title: Case T-244/03: Action brought on 30 June 2003 by Flavia Angeletti against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 200/32               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          23.8.2003
Action brought on 23 June 2003 by Ulf Jacoby against the                  for restitutio in integrum occasioned by his failure to pay the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade                    appeal fee in good time.
                        Marks and Designs)
                                                                          By the contested decision, the Board of Appeal rejected the
                          (Case T-242/03)                                 application and declared that the appeal was to be regarded as
                                                                          not having been lodged.
                          (2003/C 200/57)                                 The applicant submits that usually time-limits are entered in a
                                                                          diary for that purpose kept by his former lawyer in order to
                                                                          comply with and monitor the time-limits for bringing appeals
(Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2) of      and payment of the appeal fee, and the time-limits are only
the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was            then crossed out of that diary after they have been observed.
                         submitted: German)                               In order to avoid any accidental crossing out of an entry in
                                                                          the diary, the member of that lawyer's staff responsible for
                                                                          overseeing the time-limits is required to initial any crossing out
                                                                          of a deadline. Since that long-standing, consistently reliable
                                                                          member of his staff had crossed out and initialled the time-
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                          limit entered in respect of the appeal case, the lawyer acting
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
                                                                          for the applicant was entitled to assume that the appeal fee
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                          had been paid in good time. Since the failure to observe the
23 June 2003 by Ulf Jacoby, Lahnau (Germany), represented
                                                                          time-limit for payment of the appeal fee was not caused by
by K. Müller, lawyer, of Kanzlei Krieger Froese & Kollegen. Leo
                                                                          any fault of the lawyer acting for the applicant, the application
Pharmaceutical Products BV, Weesp (Netherlands), was also a
                                                                          for restitutio in integrum is founded and the action must be
party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
                                                                          granted.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of
      14.3.2003, thereby granting the applicant's application to
      the Board of Appeal for restitutio in integrum, occasioned
      by his failure to observe the time-limit for payment of the
      appeal fee;                                                         Action brought on 30 June 2003 by Flavia Angeletti
                                                                            against the Commission of the European Communities
—     declare that the appeal is to be regarded as having been
      lodged.
                                                                                (Case T-244/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 200/58)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant sought registration of the word mark ‘leovat’               An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
with the defendant office in respect of goods in Classes 3, 4, 5          nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
and 31 (application No 657221). Leo Pharmaceutical Products               European Communities on 30 June 2003 by Flavia Angeletti,
BV, proprietor of the international word mark ‘Leo’ for goods             residing in Nice (France), represented by Juan Ramon Iturriaga-
in Classes 3 and 5, lodged an opposition to registration.                 goitia and Karine Delvolvé, avocats.
By decision of 6 July 2001, the Opposition Division allowed               The applicant claims that the Court should:
the opposition on the ground that there was a likelihood of
confusion owing to the high level of similarity of the goods
and the signs. The applicant lodged an appeal against that                —     annul the decision of the Directorate-General Personnel
decision in good time. On 19 September 2001, the Registry of                    and Administration of 5 May 2003;
the Board of Appeal informed the applicant that the appeal fee
had not been received by the office before the expiry, on                 —     order a challenge to two of the members of the medical
6 September 2001, of the time-limit for bringing an appeal,                     committee;
and gave the applicant the opportunity to submit his observa-
tions on the matter. On 24 September 2001 the applicant
effected payment of the appeal fee and simultaneously applied             —     order the Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.
 ---pagebreak--- 23.8.2003            EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 200/33
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          European Communities on 20 June 2003 by Fédération des
                                                                         Nationale des Syndicats d'Exploitants Agricoles (FNSEA), the
The applicant, a former Commission official, worked for many             Fédération Nationale Bovine (FNB), the Fédération Nationale
years in the Berlaymont building, which was then contami-                des Producteurs de Lait (FNPL) and Jeunes Agriculteurs (JA),
nated with asbestos. In 1996, the applicant applied for recog-           Fédération Nationale, established in Paris, represented by Bruno
nition of the occupational nature of her illness and, in 1998,           Néouze and Valérie Ledoux, lawyers, with an address for
requested that a medical committee be consulted in accordance            service in Luxembourg.
with Article 21 of the Rules on the Insurance of Officials of
the European Communities against the Risk of Accident and of
Occupational Disease. That medical committee issued a first
                                                                         The applicants claims that the Court should:
majority opinion in 2000, but, after a complaint by the
applicant, the Commission decided to refer to it a second
time. On 23 April 2003, the applicant sent a diagnosis to the            —     annul the Commission Decision of 2 April 2003,
Commission, requesting that it be examined by the medical                      No C.38.279/F3 — French beef in respect of the FNSEA,
committee. In reply to that request, the Commission stated, by                 the FNB, the FNPL and the JA;
letter of 5 May 2003, that the medical committee had already
finished its work and that it was therefore impossible to
submit the diagnosis sent by the applicant to it for its opinion.        —     alternatively, cancel the fines imposed on them;
The applicant challenges that latter decision, which she claims
should be annulled. She also argues that the composition of
the medical committee should have been changed at the time               —     further and alternatively, reduce the amount of the fines;
of the second reference to it, and therefore requests that two
of its members be challenged. In support of her claims, she
alleges misuse of powers, lack of independence and neutrality            —     order the Commission of the European Communities to
on the part of the medical committee, infringements of the                     pay the costs.
principle of sound administration and the duty to pay due
regard to the welfare of officials, and infringement of the
principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Action brought on 20 June 2003 by Fédération Nationale
des Syndicats d'Exploitants Agricoles (FNSEA) and Others
     against Commission of the European Communities                      The contested decision in the present case is the same as that
                                                                         in Case T-217/03 Fédération Nationale de la Coopération Bétail
                        (Case T-245/03)                                  et Viande (FNCBV) v Commission (1).
                        (2003/C 200/59)
                  (Language of the case: French)                         The pleas and main arguments are the same as those put
                                                                         forward in that case.
An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the             (1) See p. 30 of this Official Journal.


title: Case T-72/17: Action brought on 3 February 2017 — Schmid v EUIPO — Landeskammer für Land- und Forstwirtschaft in Steiermark (Steirisches Kürbiskernöl)

text:
               3.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/59

         Action brought on 3 February 2017 — Schmid v EUIPO — Landeskammer für Land- und Forstwirtschaft in Steiermark (Steirisches Kürbiskernöl)
   (Case T-72/17)
   (2017/C 104/83)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Gabriele Schmid (Halbenrain, Austria) (represented by: B. Kuchar, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Landeskammer für Land- und Forstwirtschaft in Steiermark (Graz, Austria)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the mark at issue: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the mark ‘Steirisches Kürbiskernöl’ — International registration No 900 100

      Proceedings before EUIPO: Revocation proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 December 2016 in Case R 1768/2015-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               amend the contested decision and declare the mark IR No 900 100 to be revoked for the EU for all goods;
               in the alternative

               —

               annul the contested decision on account of the failure to provide evidence of use of IR No 900 100 as a trade mark and refer the proceedings back to EUIPO;

               —

               in any event, order the proprietor of the mark to pay the applicant’s costs incurred in the proceedings before EUIPO and in the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law

               —

               infringement of Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               infringement of Article 55(1) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-43/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht (Germany) lodged on 8 February 2008 — Trade mark case: ZVS Zeitungsvertrieb Stuttgart GmbH v President of the German Patent- und Markenamt

text:
               26.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht (Germany) lodged on 8 February 2008 — Trade mark case: ZVS Zeitungsvertrieb Stuttgart GmbH v President of the German Patent- und Markenamt
   (Case C-43/08)
   (2008/C 107/19)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundespatentgericht
   Parties to the main proceedings
   ZVS Zeitungsvertrieb Stuttgart GmbH and President of the German Patent- und Markenamt
   Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 3 of Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 (1) require equal treatment, with regard to the registration of trade marks, of applicants in competition with one another in order to safeguard equality of opportunity in matters of competition?

