title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 26 June 1996 in Case T-91/95: Lieve de Nil and Christiane Impens v. Council of the European Union (Officials - Internal 'upgrading' competition - Measures taken to comply with a judgment declaring an act void - Article 176 of the EC Treaty - New tests - Regrading - Non-retroactive - Material and non-material damage - Compensation)

text:
 No C 233/8              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  10 . 8 . 96
 Court     of First   Instance    in  Case   T-58/92   Moat    v.       1 , annuls the decisions of the Council of 9 and 15 June
 Commission [ 1993 ] ECR 11-1443 , the delay in completing                   1994 rejecting the applicants ' requests foi
 his 1991 to 1993 staff report, and the failure to give a                    compensation of 9 February 1994 , together with the
 reasoned reply to a memorandum of 30 March 1994                            decision of 4 January 1995 rejecting the applicants '
 described as a request and/or complaint — the Court of First               complaint of 6 September 1 994 ;
 Instance ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of: R. Schintgen ,
 President, R. Garcia-Valdecasas and J. Azizi , Judges; J.             2 , orders the Council to pay each of the applicants the sum
 Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a                 of Bfrs 500 000 by way of compensation for the
 judgment on 21 June 1996 , in which it :                                   combined material and non-material damage;
  1 . dismisses the action -,
                                                                       3 , dismisses the remainder of the application;
 2 , orders each party to bear its own costs.                          4 , orders the Council to pay the costs.
 (') OJ No C 87 , 8 . 4 . 1995 .                                       C ) Ol No C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 .
                                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                      of 28 June 1996
                          of 26 June 1996                             in Case T-500/93 : Y v . Court of Justice of the European
 in Case T-91 /95 : Lieve de Nil and Christiane Impens v.                                      Communities ( 1 )
              Council of the European Union (')                        (Officials — Actions for annulment of measures —
 (Officials — Internal 'upgrading' competition — Measures              Disciplinary proceedings — Right to a fair hearing —
 taken to comply with a judgment declaring an act void —              Evidence of witnesses — 'Legitimate defense ' — 'Exceptio
Article 1 76 of the EC Treaty — New tests — Regrading —               veritatis ' — Mitigating circumstances — Statement of
Non-retroactive — Material and non-material damage —                    reasons — Action for damages —Non-material damage)
                           Compensation)                                                         ( 96/C 233 / 16 )
                           ( 96/C 233/ 15 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                      In Case T-500/93 : Y v . Court of Justice of the European
                                                                      Communities ( Agents : Timothy Millett and, initially, Carlos
In Case T-91 /95 : Lieve de Nil , an official of the Council of       Pinto Correia , and Isabel Jalles ) — application for
the European Union , residing at Wolvertem ( Belgium ), and           annulment of the decision of the Court of Justice of
Christiane Impens, an official of the Council of the                  28 September 1992 imposing on the applicant the
European Union, residing at Brussels , represented by                 disciplinary measure of deferment of advancement to a
Jean-Noël Louis , Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel , of            higher step for two years , and for compensation for the
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg           non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant —
at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sàrl , 1 Rue Glesener, v .         the Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber ), composed
Council of the European Union ( Agents : Yves Chrétien and            of: H. Kirschner, President, and C. W. Bellamy and
Diego Canga Fano ) — application by each of the applicants,           A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges ; J. Palacio Gonzalez ,
first, for annulment of the decision of the Council of 15 June        Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
1994 , and, in so far as may be necessary, of the decision of         28 June 1996 , in which it :
the Council of 9 June 1994 , respectively rejecting expressly
and by implication the request for compensation for the                1 , annuls the decision of the Court of Justice of
damage suffered as a result of the inadequate measures                      28 September 1992 imposing on the applicant the
taken by the Council to comply with the judgment of the                     disciplinary measure of deferment of advancement to a
Court of First Instance of 1 1 February 1 993 in Case T-22/91               higher step for two years ;
Railoa-Denti and Others v . Council 1 1 9 9 3 ] ECR 11-69 , and
of the decision of the Council of 4 January 1 995 expressly
rejecting the subsequent complaint, and, second , for an              2 , dismisses the remainder of the application;
order requiring the Council to pay each of them Bfrs
500 000 in respect of material damage and the token sum of            3 , orders the Court of Justice to pay the costs.
ECU 1 in respect of non-material damage — the Court of
First Instance ( Second Chamber ), composed of: H.
                                                                      C ) O J No C 272 , 8 . 10 . 1993 .
Kirschner, President, and C. W. Bellamy and A.
Kalogeropoulos, Judges ; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 26 June 1996 , in which it :


