus-Trademarks Ltd.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Rejects the application for alteration made by Bolloré SA;

               3.

               Orders Copernicus-Trademarks Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 52, 22.2.2014.


title: Action brought on 30 January 1997 by Sofia Goycoolea against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-21/97)

text:
No C 108/22           EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    5 . 4 . 97
excludes it from the procedure and consequently from the                — order the defendant to pay the costs .
conclusion of renewable four-year contracts in private
tendering procedures ( involving for the first four-year                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
period a sum of at least ECU 18 million); in other words,
once the contracts are concluded, they are capable of                   The applicant, who was engaged on 1 December 1994 as
excluding for an indefinite period, as regards those not                a member of the temporary staff in Grade B 3 at the
allowed to participate, the possibility of gaining access to            Commission, challenges the decision to impose on her the
the sector or of continuing to operate in it.                           disciplinary measure of termination of her employment
                                                                        without notice, provided for in Article 50 ( 1 ) of the
The applicant also claims that any purported imposition                 Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the
of the condition, for admission to competitive bidding for
                                                                        European Communities ( CEOS ), on the ground that she
the supply of services, that candidates must have a                     had furnished false information as to her qualifications.
subsidiary in Community countries other than that in
which they are established infringes the Community rules
on services and contracts. The applicant states that, at a              The applicant alleges, in the first place, infringement of
meeting with DG VIII, the Director made it clear that, in               Articles 12 and 50 of the CEOS and the third paragraph
adopting the contested decision, importance had been                    of Article 5 ( 1 ) of the Staff Regulations and a manifest
attached to the fact that the applicant had not indicated in            error of assessment. She points out, in this regard, that she
its application that it had ' branch offices' in Community              fulfils the general and particular qualifications required by
countries. In so far as that requirement may be a                       the vacancy notice even if she did not possess, as she had
manifestation of a new Commission policy, the applicant                 stated in her application form, a secondary school
considers that participation in a tendering procedure for               diploma. The applicant points out that she holds a
the award of a contract cannot have applied to them a                   university degree in the specific field mentioned in the
policy adopted by a Commission department which is not                  vacancy notice and can show evidence of professional
clearly set out in the notice of tender.                                experience in excess of the minimum required. She
                                                                        therefore concludes that the inaccurate information which
In any event, the applicant considers that a European                   she furnished in her application form did not mislead the
Economic Interest Grouping or a ' dependency thereof in                 Administration as to her professional abilities and that,
which an undertaking has a holding' cannot be regarded                  accordingly, it could not have been a determining factor in
as a subsidiary of that undertaking. It states in that                  her being employed , as the defendant maintains .
connection that, from informal contacts with other firms
participating in the procedure and from information                     The applicant claims, moreover, that the authority
obtained from those responsible for the sector, it has                  empowered to conclude contracts of employment cannot
emerged that a number of those prequalified were selected               terminate her contract on the ground that a diploma is
on the basis that they had met the requirement of what                  missing, since it is not competent to verify the conditions
DG VIII has defined as ' branch offices' by setting up a                governing access to the selection procedure for temporary
grouping of that kind shortly before submitting their                   staff.
applications.
(') OJ No C 177, 20 . 6 . 1996 , p . 9 .
                                                                        Action brought on 6 February 1997 by Antillean Rice
                                                                        Mills NV against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
Action brought on 30 January 1997 by Sofia Goycoolea
   against the Commission of the European Communities                                           ( Case T-26/97 )
                          ( Case T-21/97)                                                         97/C 108/45 )
                           ( 97/C 108/44
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European
 An action against the Commission of the European                        Communities was brought before the Court of First
 Communities was brought before the Court of First                       Instance of the European Communities on 6 February
 Instance of the European Communities on 30 January                      1997 by Antillean Rice Mills NV, Bonaire (Netherlands),
 1997 by Sofia Goycoolea, residing at Brussels, represented              represented by W. Knibbeler and K. J. Defares, of the
 by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel                 Amsterdam and Rotterdam Bars respectively, with an
 of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                     address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of N.
 Luxembourg at Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de                          Loesch, 1 1 Rue Goethe .
 Cessange .
 The applicant claims that the Court should :                            The applicant claims that the Court should :
 — annul     the    decision     of      the Director-General   of       — annul Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 21 /97 of
     Personnel and Administration of 7 May 1996                               8 January 1997 introducing safeguard measures in
     terminating the applicant's contract as a member of                      respect of imports of rice originating in the overseas
     the temporary staff on 1 September 1996 ,                                countries and territories P ),


title: Case T-20/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 4 July 2008 — Grammatikopoulos v OHIM — National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences (GRAMMY)

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/66

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 4 July 2008 — Grammatikopoulos v OHIM — National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences (GRAMMY)
   (Case T-20/06) (1)

   (2008/C 209/117)

      Language of the case: English

   The President of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 131, 3.6.2006.