               2.

               If the answer is ‘yes’, is the national court required to investigate specific indications of unequal treatment which distorts competition and, in so doing, to take account, in its analysis, of earlier decisions of the competent authority in similar cases?

               3.

               If the answer is ‘yes’, is the national court required to take account of the prohibition of discrimination having the effect of distorting competition when interpreting and applying Article 3 of Directive 89/104 if it has established discrimination of that nature?

               4.

               If Questions 1 to 3 are answered in the negative, in order to prevent distortion of competition, must it be possible under national legislation for the national authority to be placed under an obligation to initiate, of its own motion, an action for the annulment of trade marks which have previously been wrongly registered?

      (1)  OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1.


title: Action brought on 5 May 1997 by Brigitte Bennett against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-150/97)

text:
26 . 7. 97               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 228/ 19
Action brought on 5 May 1997 by Brigitte Bennett                             consideration to the possible application             of
   against the Commission of the European Communities                        Article 31 ( 2) of the Staff Regulations,
                          ( Case T-150/97)
                             ( 97/C 228/44 )                             — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the Commission's
                                                                             decision adopted on 3 February 1997 expressly
                (Language of the case: French)                               rejecting the applicant's complaint,
An action against the Commission of the European                         — order the defendant to pay all the costs.
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 5 May 1997 by                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Brigitte Bennett, residing in Brussels, represented by
Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson                 The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
Sari, 30, Rue de Cessange .                                              Case T- 16/97 (').
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              H OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
— annul the Commission's decision of 12 July 1996
     rejecting the applicant's request that it give
     consideration to the possible application of
     Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
                                                                         Action brought on 5 May 1997 by Maria Conception
                                                                         Martinez-Ezquerra against the Commission of the
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the Commission's                                      European Communities
     decision adopted on 3 February 1997 expressly                                                 ( Case T-152/97)
     rejecting the applicant's complaint,
                                                                                ( 97/C 228/46 )
— order the defendant to pay all the costs .
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities was brought before the Court of First
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                   Instance of the European Communities on 5 May 1997 by
Case T-16/97 ( M.                                                        Maria Concepcion Marfnez-Ezquerra, residing in Brussels,
                                                                         represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an
(') OJ No C 74 , 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.                                   address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fidu
                                                                         ciaire Myson Sari, 30, Rue de Cessange .
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
Action brought on 5 May 1997 by Willem Goris against                     — annul the Commission's decision of 18 June 1996
        the Commission of the European Communities                            rejecting the applicant's request that it give
                                                                              consideration to the possible application of
                           ( Case T-151/97)
                                                                              Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
                              ( 97/C 228/45 )
                                                                         — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the Commission's
                 (Language of the case: French)                               decision adopted on 27 December 1996 expressly
                                                                              rejecting the applicant's complaint,
 An action against the Commission of the European
 Communities was brought before the Court of First                       — order the defendant to pay all the costs .
 Instance of the European Communities on 5 May 1997
 by Willem Goris, residing at Strassen ( Luxembourg),
 represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fidu
 ciaire Myson Sari , 30, Rue de Cessange.
                                                                          The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
                                                                          Case T-16/97 ( M.
 The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          H OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
 — annul the Commission's decision of 18 June 1996
      rejecting the applicant's request that it give


title: Case T-145/09: Order of the General Court of 6 September 2012 — Bredenkamp and Others v Commission (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted having regard to the situation in Zimbabwe — Withdrawal from the list of persons concerned — Action for annulment — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               27.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/23

      Order of the General Court of 6 September 2012 — Bredenkamp and Others v Commission
      (Case T-145/09) (1)

      (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted having regard to the situation in Zimbabwe - Withdrawal from the list of persons concerned - Action for annulment - No need to adjudicate)
      (2012/C 331/44)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: John Arnold Bredenkamp (Harare, Zimbabwe) and the other applicants whose names appear on the annex to this order (represented by: D. Vaughan QC, P. Moser, Barrister, and R. Khan, Solicitor)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. van Nuffel, T. Scharf and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents)

         Interveners in support of the defandant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented initially by E. Jenkinson, I. Rao and F. Penlington and subsequently by E. Jenkinson, I. Rao and C. Murrell, acting as Agents, and D. Beard QC, and by the Council of the European Union (represented by M. Bishop and R. Szostak, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      ACTION for the annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 77/2009 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 concerning certain restrictive measures in respect of Zimbabwe (OJ 2009 L 23, p. 5), as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 173/2010 of 25 February 2010 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 concerning certain restrictive measures in respect of Zimbabwe (OJ 2010 L 51, p. 13) in so far as it concerns the applicants.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  There is no need to adjudicate on this action.

                  2.

                  The European Commission shall bear, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by John Arnold Bredenkamp, Alpha International (PVT) Ltd, Breco (Asia Pacific) Ltd, Breco (Eastern Europe) Ltd, Breco (South Africa) Ltd, Breco (UK) Ltd, Breco Group, Breco International, Breco Nominees Ltd, Breco Services Ltd, Corybantes Ltd, Echo Delta Holdings, Masters International Ltd, Piedmont (UK) Ltd, Raceview Enterprises, Scottlee Holdings (PVT) Ltd, Scottlee Resorts Ltd, Timpani Exports Ltd and Tremalt Ltd.

                  3.