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 25 June 1998 in Case T-120/96, Lilly Industries Ltd v. Commission of the European Communities (Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 - Request for inclusion of a recombinant bovine somatotrophin (BST) in the list of substances not subject to maximum residue limits - Rejection by the Commission - Application for annulment)

text:
5.9.98                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 278/35
                                                    COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt,
                        of 8 July 1998                               8Ð10 rue Mathias Hardt, supported by FeÂdeÂration
                                                                     EuropeÂenne de la SanteÂ Animale (Fedesa), represented by
in Case T-232/95, Committee of European Copier                       Alexandre Vandencasteele, of the Brussels Bar, with an
Manufacturers (Cecom) v. Council of the European                     address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                           Union (1)                                 Ernest Arendt, 8Ð10 rue Mathias Hardt against
(Anti-dumping duties on plain paper photocopiers Ð                   Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
Review Ð Period of application of the anti-dumping duty              Richard Wainwright and Fernando Castillo de la Torre) Ð
               Ð Manifest error of assessment)                       application for the annulment of the Commission decision
                                                                     of 22 May 1996 rejecting the applicant's request for the
                        (98/C 278/77)                                inclusion of somidobove, a recombinant bovine
                                                                     somatotrophin (BST), in Annex II to Council Regulation
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                     (EEC) No 2377/90 of 26 June 1990 laying down a
                                                                     Community procedure for the establishment of maximum
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in
         published in the European Court Reports)                    foodstuffs of animal origin (OJ L 224, 18.8.1990, p. 1) Ð
                                                                     the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili,
In Case T-232/95, Committee of European Copier                       President, C. P. BrieÈt and A. Potocki, Judges; A. Mair,
Manufacturers       (Cecom)      established     in   Cologne        Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
(Germany), represented by Dietrich Ehle and Volker                   25 June 1998, in which it:
Schiller, Rechtsanwälte, Cologne, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Lucius, 6
rue Michel Welter against Council of the European Union,             1. annuls the Commission decision of 22 May 1996
(Agents: Antonio Tanca, Hans-Jürgen Rabe and Georg M.                    rejecting the request for the inclusion of somidobove,
Berrisch) Ð application for annulment of the second                      a recombinant bovine somatotrophin (BST), in
paragraph of Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC)                        Annex II to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 of
No 2380/95 of 2 October 1995 imposing a definitive anti-                 26 June 1990 laying down a Community procedure
dumping duty on imports of plain paper photocopiers                      for the establishment of maximum residue limits of
originating in Japan (OJ L 244, 12.10.1995, p. 1) Ð the                  veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal
Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition), composed                    origin;
of: B. Vesterdorf, President, and C. W. Bellamy and R. M.
Moura Ramos, Judges; H. Jung, for the Registrar, has
                                                                     2. orders the Commission to pay the costs, including
given a judgment on 8 July 1998, in which it:
                                                                         those of the intervener.
1. dismisses the action;
                                                                     (1) OJ C 318, 26.10.1996.
2. orders the applicant to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 64, 2.3.1996.
                                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 8 July 1998
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            in Case T-130/96, Gaetano Aquilino v. Council of the
                       of 25 June 1998                                                    European Union (1)
in Case T-120/96, Lilly Industries Ltd v. Commission of              (Officials Ð Sick leave Ð Article 59 of the Staff
                the European Communities (1)                         Regulations Ð Medical certificates Ð Not accepted Ð
(Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 Ð Request for inclusion                 Medical checks organised by the institution Ð Article 60
of a recombinant bovine somatotrophin (BST) in the list              of the Staff Regulations Ð Unauthorised absences Ð
of substances not subject to maximum residue limits Ð                            Recovered from the official's salary)
Rejection by the Commission Ð Application for                                                (98/C 278/79)
                          annulment)
                        (98/C 278/78)                                               (Language of the case: French)
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                     In Case T-130/96: Gaetano Aquilino, an official of the
In Case T-120/96, Lilly Industries Ltd, established in               Council of the European Union, residing at Mons
Basingstoke (United Kingdom) represented by Mr Denis                 (Belgium), represented by Nicholas LhoeÈst, of the Brussels
Waelbroeck, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for                 Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the


title: Case C-522/09: Action brought on 15 December 2009 — European Commission v Romania

text:
               27.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/20

         Action brought on 15 December 2009 — European Commission v Romania
   (Case C-522/09)
   2010/C 51/31
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Recchia and L. Bouyon, Agents)

      Defendant: Romania

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to designate to a sufficient degree, either in number or in size, as special protection areas the most suitable territories for the protection of the bird species listed in Annex I to Directive 79/409/EEC (1) and migratory species returning to its territory, Romania has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and (2) of the directive.