                  The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Council of the European Union shall each bear their own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 141, 20.6.2009.


title: Case C-192/11: Action brought on 20 April 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

text:
               16.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/13

         Action brought on 20 April 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-192/11)
   2011/C 211/24
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. Petrova and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by not providing protection for all species of wild birds occurring naturally in the wild within the European territory of the Member States, as required by Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds, (1) and by improperly defining the conditions for the establishment of derogations from the prohibitions laid down in that directive, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1, 5 and 9(1) and (2) of Directive 2009/147;

               —

               order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Republic of Poland improperly transposed Article 1 of Directive 2009/147 by reason of the fact that it failed to ensure species protection for bird species occurring in the wild within the European territory of the Member States. Under the national provisions, the only bird species covered by species protection are those which have been recorded within Polish territory and listed in Annexes I and II to the Regulation of the Minister for the Environment of 28 September 2004 concerning protected species of animals occurring in the wild. (2)

   The Republic of Poland also failed properly to transpose Article 5 of Directive 2009/147 by reason of the fact that the prohibition on keeping empty eggshells and on holding birds which belong to species the hunting and capture of which are prohibited covers only species of birds which have been recorded in Poland.
   Furthermore, the Republic of Poland failed properly to transpose Article 9(1) of the Directive for the following reasons: (1) the introduction, in the Law of 16 April 2004 on nature conservation, (3) of the possibility of establishing derogations on grounds other than those mentioned in that article; (2) the fact that the provisions of the Law on nature conservation exceeded the scope of the conditions defined in the third indent of Article 9(1)(a) relating to the prevention of serious damage to crops, livestock, forests, fisheries and water; (3) the authorisation, in the Regulation of the Minister for the Environment concerning protected species, of a derogation which is not mentioned in Article 9(1) of the Directive and which relates to activities connected with the rational management of farming, forestry or fisheries; (4) the authorisation, in the aforementioned Regulation, of a general derogation, at variance with Article 9(1) of the Directive, in relation to the cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo) and the grey heron (Ardea cinerea) occurring in the vicinity of fish ponds which have been designated as breeding areas.
   Finally, the Republic of Poland failed properly to transpose Article 9(2) of the Directive for the following reasons: (1) failure to introduce, in the provisions of national law, mandatory monitoring with regard to derogations which have been granted; (2) failure to set out in national law the conditions of risk in relation to the derogations granted; (3) failure to define any conditions whatsoever for the application — within the meaning of Article 9(2) of the Directive — of the general derogation relating to the cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo) and the grey heron (Ardea cinerea) occurring in the vicinity of fish ponds which have been designated as breeding areas and are listed in Annex II to the Regulation of the Minister for the Environment concerning protected species.

      (1)  OJ 2010 L 20, p. 7.

      (2)  Dziennik Ustaw 2004, No 220, Position 2237.

      (3)  Dziennik Ustaw 2004, No 92, Position 880, as subsequently amended.


title: Case F-120/11: Action brought on 14 November 2011 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/72

      Action brought on 14 November 2011 — ZZ v Commission
      (Case F-120/11)
      (2012/C 25/139)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal and D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

      Annulment of the decision appointing the new director of Directorate A ‘Civil Justice’ of DG JUST and of the decision rejecting the applicant's candidature for that post.

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  Annul the decision rejecting the applicant's candidature for the post of director of Directorate A ‘Civil Justice’ of the Directorate-General for Justice (‘DG JUST/A’) and the decision to appoint another person to that post;

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-447/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of 12 January 2007 — SPM v Commission (Common organisation of the markets — Bananas — Import regime for bananas originating from ACP countries on the territory of the European Union — Regulation (EC) No 2015/2005 — Action for annulment — Standing to bring proceedings — Inadmissible)

text:
               24.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/19

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 12 January 2007 — SPM v Commission
   (Case T-447/05) (1)

   (Common organisation of the markets - Bananas - Import regime for bananas originating from ACP countries on the territory of the European Union - Regulation (EC) No 2015/2005 - Action for annulment - Standing to bring proceedings - Inadmissible)
   (2007/C 69/44)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Société des plantations de Mbanga SA (SPM) (Douala, Cameroon) (represented by: initially P. Soler Couteaux and S. Cahn, and subsequently, B. Doré)

      Defendant: Commission (represented by: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and L. Visaggio, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Action for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2015/2005 of 9 December 2005 on imports during January and February 2006 of bananas originating in ACP countries under the tariff quota opened by Council Regulation (EC) No 1964/2005 on the tariff rates for bananas (OJ 2005 L 324, p. 5).
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               Dismisses the action as inadmissible.

               2.

               Orders Société des plantations de Mbanga SA (SPM) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 74, 25.3.2006.


title: Case T-460/10: Action brought on 27 September 2010 — Mullglen v Commission

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/41

         Action brought on 27 September 2010 — Mullglen v Commission
   (Case T-460/10)
   ()
   2010/C 328/69
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Mullglen Ltd (Killybegs, Ireland), (represented by: A. Collins SC, N. Travers, Barrister and D. Barry, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Decision notified under document C(2010) 4757 of 13 July 2010 as a letter to Ireland, and which was notified to the applicant on 16 July 2010, to reject a safety capacity application for a proposed new pelagic trawler to replace the MFV Pacelli, and taken to replace the decision regarding the said application contained in Commission Decision No 2003/245 of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the Commission to increase in MAGP IV objectives to take into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea, hygiene, product quality and working conditions for vessels of more than 12m in length overall (OJ 2003 L 90, p. 48), which was annulled, in so far as the applicant is concerned, by judgment of the General Court delivered on 13 June 2006 in Joined Cases T-218/03 to T-240/03 Boyle and Others v Commission [2006] ECR II-1699; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By means of the present application, the applicant seeks, pursuant to Article 263 TFUE, the annulment of Commission Decision notified under document C(2010) 4757 of 13 July 2010 as a letter to Ireland, and which was notified to the applicant on 16 July 2010, to reject a safety capacity application for a proposed new pelagic trawler to replace the MFV Pacelli, and taken to replace the decision regarding the said application contained in Commission Decision No 2003/245 of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the Commission to increase in MAGP IV objectives to take into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea, hygiene, product quality and working conditions for vessels of more than 12m in length overall (OJ 2003 L 90, p. 48), which was annulled, in so far as the applicant is concerned, by judgment of the General Court delivered on 13 June 2006 in Joined Cases T-218/03 to T-240/03 Boyle and Others v Commission [2006] ECR II-1699.
   In support of his application, the applicant submits the following pleas in law:

               Firstly, the applicant submits that the defendant acted without a legal basis. Article 4(2) of Council Decision No 97/413/EC of 26 June 1997 concerning the objectives and detailed rules for restructuring the Community fisheries sector for the period from 1 January 1997 to 31 December 2001 with the view to achieving a balance on a sustainable basis between resources and exploitation (OJ 1997 L 175, p. 27) continues to provide the appropriate legal basis for the impugned decision and, thus, the Commission lacked a legal basis purportedly to adopt the decision as an ad hoc decision.

               Secondly, the applicant submits that the Commission breached an essential procedural requirement. The applicant submits that the impugned decision, under Council Decision No 97/413/EC, should have been adopted pursuant to the management committee procedure and that, in choosing to adopt the decision on an ad hoc basis, the Commission acted in breach of essential procedural requirements.

               Thirdly, the applicant submits that by misinterpreting Article 4(2) of Council Decision No 97/413/EC, the Commission exceeded its powers, in particular in relying upon irrelevant criteria and ignoring the definition of ‘fishing effort’ provided in Council Decision No 97/413/EC and in Community fisheries legislation applicable at the time of the applicant’s application for safety tonnage in December 2001.