               —

               order Romania to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, as amended, regulates the conservation of all species of wild birds occurring naturally occurring in the European territory of the Member States. The obligations under the directive have been applicable in Romania since the date of its accession (1 January 2007). Romania is therefore required, pursuant to Article 4(1) and (2) of the directive, to complete the designation of special protection areas within its territory.
   Following its examination of the special protection areas designated by the Romanian authorities, the Commission reached the conclusion that Romania’s designation of the most suitable territories as special protection areas was insufficient in both number and size.
   In the present case, the areas designated by Romania as special protection areas were examined by reference to the Inventory of Important Bird Areas drawn up by BirdLife International and a similar survey carried out by the Societatea Ornitologică Română. The procedure for designating important bird areas in Romania ended in 2007 and concluded with the designation of 130 such areas.
   Out of a total of 130 important bird areas, covering an area of 4 157 500 hectares, the Romanian authorities designated only 108 areas as special protection areas, covering an area of 2 998 700 hectares, only 38 of which were designated in their entirety as special protection areas.
   Moreover, 21 important bird areas, covering an area of 341 013 hectares, have yet to be designated as special protection areas in Romania and the area covered by 71 designated special protection areas differs significantly from the area covered by bird protection areas.
   In addition to the matters set out above, even though 71 important bird areas have not been registered in their entirety as special protection areas and 21 important bird areas were not included in the designation procedure, the Romanian authorities have failed to provide any inventory or any indication of the scientific methodology used which might justify such discrepancies between important bird areas and designated special protection areas.
   As a result of that failure properly to designate and the partial designation of the relevant important bird areas, there are no measures for the protection of the species referred to in Annex I to Directive 79/409/EEC or migratory species and, accordingly, there is infringement of Article 4(1) and (2) of the directive.
   The Commission is therefore of the view that, as a result of the failure to designate special protection areas in sufficient number and size, Romania has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and (2) of Directive 79/409/EEC.

      (1)  Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1).


title: Case C-259/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Rotterdam by interim decision of that court of 8 June 2005 in the criminal proceedings against OMNI Metal Service

text:
               1.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/3

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Rotterdam by interim decision of that court of 8 June 2005 in the criminal proceedings against OMNI Metal Service
   (Case C-259/05)
   (2005/C 243/05)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by interim decision of the Rechtbank Rotterdam of 8 June 2005, received at the Court Registry on 20 June 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings against OMNI Metal Service on the following questions:

               1.

               Can cable scrap such as that in issue in the present case (in part with a diameter of 15 cm) be classified as ‘electronic scrap (e.g. … wire, etc.)’ within the terms of Code GC 020 of the green list? (1)

               2.

               If the Court of Justice should answer Question 1 in the negative, can or must a combination of green list materials, which is not as such mentioned in the green list, be regarded as a green list material and may that combination of materials be transported for purposes of recovery without the notification procedure being applicable?

               3.

               Is it necessary in this connection that the waste materials be offered or transported separately?

      (1)  Annex II to Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community (OJ 1993 L 30, p. 1)


C 86/10                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                 27.3.1999
consequences provided for in Law No 88 of 16 March                      control of goods originating outside French territory, and
1988 (2)?                                                               thus constitute measures which are applicable with
                                                                        distinction' within the meaning of the Court's case-law.
(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1968(I), p. 176.
                                                                        Having regard to their nature and purpose, the provisions
(2) Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica Italiana No 69 of               at issue do not constitute an appropriate instrument for
    23.3.1988, Vol. V, p. 2469.                                         guaranteeing the safety of purchasers of spare parts for
                                                                        motor vehicles; moreover, the French authorities have
                                                                        produced no evidence showing that the goods withheld
                                                                        did in fact involve a risk to the safety and life of
                                                                        individuals. In any event, Article 36 of the Treaty cannot
                                                                        be relied on by a Member State with a view to protecting
                                                                        interests located on the territory of another Member State.
Action brought on 2 February 1999 by the Commission of
  the European Communities against the French Republic
                         (Case C-23/99)                                 The exclusive right conferred on the proprietor of rights in
                                                                        a design encompasses the manufacture and marketing of
                         (1999/C 86/19)                                 the goods in question on the national territory, and,
                                                                        having regard to the principle of the territoriality of
                                                                        industrial property rights, it cannot have the effect of
An action against the French Republic was brought before                protecting those rights on markets other than the national
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                     market. The mere transit through French territory of
2 February 1999 by the Commission of the European                       goods which have not been manufactured there and which
Communities, represented by Richard Wainwright,                         are not intended to be marketed there does not in itself
Principal Legal Adviser, and Olivier Couvert-CasteÂra, a                constitute an infringement of the exclusive right,
national civil servant on secondment to its Legal Service,              recognised under French law, held by the proprietor of the
acting as Agents, with an address for service in                        rights in a design.
Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
The Commission of the European Communities claims
that the Court should:
                                                                        Action brought on 1 February 1999 by the Commission of
Ð declare that, by implementing, pursuant to the Code                   the European Communities against the Federal Republic
     de la ProprieÂteÂ Intellectuelle (Intellectual Property                                     of Germany
     Code), procedures for the retention by the customs                                        (Case C-24/99)
     authorities of goods legally manufactured in a
     Member State of the European Community which are                                          (1999/C 86/20)
     intended, following their transit through French
     territory, to be placed on the market in another
     Member State where they may be legally marketed,
     the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations           An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
     under Article 30 of the EC Treaty;                                 brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                        Communities on 1 February 1999 by the Commission of
                                                                        the European Communities, represented by Götz zur
Ð order the French Republic to pay the costs.                           Hausen, Legal Adviser, of its Legal Service, with an
                                                                        address for service in Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos
                                                                        Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     C 254, Kirchberg.
Infringement of Articles 30 to 36 of the EC Treaty: the
legality, under Community law, of the retention by the                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
customs authorities in France of spare parts for motor
vehicles which have been manufactured in Spain and are
intended for the Italian market must be assessed solely by              1. Declare that, by providing, in Paragraph 3 of and
reference to the provisions of Articles 30 to 36 of the                     point 8 in the Annex to the Gesetz über die Umwelt-
Treaty, concerning the free movement of goods, since there                  verträglichkeitsprüfung (Law on the assessment of
has not yet been any harmonisation at Community level of                    effects on the environment) of 12 February 1990, in
the conditions and detailed rules governing the protection                  Paragraph 17 of the Fernstrassengesetz (Law on trunk
of designs for such parts. The French legislative provisions                roads) of 14 April 1994 and in Paragraph 8 of the
at issue in the present case concern the conferment on the                  Luftverkehrsgesetz (Law on air traffic) of 17 December,
French customs authorities of a power which they may                        that projects are in certain circumstances to be exempt
exercise in the context of the controls carried out by them.                from the obligation to carry out assessments of their
Those provisions specifically relate, therefore, to the                     effects on the environment, the Federal Republic of


title: Case T-360/99: Action brought on 24 December 1999 by Community Concepts AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
8.4.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 102/29
Grounds of claim:             — Infringement of Article 7(1)(b)         Goods or service con-         Goods and services in Classes 9
                                  of Regulation (EC) No 40/94           cerned:                       (including     recorded     storage
                                                                                media), 16 (including printing
                              — Incorrect      application      of                                    products), 41 (including pub-
                                  Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation                                       lishing services) and 42 (including
                                  (EC) No 40/94                                                       editing services)
                                                                        Decision        contested     Refusal of registration by the
                                                                        before the Board of           examiner
                                                                        Appeal:
                                                                        Grounds of claim:             — Infringement of Article 7(1)(b)
                                                                                of Regulation (EC) No 40/94
                                                                                — Incorrect       application    of
Action brought on 22 December 1999 by Telefon & Buch                                                      Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation
VerlagsgmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the                                                   (EC) No 40/94
         Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                        (Case T-358/99)
                        (2000/C 102/58)
                                                                        Action brought on 24 December 1999 by Community
                  (Language of the case: German)                        Concepts AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the
                                                                                Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                                  (Case T-360/99)
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
22 December 1999 by Telefon & Buch VerlagsgmbH, of                                              (2000/C 102/59)
Perchtoldsdorf (Republic of Austria), represented by Hans
Georg Zeiner and Brigitte Heaman-Dunn, Rechtsanwälte, of
Messrs Zeiner & Zeiner, Vienna, with an address for service in                            (Language of the case: German)
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Feider, of Messrs Beghin,
Feider, Allen & Overy, 56-58 Rue Charles Martel.                        An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                        Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
                                                                        Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             24 December 1999 by Community Concepts AG, of Munich
                                                                        (Federal Republic of Germany) (formerly: Touchdown
— amend the decision adopted on 21 October 1999 by the                  Gesellschaft für erfolgsorientiertes Marketing mbH), represent-
    Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in            ed by Friederike Bahr, Rechtsanwältin, of BBLP Beiten Burk-
    the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) in appeal             hardt Mittl & Wegener, Munich, with an address for service in
    No R 351/1999-3, in such a way that there are no                    Luxembourg at the Chambers of Messrs Decker, Braun &
    obstacles under Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of the Community            Wagner, 16 Avenue Marie-Thérèse.
    Trade Mark Regulation to registration of the Community
    trade mark UNIVERSALKOMMUNIKATIONSVERZEICH-                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
    NIS (application No 455873);
                                                                        — partially annul the decision adopted on 15 October
— alternatively, annul the decision adopted on 21 October                   1999 by the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for
    1999 by the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for                     Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
    Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and                   Designs) in case No R 204/1999-3;
    Designs) in appeal No R 351/1999-3;
                                                                        — order the defendant to pay the costs.
— order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        The trade mark con-           The verbal mark ‘investorworld’
                                                                        cerned:                       — application No 924670
The trade mark con-           verbal      mark      ‘UNIVERSAL-
cerned:                       KOMMUNIKATIONSVERZEICH-                   Goods or service con-         Goods and services in Class 36
                              NIS’ — application No 455873              cerned:                       (including insurance and finance)
 ---pagebreak--- C 102/30               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        8.4.2000
Decision         contested     Refusal of registration by the            In support of their application, the applicants put forward, in
before the Board of            examiner                                  essence, the following pleas:
Appeal:
Grounds of claim:              — Infringement of Article 7(1)(b)         — Breach of essential procedural requirements:
                                   of Regulation (EC) No 40/94