               In addition, it is submitted that the impugned decision contains a number of manifest errors in the assessment of the applicant’s application for safety tonnage. In particular, the applicant claims that the Commission’s decision to refuse the applicant’s application because of the greater volume under the main deck of the proposed new vessel compared to the Pacelli is manifestly flawed, as is its assumption that the proposed new vessel’s ‘fishing effort’ will be grater than that of the Pacelli.

               Finally, the applicant alleges that the Commission breached the right to equal treatment. It is submitted that Commission’s rejection of the application because of the greater volume under the main deck of his proposed new vessel constitutes gross difference in treatment amounting to impermissible discrimination against him compared to the wholly different approach adopted regarding the treatment of some of the applications for additional safety tonnage accepted in Commission Decision No 2003/245, as well as regarding one of the applications initially rejected in that decision but then accepted in the Commission Decision notified under document C(2010) 4765 of 13 July 2010.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 29 June 1995 in Case T-37/91 Imperial Chemical Industries plc v. Commission of the European Communities (Competition P Abuse of a dominant position P Administrative procedure P Rights of the defence P Equality of arms P Access to the file P Commission's Rules of Procedure P Authentication of a decision adopted by the college of Commissioners)

text:
No C 208/22              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    12 . 8 . 95
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   members of the Bar of England and Wales, instructed by
                          of 29 June 1995                                 Victor O. White and Richard J. Coles, Solicitors, with an
                                                                          address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
in Case T-36/91 : Imperial Chemical Industries pic v.                     Lambert H. Dupong, 14a Rue des Bains, v. Commission of
         Commission of the European Communities ( l )                     the European Communities ( Agents : Julian Currall and
(Competition — Concerted practice — Presumption of                        Nicholas Forwood QC ) — application for the annulment of
innocence — Administrative procedure — Rights of the                      Commission Decision 91 /300/EEC of 19 December 1990
       defence — Equality of arms — Access to the file)                   relating to a proceeding under Article 86 of the EEC Treaty
                             ( 95/C 208/47 )                              ( IV/33 . 133-D : Soda-ash — ICI ) ( 2 ), the Court of First
                                                                          Instance ( First Chamber sitting in extended composition ),
                                                                          composed of: J. L. Cruz Vilaça, President, and D. P. M.
                 (Language of the case: English)                          Barrington, A. Saggio , H. Kirschner and A. Kalogeropoulos,
                                                                          Judges, H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 June
In Case T-36/91 : Imperial Chemical Industries pic,                       1995 , in which it:
established in London, represented by David Vaughan QC,
Gerald Barling QC and David Anderson, Barrister,                          1 . annuls Commission Decision 91 /300/EEC of
members of the Bar of England and Wales , instructed by                         19 December 1990 relating to a proceeding under
Victor O. White and Richard J. Coles, Solicitors, with an                      Article 86 ofthe EEC Treaty (IV/33 . 133-D : Soda-ash —
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                           ICI);
Lambert H. Dupong, 14a Rue des Bains, v. Commission of
the European Communities ( Agents : Julian Currall and                    2 . orders the Commission to pay the costs.
Nicholas Forwood QC ) — application for the annulment of
Commission Decision 91 /297/EEC of 19 December 1990
relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty               (>) OJ No C 165 , 25 . 6 . 1991 .
 ( IV/33 . 133-A: Soda-ash — Solvay, ICI ) ( 2), the Court of             C-) OJ No L 152 , 15 . 6 . 1991 , p . 40 .
First Instance ( first Chamber sitting in extended
composition ), composed of: J. L. Cruz Vilaça , President,
 and D. P. M. Barrington , A. Saggio, H. Kirschner and A.
 Kalogeropoulos, Judges, H. Jung, Registrar, has given a
 judgment on 29 June 1995 , in which it:
 1 . annuls Commission Decision 91 /297/EEC of
       19 December 1990 relating to a proceeding under                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
       Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (IV/33 . 133 : Soda-ash —                                       of 6 July 1995
       Solvay, ICI) in so far as it concerns the applicant;                in Joined Cases T-447/93 , T-448/93 and T-449/93 :
                                                                           Associazione Italiana Tecnico Economica del Cemento and
 2 . orders the Commission to pay the costs.                                 Others v. Commission of the European Communities ( 1 )
                                                                           (State aid — Remedying of a serious disturbance in the
 (') OJ No C 165 , 25 . 6 . 1991 .                                         economy of a Member State — Authorization of a general
 ( 2 ) OJ No L 152 , 15 . 6 . 1991 , p . 1 .                               scheme — Conditional on notification ofindividual cases —
                                                                           Examination of the Community context in relation to
                                                                                individual cases — Economic assessment)
                                                                                ( 95/C 208/49 )
                                                                                (Languages of the case: English and French)
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                           of 29 June 1995
  in Case T-37/91 Imperial Chemical Industries pic v.                      In Joined Cases T-447/93 Associazione Italiana Tecnico
          Commission of the European Communities ( l )                     Economica del Cemento , established in Rome, represented
                                                                            by Wilma Viscardini Dona, of the Padua Bar, and Eric
  (Competition — Abuse of a dominant position —                            Morgan de Rivery, of the Paris Bar, with an address for
  Administrative procedure — Rights of the defence —                        service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alex Schmitt, 62
  Equality ofarms — Access to the file — Commission 's Rules               Avenue Guillaume; T-448/93 British Cement Association,
  ofProcedure — Authentication ofa decision adopted by the                 established at Wexham Springs (United Kingdom ), Blue
                    college of Commissioners)                               Circle Industries pic, established in London, Castle Cement
                               ( 95/C 208/48 )                              Ltd , established at Peterborough ( United Kingdom ), and
                                                                           The Rugby Group pic, established at Rugby (United
                                                                            Kingdom ), represented by Nicholas Forwood QC and Mark
                  (Language of the case: English)                           Clough, Barrister, of the Bar of England and Wales,
                                                                            instructed by Robert Tudway and Dorcas Rogers,
  In Case T-37/91 : Imperial Chemical Industries pic,                       Solicitors, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
  established in London, represented by David Vaughan QC,                   Chambers of Arendt & Medernach, 8— 10 Rue Mathias
  Gerald Barling QC and David Anderson, Barrister,                          Hardt; and T-449/93 Titan Cement Company SA,


title: Case T-18/15: Action brought on 12 January 2015 — Philip Morris v Commission

text:
               30.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/30

      Action brought on 12 January 2015 — Philip Morris v Commission
      (Case T-18/15)
      (2015/C 107/40)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Philip Morris Ltd (Richmond, United Kingdom) (represented by: K. Nordlander and M. Abenhaïm, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare the application for annulment admissible;

                  —

                  annul the Commission’s decision Ares (2014) 3694540 of 6 November 2014, in so far as it refused to grant the applicant full access to the requested documents, with the exception however, of the redacted personal data contained therein;