                               — Incorrect      application      of          The procedure conducted prior to the adoption of the
                                   Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation             contested decision was vitiated by substantive procedural
                                   (EC) No 40/94                             defects, since the Parliament’s Rules of Procedure were
                                                                             infringed in several instances.
                                                                         — Violation of the free exercise of the parliamentary mandate:
                                                                             The powers of investigation and seizure granted by
Action brought on 21 January 2000 by Willi Rothley and                       the contested decision implicitly extend to cover the
70 other Members of the European Parliament against the                      performance by Members of their duties, without any
                      European Parliament                                    criteria for such measures having been laid down with the
                                                                             requisite normative clarity and certainty. In addition, the
                          (Case T-17/00)                                     investigatory powers of the OLAF are disproportionate,
                                                                             since they may be exercised simply on the grounds of mere
                        (2000/C 102/60)                                      irregularities.
                                                                             The obligation, contained in Article 2(1) of the decision,
                   (Language of the case: German)                            to provide information in relation to any relevant miscon-
                                                                             duct, even of a non-criminal nature, means that the
An action against the European Parliament was brought before                 personnel of the Parliament and staff working for Members
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                   are required constantly to monitor the performance by
Willi Rothley and 70 other Members of the European Parlia-                   Members of their duties. This will encourage ‘snooping’
ment, represented by Hans-Jürgen Rabe and Georg M. Berrisch,                 and informing, thereby prejudicing the general ability of
Rechtsanwälte, of Gaedertz Rechtsanwälte, 35 Avenue de                       the Parliament to function.
Tervuren, Brussels.
The applicants claim that the Court should:                              — Infringement of parliamentary immunity:
— annul the European Parliament’s decision of 18 November
                                                                             Article 10 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities
    1999 amending the Rules of Procedure pursuant to the
                                                                             of the European Communities affords Members of the
    Interinstitutional Agreement of 25 May 1999 concerning
    internal investigations conducted by the European Anti-                  Parliament comprehensive immunity from criminal pros-
                                                                             ecution of any kind. Subparagraph (b) of Article 10, which,
    Fraud Office (OLAF);
                                                                             in contrast to subparagraph (a), does not refer to national
— order the defendant to pay the costs.                                      rights of immunity, creates a status of immunity specific
                                                                             to the Communities which also affords Members of the
                                                                             Parliament protection against the investigatory activities of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              the OLAF.
In adopting the contested decision, the European Parliament              — Infringement of the parliamentary right of inquiry:
has fulfilled its obligation under the Interinstitutional Agree-
ment. According to that agreement, each of the Community
institutions signatories thereto is required to bring into force,            The investigatory powers of the OLAF laid down in the
by means of the adoption of an internal decision, the                        contested decision and in the corresponding rules of
implementing rules necessary in order to ensure the smooth                   conduct imposed on Members infringe the parliamentary
operation of the internal investigations carried out by the                  right of inquiry provided for in the first paragraph of Article
OLAF. The action for annulment is directed, in particular,                   193 EC, which the Parliament exercises, in particular, by
against the obligations imposed on the applicants by the                     setting up temporary committees of inquiry. The work of
decision, requiring them to provide information, to offer                    those committees could be substantially hindered if it were
cooperation and to exercise tolerance in connection with the                 not possible for a committee of inquiry and its members
OLAF’s investigatory powers within the domain of the internal                to observe their duty of confidentiality when dealing
affairs of the Parliament. The applicants claim that those                   with the OLAF. In addition, this affects the institutional
obligations represent an impermissible restriction on their                  equilibrium between Community institutions. The Parlia-
status as Members of Parliament, particularly as regards the                 ment should not be subject to the supervisory power of
free exercise of their mandate and their immunity.                           the executive, of which the OLAF notionally forms part.