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs for these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      By its present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of decision Ares (2014) 3694540 of 6 November 2014, whereby the Commission refused to grant the applicant full access to five internal documents drawn up in the context of the preparatory works leading to the adoption of Directive 2014/40/EU on the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products (1) (the ‘contested decision’).
      In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached Article 15(3) TFEU and Article 4(2) second indent of the Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (2) (the ‘Transparency Regulation’) by failing to show that full disclosure of the requested documents to the applicant would ‘specifically and actually’ undermine the protection of identified ‘court proceedings’, and by failing to properly assess whether an overriding public interest could nonetheless justify full disclosure. The applicant argues that the Commission failed to show that full disclosure of the requested documents to the applicant would ‘specifically and actually’ undermine the protection of identified ‘court proceedings’ because, first, the requested documents cannot benefit from the presumption of protection applicable to ‘court pleadings’, second, the Commission’s abstract reference to the equality of arms principle cannot justify extending that presumption to non-court documents, and, third, the Commission’s abstract references to pending proceedings, equality of arms, and the legal service’s ability to defend the validity of the TPD are not sufficient to show that disclosure would, on the facts, specifically and actually undermine the protection of ‘court proceedings’.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached Article 15(3) TFEU and Article 4(3) second subparagraph of the Transparency Regulation by failing to show that full disclosure of the requested document to the applicant would ‘specifically and actually’ undermine its decision-making process. The applicant submits that the Commission made vague claims about a harm allegedly caused to the cooperation between services, but failed to show any serious external pressure likely to seriously undermine the decision-making process. The Commission also committed a manifest error in assessing the overriding public interest, because it identified the wrong interest to balance with the protection of its decision-making process.

         (1)  Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products and repealing Directive 2001/37/EC, OJ, 2014, L 127/1.

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


title: Case C-266/16: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) made on 13 May 2016 – Western Sahara Campaign UK v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

text:
               18.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/31

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) made on 13 May 2016 – Western Sahara Campaign UK v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
   (Case C-266/16)
   (2016/C 260/39)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Western Sahara Campaign UK

      Defendants: Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

      Questions referred

               1.

               In the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, on the one part, and the Kingdom of Morocco, on the other part (OJ 1170/2 18 March 2000) (‘the Association Agreement’), approved, by Commission and Council Decision 2000/204/EC (1), ECSC, do the references to ‘Morocco’ in Articles 9, 17 and 94 and Protocol 4 refer only to the sovereign territory of Morocco as recognised by the United Nations and the European Union (‘EU’) and therefore preclude products originating in Western Sahara from being imported into the EU free of customs duties pursuant to the Association Agreement?

               2.

               If products originating in Western Sahara may be imported into the EU free of customs duties pursuant to the Association Agreement, is the Association Agreement valid, having regard to the requirement under Article 3(5) of the Treaty on European Union to contribute to the observance of any relevant principle of international law and respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter and the extent to which the Association Agreement was concluded for the benefit of the Saharawi people, on their behalf, in accordance with their wishes and/or in consultation with their recognised representatives.

               3.

               Is the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the EU and the Kingdom of Morocco (as approved and implemented by Council Regulation 764/2006 (2), Council Decision 2013/785/EU (3), and Council Regulation 1270/2013 (4)) valid, having regard to the requirement under Article 3(5) of the Treaty on European Union to contribute to the observance of any relevant principle of international law and respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter and the extent to which the Fisheries Partnership Agreement was concluded for the benefit of the Saharawi people, on their behalf, in accordance with their wishes, and/or in consultation with their recognised representatives.

               4.

               Is the Claimant entitled to challenge the validity of EU acts based on alleged breach of international law by the EU, having regard, in particular, to:

                           a)

                           the fact that, although the Claimant has standing under national law to impugn the validity of the EU acts, it does not assert any rights under EU law; and/or

                           b)

                           the principle in Case of the Monetary Gold Removed from Rome in 1943 (lCJ Reports 1954) that the International Court of Justice may not make findings that impugn the conduct of, or affect the rights of, a State that is not before the Court and has not consented to be bound by the decisions of the Court.

      (1)  2000/204/EC, ECSC: Council and Commission Decision of 24 January 2000 on the conclusion of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Morocco, of the other part

      OJ L 70, p. 1

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 764/2006 of 22 May 2006 on the conclusion of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Morocco

      OJ L 141, p. 1

      (3)  2013/785/EU: Council Decision of 16 December 2013 on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Protocol between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco setting out the fishing opportunities and financial contribution provided for in the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco

      OJ L 349, p. 1

      (4)  Council Regulation (EU) No 1270/2013 of 15 November 2013 on the allocation of fishing opportunities under the Protocol between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco setting out the fishing opportunities and financial contribution provided for in the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco

      OJ L 328, p. 40


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 26 February 2003 in Case T-8/02: ZAPF Creation AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Amicable settlement — No need to adjudicate)

text:
C 200/22              EN                            Official Journal of the European Union                                        23.8.2003
                                                          COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
                                                                            and Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: J. F. Crespo Carrillo), the other
                      of 26 February 2003                                   party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the
                                                                            Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
in Case T-7/02: ZAPF Creation AG v Office for Harmoni-                      and Designs) being: JESMAR, SA, established in Alicante
sation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)                     (Spain): Action brought against the decision of the First Board
                             (OHIM) (1)                                     of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                            Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 October 2001 (Case
(Community trade mark — Opposition — Amicable settle-                       R 418/2000-1), which was served on the applicant on
                 ment — No need to adjudicate)                              5 November 2001, relating to opposition proceedings between
                                                                            ZAPF Creation AG and JESMAR SA, the Court of First Instance
                          (2003/C 200/38)                                   (Fourth Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili, President, P. Mengozzi
                                                                            and M. Vilaras, Judges, Registrar: H. Jung, has made an order
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                            on 26 February 2003, the operative part of which is as
                                                                            follows:
In Case T-7/02, ZAPF Creation AG, established in Rödental/
Coburg (Germany), represented by A. Kockläuner, lawyer, v
                                                                            1.    There is no need to adjudicate on the action.
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
and Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: J. F. Crespo Carrillo), the other
party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the                  2.    The applicant shall pay the costs.
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
and Designs) being: JESMAR, SA, established in Alicante
(Spain): Action brought against the decision of the First Board             (1) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.
of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 October 2001 (Case
R 1123/2000-1), which was served on the applicant on
29 October 2001, relating to opposition proceedings between
ZAPF Creation AG and JESMAR SA, the Court of First Instance
(Fourth Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili, President, P. Mengozzi
and M. Vilaras, Judges, Registrar: H. Jung, has made an order
on 26 February 2003, the operative part of which is as
follows:
1.    There is no need to adjudicate on the action.                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
2.    The applicant shall pay the costs.
                                                                                of 30 April 2003
( ) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.
 1
                                                                            in Case T-155/02: VVG International Handelsgesellschaft
                                                                            mbH and Others v Commission of the European Commu-
                                                                                nities (1)
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                            (Regulation (EC) No 3285/94 — Regulation (EC) No 560/
                      of 26 February 2003                                   2002 — Provisional safeguard measures — Actions for
                                                                                annulment — Inadmissibility)
in Case T-8/02: ZAPF Creation AG v Office for Harmoni-
sation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                             (OHIM) (1)                                                               (2003/C 200/40)
(Community trade mark — Opposition — Amicable settle-
                 ment — No need to adjudicate)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                          (2003/C 200/39)
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                            In Case T-155/02: VVG International Handelsgesellschaft mbH,
                                                                            established in Salzburg (Austria), VVG (International) Ltd,
In Case T-8/02, ZAPF Creation AG, established in Rödental/                  established in Gibraltar (United Kingdom), Metalsivas Metall-
Coburg (Germany), represented by A. Kockläuner, lawyer, v                   warenhandelsgesellschaft mbH, established in Vienna (Austria),


title: Case C-370/10 P: Appeal brought on 23 July 2010 by Ravensburger AG against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 19 May 2010 in Case T-243/08: Ravensburger AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Educa Borras S.A.

text:
               25.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/11

         Appeal brought on 23 July 2010 by Ravensburger AG against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 19 May 2010 in Case T-243/08: Ravensburger AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Educa Borras S.A.
   (Case C-370/10 P)
   ()
   2010/C 260/14
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Ravensburger AG (represented by: H. Harte-Bavendamm, M. Goldmann, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Educa Borras S.A.

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Allow the Appeal against the Judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2010 (Case T-243/08);

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the General Court;

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 8 April 2008 (Case R 597/2007-2);

               —

               As appropriate remit the case to the OHIM for fresh consideration;

               —

               Order the Intervener and the OHIM to pay the Appellant's costs of this Appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The General Court erred in law in finding that it need not take into account the reputation of the earlier trade marks in finding that the conditions for the applicability of Article 8 (1)(b) and 8(5) Community Trade Mark Regulation (1) were not met.
   The General Court violated the system of Article 8 Community Trade Mark Regulation I carrying out a single factual assessment of similarity with implications both under Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) Community Trade Mark Regulation, even though both provisions have entirely distinct sets of tests.
   The General Court erred in law and violated Article 76 Community Trade Mark Regulation in leaving the Second Board of Appeal's conclusion unobjected that the market circumstances as regards the use of house marks on the one hand and trademarks for specific products on the other hand were irrelevant.
   The General Court violated Article 77 Community Trade Mark Regulation by leaving the Board of Appeal's manifestly wrongful use of its discretion to hold an oral hearing unobjected.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark

      OJ L 78, 24.3.2009, p. 1


title: Case T-174/16: Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2017 — Wessel-Werk v EUIPO — Wolf PVG (Suction nozzles for vacuum cleaners) (Community design — Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity — Registered Community design representing a suction nozzle for a vacuum cleaner — Earlier Community design — Ground for invalidity — Individual character — Informed user — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/39

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2017 — Wessel-Werk v EUIPO — Wolf PVG (Suction nozzles for vacuum cleaners)
   (Case T-174/16) (1)

   ((Community design - Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity - Registered Community design representing a suction nozzle for a vacuum cleaner - Earlier Community design - Ground for invalidity - Individual character - Informed user - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002))
   (2017/C 144/51)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Wessel-Werk GmbH (Reichshof, Germany) (represented by: C. Becker, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Schifko, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Wolf PVG GmbH & Co. KG (Vlotho, Germany) (represented by: J. Künzel, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 February 2016 (Case R 1652/2014-3), as rectified, relating to proceedings for a declaration of invalidity between Wolf PVG and Wessel-Werk.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Wessel-Werk GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.


title: Case C-458/10: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 June 2011 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 98/83/EC — Water intended for human consumption — Incomplete and incorrect transposition)

text:
               30.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/8

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 June 2011 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-458/10) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 98/83/EC - Water intended for human consumption - Incomplete and incorrect transposition)
   2011/C 226/14
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and O. Beynet, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Incomplete and incorrect transposition of Article 9(3)(b), (c) and (e) of Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption (OJ L 330, p. 32) — Distribution of drinking water not complying with the required parametric values — Derogations scheme

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to transpose completely and correctly Article 9(3)(b), (c) and (e) of Council Directive of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

               2.

               Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 346, 18.12.2010.


title: Case T-131/12: Judgment of the General Court of 5 May 2015 — Spa Monopole v OHIM — Orly International (SPARITUAL) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of the word mark SPARITUAL — Earlier Benelux figurative and word marks SPA and LES THERMES DE SPA — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               22.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 5 May 2015 — Spa Monopole v OHIM — Orly International (SPARITUAL)
   (Case T-131/12) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for registration of the word mark SPARITUAL - Earlier Benelux figurative and word marks SPA and LES THERMES DE SPA - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 205/34)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Spa Monopole compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV (Spa, Belgium) (represented by: L. De Brouwer, E. Cornu and É. De Gryse, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Orly International, Inc. (Van Nuys, California, United States) (represented by: P. Kremer and J. Rotsch, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM dated 9 January 2012 (Case R 2396/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV and Orly International Inc.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of 9 January 2012 (Case R 2396/2010-1) of the First Board Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM);

               2.

               Orders OHIM and Orly International, Inc. to each bear their costs and to pay the costs of Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV.

      (1)  OJ C 165, 9.6.2012.


title: Case C-436/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 10 August 2015 — Lietuvos Respublikos aplinkos ministerijos Aplinkos projektų valdymo agentūra v UAB ‘Alytaus regiono atliekų tvarkymo centras’

text:
               12.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 337/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 10 August 2015 — Lietuvos Respublikos aplinkos ministerijos Aplinkos projektų valdymo agentūra v UAB ‘Alytaus regiono atliekų tvarkymo centras’
   (Case C-436/15)
   (2015/C 337/13)
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Referring court

   Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Lietuvos Respublikos aplinkos ministerijos Aplinkos projektų valdymo agentūra

      Other parties: UAB ‘Alytaus regiono atliekų tvarkymo centras’, Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerija, UAB ‘Skirnuva’, UAB ‘Parama’, UAB ‘Alkesta’, UAB ‘Dzūkijos statyba’

      Questions referred

               1.

               What constitutes a ‘multiannual programme’ within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 (1) on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests?

               2.

               Do projects such as No 2001/LT/16/P/PE/003: ‘Establishment of a waste management system for the Alytus Region’, which was granted support by Commission Decision No PH(2001)5367 of 13 December 2001 approving Measure 2001 LT 16 P PE 003, as amended by Commission Decision No PH/2002/9380 of 23 December 2002, correspond to the concept of a ‘multiannual programme’ set out in Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests?

               3.

               If the answer to the second question is ‘yes’: what point in time should be regarded as constituting the start of the limitation period for proceedings under Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests?

      (1)  OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1.


title: Case C-116/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 17 de Palma de Mallorca (Spain) lodged on 11 March 2013 — Banco de Valencia SA v Joaquin Valldeperas Tortosa, María Ángeles Miret Jaume

text:
               15.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 17 de Palma de Mallorca (Spain) lodged on 11 March 2013 — Banco de Valencia SA v Joaquin Valldeperas Tortosa, María Ángeles Miret Jaume
   (Case C-116/13)
   2013/C 171/18
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 17 de Palma de Mallorca

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Banco de Valencia SA

      Defendant: Joaquin Valldeperas Tortosa, María Ángeles Miret Jaume

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the Spanish mortgage enforcement process comply with Article 7 of Directive 93/13/EEC, (1) in so far as it does not accept, as a precondition for deciding whether or not to order enforcement, judicial review of the court’s own motion of a clause for acceleration of the loan, at the request of the bank alone, which is considered unfair in itself and in the specific way it is applied to this case, that clause being indispensable for making that privileged means of enforcement available to a professional lender?