title: Case C-423/06: Action brought on 16 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/28

         Action brought on 16 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-423/06)
   (2006/C 326/58)
   Language of the case: Polish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Støvlbæk and K. Mojzesowicz, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by not adopting all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 74/556/EEC of 4 June 1974 laying down detailed provisions concerning transitional measures relating to activities, trade in and distribution of toxic products and activities entailing the professional use of such products including activities of intermediaries (1) or, in any event, not informing the Commission thereof, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of that directive;

               —

               order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The time-limit for transposition of Directive 74/556 expired on 30 June 2004.

      (1)  OJ No L 307, 18.11.1974, p. 1.


               17.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 229/11

         Removal from the register of Case C-326/04 (1)

   (2005/C 229/22)

      (Language of the case: Greek)

   By order of 12 May 2005 the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-326/04: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic.

      (1)  OJ C 239 of 25.09.2004.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 26 October 1999 in Case T-51/98: Ann Ruth Burrill and Alberto Noriega Guerra v Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Working conditions - Maternity leave - Shared between both parents)

text:
C 366/26                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                  18.12.1999
                                                          COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                         of 7 October 1999
                                                                                of 26 October 1999
in Case T-228/97: Irish Sugar plc v Commission of the
                    European Communities (1)
                                                                           in Case T-51/98: Ann Ruth Burrill and Alberto Noriega
                                                                             Guerra v Commission of the European Communities (1)
(Article 86 of the EC Treaty (now Article 82 EC) — Domi-
nant position and joint dominant position — Abuse — Fine)
                                                                           (Officials — Working conditions — Maternity leave —
                           (1999/C 366/56)                                                  Shared between both parents)
                    (Language of the case: English)                                                (1999/C 366/57)
In Case T-228/97: Irish Sugar plc, established in Carlow,
Ireland, represented by Alexander Böhlke, of the Brussels and
Frankfurt am Main Bars, and Scott Crosby, Solicitor, with an                                 (Language of the case: French)
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Victor
Elvinger, 31 Rue d’Eich v Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: Klaus Wiedner and Conor Quigley)
— application for the annulment of Commission Decision                     In Case T-51/98: Ann Ruth Burrill, an official of the Com-
97/624/EC of 14 May 1997 relating to a proceeding pursuant                 mission of the European Communities, and Alberto Noriega
to Article 86 of the EC Treaty (IV/34.621, 35.059/F-3 — Irish              Guerra, a member of the temporary staff of the Commission
Sugar plc) (OJ 1997 L 258, p. 1) or, in the alternative, for the           of the European Communities, residing at Rosières, Belgium,
annulment of the third and fourth paragraphs of Article 3 of               represented by Georges Vandersanden, Laure Levi and Marie-
the operative part of that decision, in so far as they contain             Ange Marx, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
instructions exceeding the scope of the abuses established in              Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue
points 5 and 6 of Article 1, and reduction of the fine imposed             de Cessange, v Commission of the European Communities
on the applicant by Article 2 of the operative part — the                  (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and Julian Currall), supported by
Court (Third Chamber), composed of: M. Jaeger, President,                  the Council of the European Union (Agents: Thérèse Blanchet
K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi, Judges; J. Palacio González, Adminis-           and Martin Bauer) — application for annulment of the
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 October               Commission’s decision of 24 February 1998 refusing the
1999, in which it:                                                         applicants’ request that part of the maternity leave provided
                                                                           for by Article 58 of the European Community Staff Regulations
1. Annuls Article 1(1) of the contested decision in so far as it finds     be shared between both parents such that, during the period
     that between 1986 and 1988 the applicant granted selectively          concerned, each parent would work half-time — the Court
     low prices to the customers of a French sugar importer;               of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of J.D. Cooke,
                                                                           President, R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; J. Palacio
                                                                           González, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment
2. Reduces the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 2 of the           on 26 October 1999, the operative part of which is as follows:
     contested decision to EUR 7 883 326;
3. Dismisses the remainder of the action;                                  1. The application is rejected.
4. Orders the applicant to pay its own costs and two thirds of the
     Commission’s costs;                                                   2. Each of the parties shall bear its own costs.
5. Orders the Commission to pay one third of its own costs.
                                                                           (1) OJ No C 184 of 13.6.1998.
(1) OJ No C 318 of 18.10.97.


title: Case T-503/09: Action brought on 16 December 2009 — Cybergun v OHIM — Umarex Sportwaffen (AK 47)

text:
               27.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/36

         Action brought on 16 December 2009 — Cybergun v OHIM — Umarex Sportwaffen (AK 47)
   (Case T-503/09)
   2010/C 51/69
   Language in which the application was lodged: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Cybergun (Bondoufle, France) (represented by: S. Guyot, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Umarex Sportwaffen GmbH & Co KG (Arnsberg, Germany).

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 October 2009 in so far as it declared the mark AK 47 invalid;

               —

               in accordance with Articles 87(2) and 92 of the Rules of Procedure, order OHIM to pay the costs including the costs incurred by the applicant for the purposes of the present procedure, in particular the costs associated with the translation of documents, lawyer’s fees, and, in so far as necessary, travel and hotel costs; the Court is asked to assess that sum at EUR 20 000

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: word mark ‘AK 47’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 28 and 38 (Community trade mark No 3 249 381)

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Cybergun

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: Umarex Sportwaffen GmbH & Co KG

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity of the trade mark at issue

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the decision of the Cancellation Division and declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 [now Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009] and Article 51(1) of Regulation No 40/94 [now Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009]


title: Case T-320/14: Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2015 — Sephora v OHIM — Mayfield Trading (Representation of two undulating vertical lines) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark representing two undulating vertical lines — National and international figurative marks representing an undulating vertical line — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               18.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/33

         Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2015 — Sephora v OHIM — Mayfield Trading (Representation of two undulating vertical lines)
   (Case T-320/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark representing two undulating vertical lines - National and international figurative marks representing an undulating vertical line - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 016/40)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Sephora (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: H. Delabarre, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Mayfield Trading Ltd (Las Vegas, Nevada, United States of America) (represented by: A. Tarí Lázaro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 February 2014 (Case R 1577/2013-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Sephora and Mayfield Trading Ltd.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Sephora to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 212, 7.7.2014.


title: Case F-17/11: Action brought on 22 April 2011 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               25.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 186/33

         Action brought on 22 April 2011 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-17/11)
   2011/C 186/60
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: A. Blot, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of decision of the defendant not to renew the applicant’s contract as a member of the contract staff.