               2.

               Again having regard to Article 7 of Directive 93/13/EEC, what must be the scope of the court’s intervention regarding that clause when it has to direct that enforcement is to take place in the mortgage enforcement process?

               3.

               Can a contractual clause which enables the lending financial institution unilaterally to cancel the loan agreement on totally objective grounds, some of which have no connection with the loan agreement itself and, in the circumstances at issue in these proceedings, because of the failure to pay four monthly mortgage instalments, be regarded as unfair, both in itself and in the manner in which it is specifically applied to this case, in the light of Article 3(1) and (3) of Directive 93/13/EEC and points 1(e) and (g) and 2(a) of the annex thereto?

      (1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).


title: Case C-110/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 2 February 1999 in the case of Emsland-Stärke GmbH against Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

text:
19.6.1999             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 174/1
                                                                    I
                                                              (Information)
                                                 COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                          COURT OF JUSTICE
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster                          for children (Unterhaltsvorschussgesetz 1985) [Law on
Gerichtshof, Vienna, by order of that court of 23 February                  advance payments of maintenance 1985], hereinafter
1999, in the maintenance proceedings concerning the                         ‘UVG’ — current version in BGBl. p. 451) discriminated
minors Vincent and Esther Offermanns, represented by                        against contrary to Article 52 of the EC Treaty or
        their mother, Barbara Schröder-Offermanns                           Article 6(1) of the EC Treaty by virtue of the fact that
                                                                            entitlement to such an advance is withheld from them
                                                                            under Paragraph 2(1) of the UVG on the ground that they
                         (Case C-85/99)                                     are German nationals?
                                                                        (1) OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2.
                        (1999/C 174/01)                                 (2) OJ 1984 L 230, p. 6.
                                                                        (3) OJ 1989 L 331, p. 1.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Oberster Gerichtshof
(Supreme Court), Vienna, of 23 February 1999, received at the
Court Registry on 10 March 1999, for a preliminary ruling in
the maintenance proceedings concerning the minors Vincent
and Esther Offermanns, represented by their mother, Barbara             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzh-
Schröder-Offermanns, on the following questions:                        of by order of that court of 2 February 1999 in the case
                                                                        of Emsland-Stärke GmbH against Hauptzollamt Hamburg-
I.  Are advances on maintenance payments to the minor                                                 Jonas
    children of self-employed persons under the Austrian
    Federal Law on the grant of advances on maintenance                                          (Case C-110/99)
    payable in respect of children (Unterhaltsvorschussgesetz
    1985 [Law on advance payments of maintenance 1985],                                          (1999/C 174/02)
    hereinafter ‘UVG’ — current version in BGBl. p. 451)
    family benefits under Article 4(1)(h) of Council Regulation         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) of 14 June 1971 on the application             European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof
    of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-            (Federal Finance Court, Germany) of 2 February 1999, received
    employed persons and to members of their families                   at the Court Registry on 31 March 1999, for a preliminary
    moving within the Community, as amended and updated                 ruling in the case of Emsland-Stärke GmbH v Hauptzollamt
    by Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 (2) of 2 June 1983 and               Hamburg-Jonas on the following questions:
    amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3427/89 (3) of
    30 October 1989, and is Article 3 of the regulation                 On a proper interpretation of Article 10(1) in conjunction
    concerning equal treatment therefore applicable in such a           with Article 20(2) to (6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2730/79, does
    case?                                                               an exporter lose his right to payment of an export refund,
                                                                        determined at a single rate for all non-member countries
II. Should Question 1 be answered in the negative:                      without variation according to destination, if the product in
                                                                        respect of which the export refund was paid, and which is sold
                                                                        to a purchaser established in a non-member country, is,
    Are minor children who, like their parents — who are                immediately after its release into free circulation in that
    self-employed in Austria — are German nationals but                 non-member country, transported back to the Community
    ordinarily resident in Austria and who are applying for the         under the external Community transit procedure and is there
    grant of an advance on maintenance under the Austrian               released into free circulation on payment of import duties,
    Federal Law on the grant of advances on maintenance                 without any infringement being established?
 ---pagebreak--- C 174/2                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        19.6.1999
Would the answer be different if, before the product was                     States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting
reimported into the Community, the purchaser in the non-                     activities, (1) and under Article 59 of the Treaty;
member country sold it to an undertaking with which he
was personally and commercially connected, which is also                     — by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the
established in that non-member country?                                          laws, regulations and administrative provisions needed
                                                                                to comply in full with Article 22 of Direc-
                                                                                tive 89/522/EEC,
                                                                             — by providing that rules different from those applicable
                                                                                to the broadcasting of services intended for the public
                                                                                in France are to apply to satellite broadcasting of
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht                        audiovisual communication services in foreign
(Social Court), Münster, by order of that court of 12 March                      languages, and
1999 in the case of Carl Borawitz v Landesversicherungs-
anstalt Westfalen, joined party: Federal Republic of Germ-                   — by not adopting measures to ensure that television
                               any                                               services using a frequency not managed by the Conseil
                                                                                Supérieur de l’Audiovisuel comply with the law appli-
                         (Case C-124/99)                                         cable to the broadcasting of services intended for the
                                                                                public in France,
                         (1999/C 174/03)
                                                                             the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       Directive 89/522/EEC, in particular Articles 2(1), 22 and
European Communities by an order of the Sozialgericht (Social                25 thereof;
Court), Tenth Chamber, Münster, of 12 March 1999, which                 2. Order the French Republic to pay the costs.
was received at the Court Registry on 14 April 1999, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Carl Borawitz v Landesversich-
erungsanstalt Westfalen, joined party: Federal Republic of              Pleas in law and main arguments
Germany, on the following question:
                                                                        The Commission makes five charges against the French rules.
Is Paragraph 118(2a) of the Sixth Book of the Sozialgesetzbuch          The first two concern France as a receiving country and the
(Code of Social Law, ‘SGB VI’) incompatible with European               last three as a country of establishment.
Community law, in particular the principle of equal treatment,
in so far as the limitation on pension back payments is greater         First, Law 86-1067 of 30 September 1986 on freedom of
when payment is made abroad?                                            communication introduces, for retransmission of television
                                                                        broadcasts on French territory, an obligation to conclude an
                                                                        agreement with the Conseil Supérieur de l’Audiovisuel.
                                                                        The application of such a system of prior authorisation for
                                                                        television broadcasting services falling within the jurisdiction
Action brought on 20 April 1999 by the Commission of                    of another Member State is incompatible with Article 59 of
 the European Communities against the French Republic                   the EC Treaty or with Article 2(2) of the abovementioned
                                                                        directive to the extent to which that agreement relates to
                         (Case C-140/99)                                matters coordinated by the directive.
                         (1999/C 174/04)                                Second, it is apparent form Article 4 of Decree 92-882 of
                                                                        1 September 1992, which was adopted for the implementation
An action against the French Republic was brought before the            of certain provisions of the abovementioned law, that the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 20 April                latter have been made applicable to services broadcast from
1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,                     France and, for their distribution by cable, to the services
represented by Karen Banks, of its Legal Service, acting as             which have established their broadcasting activities outside
Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office          France for the sole purpose of avoiding the rules which would
of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                  otherwise apply to them.
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                  The criterion chosen as the basis for French jurisdiction,
the Court should:                                                       namely ‘services broadcast’, is not precise enough; only a
                                                                        criterion based on the establishment of the service in question
1. Declare that,                                                        may, according to the case-law, be used. Moreover, that
                                                                        provision also leads to the result that a service may not be
    — by keeping in force a system of prior authorisation for           established outside France, thereby limiting the freedom to
        the retransmission on French territory of television            provide services.
        broadcasts from other Member States, whereby an
        agreement must be concluded with the Conseil Supérie-           Third, the French legislation only incompletely transposes
        ur de l’Audiovisuel, and                                        Article 22 of the directive concerning measures to be taken for
                                                                        the protection of minors. First, the measures put into effect by
    — by keeping force Article 4 of Decree 91-882,
                                                                        the French legislation do not cover television broadcasting
    the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under      services falling within French jurisdiction but not using any
    Article 2(2) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October           French network (terrestrial, cable or satellite). Second, the
    1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down            measures do not have sufficient binding force, since they
    by law, regulation or administrative action in Member               merely impose penalties.