      Form of order sought

               —

               annulment, primarily, of the decision not to renew the contract as a member of the contract staff, implied by the memorandum of 28 April 2010 and, where necessary, of the decision of ARCC rejecting the claim;

               —

               as a result, reinstate the applicant to his post;

               —

               order the defendant to pay, as reparation for material loss, a sum provisionally fixed at 27 000 Euros, to be increased by the statutory rate of interest applicable at the date of the judgement;

               —

               order the defendant to pay, as reparation for non-material loss, a sum fixed provisionally and ex aequo et bono at 15 000 Euros (fifteen thousand euros), to be increased by the statutory rate of interest applicable at the date of the judgement;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-320/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Regeringsrätten (Sweden) by order of that Court of 10 September 2002 in the case of Förvaltnings AB Stenholmen against Riksskatteverket

text:
9.11.2002             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 274/19
received at the Court Registry on 12 September 2002, for a            Action brought on 16 September 2002 by the Com-
preliminary ruling in the appeal brought by Petri Mikael              mission of the European Communities against the
Manninen on the following questions:                                                         Kingdom of Spain
1.   Is Article 56 of the Treaty establishing the European                                     (Case C-324/02)
     Community to be interpreted as precluding a corporation
     tax credit system like the Finnish one described above, in
     which the recipient of a dividend who is generally liable                                 (2002/C 274/32)
     to tax in Finland is granted a corporation tax credit in
     respect of a dividend paid by a domestic share company,
     but not in respect of dividend income he receives from a         An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
     share company registered in Sweden?                              the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 16 Sep-
                                                                      tember 2002 by the Commission of the European Communi-
2.   If the answer to the above question is in the affirmative,       ties, represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana, of its Legal
     may Article 58 EC be interpreted as meaning that the             Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
     provisions of Article 56 are without prejudice to Finland’s
     right to apply the relevant provisions of the Law on
     Corporation Tax Credits, since it is a condition for             The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:
     obtaining a corporation tax credit in Finland that the
     company distributing the dividend has paid the corre-            —     declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
     sponding tax or supplementary tax in Finland, which                    and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     does not take place with respect to a dividend paid from               Council Directive 1999/30/EC (1) of 22 April 1999
     abroad, in which case taxation is not even carried out                 relating to limit values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen
     once?                                                                  dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and
                                                                            lead in ambient air or, in any event, by failing to
                                                                            communicate such provisions to the Commission, the
                                                                            Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                            that directive;
                                                                      —     order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Regeringsrätten
(Sweden) by order of that Court of 10 September 2002 in               Pleas in law and main arguments
the case of Förvaltnings AB Stenholmen against Riksskat-
                            teverket
                                                                      The binding nature of the third paragraph of Article 249 EC
                                                                      and the first paragraph of Article 10 EC requires the Member
                        (Case C-320/02)                               States to adopt the measures necessary to implement the
                                                                      directives addressed to them before the expiry of the period
                                                                      prescribed for that purpose. The period in question expired on
                        (2002/C 274/31)
                                                                      19 July 2001 without Spain’s having introduced the necessary
                                                                      measures.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                (1 ) OJ L 163, 29.6.1999, p. 41.
European Communities by order of the Regeringsrätten
(Supreme Administrative Court) (Sweden) of 10 September
2002, received at the Court Registry on 13 September 2002,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Förvaltnings AB
Stenholmen against Riksskatteverket (National Tax Board) on
the following questions:
                                                                      Action brought on 17 September 2002 by the Com-
1.   Can an animal be considered to be second-hand goods?             mission of the European Communities against the
                                                                                Kingdom of Spain
     If that question is answered in the affirmative, the Court
     is asked to answer the following question.
                                                                                (Case C-326/02)
2.   Is an animal which is purchased from a private individual
     (rather than a breeder) and which is sold, after training,                                (2002/C 274/33)
     for a specific purpose to be considered to be second-hand
     goods?
                                                                      An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
                                                                      the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 Sep-


title: Case T-245/13: Action brought on 2 May 2013 — United Kingdom v Commission

text:
               29.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 189/27

         Action brought on 2 May 2013 — United Kingdom v Commission
   (Case T-245/13)
   2013/C 189/56
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: D. Wyatt, QC, V. Wakefield, Barrister, and C. Murrell, agent)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Commission Decision 2013/123/EU of 26 February 2013 excluding from EU financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States, to the extent of an entry in the Annex relating to a 5.19% extrapolated correction of expenditure incurred in Northern Ireland in Financial Year 2010 amounting to EUR 16 513 582,57 (see OJ 2013 L 67, p. 31); and