title: Case T-616/11 P: Order of the General Court of 8 November 2012 — Marcuccio v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Action at first instance dismissed as manifestly devoid of any basis in law — Harm allegedly suffered by the appellant — Reimbursement of avoidable costs — Article 94(a) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal)

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/48

         Order of the General Court of 8 November 2012 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case T-616/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Action at first instance dismissed as manifestly devoid of any basis in law - Harm allegedly suffered by the appellant - Reimbursement of avoidable costs - Article 94(a) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal)
   2013/C 26/95
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, Agents, and A. Del Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 8 September 2011 in Case F-69/10 Marcuccio v Commission, not published in the ECR, seeking to have that order set aside.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Luigi Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Commission in the appeal proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.


title: Case T-316/09: Action brought on 11 August 2009 — Google v OHIM (ANDROID)

text:
               10.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 244/15

         Action brought on 11 August 2009 — Google v OHIM (ANDROID)
   (Case T-316/09)
   2009/C 244/25
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant(s): Google, Inc. (Mountain View, United States) (represented by A. Bognár and M. Kinkeldey, lawyers)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 26 May 2009 in case R 1622/2008-2; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Auxiliarily, the applicant requests to:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 26 May 2009 in case R 1622/2008-2 with regard to the goods ‘computer hardware and computer software for use in connection with mobile devices, namely cell phones, mobile phones, smart phones and handheld personal digital assistants (PDAs)’; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings insofar.

         Auxiliarily, the applicant requests to:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 26 May 2009 in case R 1622/2008-2 and remit the case to OHIM for further examination of the list of goods ‘computer hardware and computer software for use in connection with mobile devices, namely cell phones, mobile phones, smart phones and handheld personal digital assistants (PDAs)’.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ANDROID’ for goods in class 9

      Decision of the examiner: Refused the application for a Community trade mark

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal wrongly concluded that the trade mark applied for was descriptive for the goods at issue and thus could not be registered; infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal erred by not proceeding to examine the perception of the English speaking public with respect to the applicability of this provision.


title: Communication

text:
               26.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/39

         Communication
   (2005/C 296/76)
   On 9 November 2005, Waltraud Hakenberg was appointed Registrar of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal for a term of six years, in accordance with Article 3(4) of Council Decision 2004/752/EC, Euratom of 2 November 2004 establishing the European Union Civil Service Tribunal, and Articles 20 and 7 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance.


title: Case C-432/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 7 August 2015 — Odvolací finanční ředitelství v Pavlína Baštová

text:
               9.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/15

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 7 August 2015 — Odvolací finanční ředitelství v Pavlína Baštová
   (Case C-432/15)
   (2015/C 371/18)
   Language of the case: Czech

      Referring court

   Nejvyšší správní soud

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Odvolací finanční ředitelství

      Other party to the proceedings: Pavlína Baštová

      Questions referred

               1a.

               Is the supply of a horse by its owner (who is a taxable person) to the organiser of a race for the purpose of the horse’s running in a race a supply of services for consideration within the meaning of Article 2(1)(c) of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) on the common system of value added tax and thus a transaction subject to VAT?

               1b.

               If the answer is in the affirmative, must the prize money obtained in the race (which not every horse taking part in the race obtains, however), or the acquisition of the service consisting in the opportunity for the horse to run in the race which the organiser of the race provides to the owner of the horse, or some other consideration, be regarded as the consideration?

               1c.

               If the answer is in the negative, is that circumstance in itself a ground for reducing the deduction of input VAT on the taxable supplies acquired and used for the preparation of the breeder/trainer’s own horses for races, or must the running of a horse in a race be regarded as a component of the economic activity of a person who operates in the field of breeding and training his own and other owners’ racehorses, and the expense of breeding his own horses and running them in races be included in the overheads associated with that person’s economic activity? If the answer to that part question is in the affirmative, must prize money be included in the taxable amount and output VAT accounted for, or is this income which does not affect the taxable amount for VAT at all?

               2a.

               If for VAT purposes it is necessary to regard several part services as a single transaction, what are the criteria for determining their mutual relationship, that is, for determining whether they are supplies of equal status with each other or supplies in the relationship of a principal and an ancillary service? Does any hierarchy exist between those criteria as regards their ranking and weight?

               2b.

               Must Article 98 of Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax in conjunction with Annex III to that directive be interpreted as precluding the classification of a service under the reduced rate if it is composed of two part supplies which must be regarded for VAT purposes as a single supply and those supplies are of equal status with each other, and one of them may not in itself be classified in any of the categories set out in Annex III to Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax?

               2c.

               If the answer to Question 2b is in the affirmative, does the combination of the part service of the right to use sports facilities and the part service of a trainer of racehorses, in circumstances such as those of the present proceedings, preclude the classification of that service as a whole under the reduced rate of VAT mentioned in point 14 of Annex III to Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax?

               2d.

               If the application of the reduced rate of tax is not excluded on the basis of the answer to Question 2c, what influence on the classification under the relevant rate of VAT does the fact have that the taxable person provides, in addition to the service of the use of sports facilities and the service of a trainer, also stabling, feeding and other care of a horse? Must all those part supplies be regarded for VAT purposes as a single whole sharing the same tax treatment?

      (1)  OJ L 347, 11.12.2006, p. 1.