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the United Kingdom’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed errors of law and of fact, and failed to take into account considerations relevant to the scale of possible loss to EU funds in claim year 2009 resulting from errors in determination of eligible area in 2005 affecting the initial allocation of entitlements, and (in consequence) failed to take into account the fact that in the great majority of cases of over-payments to farmers the risk to the funds was a risk confined to approximately 22 % of expenditure, being the proportion of expenditure comprising the ‘area element’.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed errors of law and fact, in that it wrongly concluded that the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (‘DARD’) failed to apply, properly or at all, provisions on recoveries of undue payments, penalties, and intentional non compliance, and that the Commission thus overestimated and/or failed to take into account considerations relevant to the scale of possible loss to the EU funds. In particular, the Commission:

                           —

                           wrongly criticised an alleged «systematic» recalculation of payment entitlements by DARD;

                           —

                           wrongly claimed that errors in 2005 could have material effects on the historical element of the entitlement value;

                           —

                           adopted the wrong method of calculation of overpayments;

                           —

                           adopted the wrong approach to penalties, in particular by:

                                       —

                                       adopting the wrong method of calculating penalties; and

                                       —

                                       wrongly claiming that a penalty should be imposed for each year in cases where a penalty was applicable in 2005 but not in subsequent claim years, in this case in 2009, where over-payment resulted from the same error as that penalised in 2005;

                           —

                           adopted the wrong approach to intentional non-compliance.


title: Case T-181/16: Order of the General Court of 26 June 2017 — L'Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER PRECISE) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark MASTER PRECISE — Prior national figurative mark MASTERS COLORS PARIS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Action manifestly unfounded in law — Article 126 of the Rules of Procedure)

text:
               14.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/19

         Order of the General Court of 26 June 2017 — L'Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER PRECISE)
   (Case T-181/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark MASTER PRECISE - Prior national figurative mark MASTERS COLORS PARIS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Action manifestly unfounded in law - Article 126 of the Rules of Procedure))
   (2017/C 269/26)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: L'Oréal (Paris, France) (represented by: T. de Haan and P. Péters, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Guinot (Paris) (represented by: A. Sion, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 February 2016 (Case R 2911/2014-5) concerning opposition proceedings between Guinot and L’Oréal.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               L’Oréal shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 222, 20.6.2016.


title: Case T-530/14: Action brought on 11 July 2014  — Verein StHD v OHIM (Representation of a black ribbon)

text:
               8.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/54

         Action brought on 11 July 2014 — Verein StHD v OHIM (Representation of a black ribbon)
   (Case T-530/14)
   2014/C 303/64
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Verein Sterbehilfe Deutschland (Verein StHD) (Zurich, Switzerland) (represented by P. Brauns, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the partial rejection of Community trade mark application No 1 1 6 24  483 of 13 August 2013 and the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 5 May 2014 in case R 1940/2013-4;

               —

               order that Community trade mark application No 1 1 6 24  483 (also) for the following services be allowed to proceed to registration:

                           —

                           35: News clipping services; Dissemination of advertisements; Direct mail advertising;

                           —

                           41: Publication of books; General public information work on the subject of ‘dying’ by events such as seminars, speaking tours and other training courses; Publication and editing of printed material on the subject of ‘dying’;

                           —

                           44: Advisory services relating to pharmaceutics; Medical assistance; Advisory services relating to health; Nursing care; Therapy services; Services of a psychologist;

                           —

                           45: Personal and social services, provided by third parties, regarding individual needs, namely family support, clinic support, disabled support, assisted dying, end-of-life care, end-of-life care through counselling; comfort and assistance for those affected and helpers, general life counselling with particular regard to the subject of ‘dying’, day-services, night watches, around the clock care, Sunday and public holiday services, advisory services nationwide, nursing services nationwide;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of appeal proceedings R 1940/2013-4 and of the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark representing a black ribbon for services in classes 35, 41, 44 and 45 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 6 24  483

      Decision of the Examiner: Application rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law:

               —

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

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

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


title: Case C-201/15: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias — Greece) — Anonymi Geniki Etairia Tsimenton Iraklis (AGET Iraklis) v Ypourgos Ergasias, Koinonikis Asfalisis kai Koinonikis Allilengyis (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 98/59/EC — Approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies — Article 49 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 16 — Freedom to conduct a business — National legislation conferring upon an administrative authority the power to oppose collective redundancies after assessing the conditions in the labour market, the situation of the undertaking and the interests of the national economy — Acute economic crisis — Particularly high national unemployment rate)

text:
               20.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 53/10

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias — Greece) — Anonymi Geniki Etairia Tsimenton Iraklis (AGET Iraklis) v Ypourgos Ergasias, Koinonikis Asfalisis kai Koinonikis Allilengyis
   (Case C-201/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 98/59/EC - Approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies - Article 49 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 16 - Freedom to conduct a business - National legislation conferring upon an administrative authority the power to oppose collective redundancies after assessing the conditions in the labour market, the situation of the undertaking and the interests of the national economy - Acute economic crisis - Particularly high national unemployment rate))
   (2017/C 053/12)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Referring court

   Symvoulio tis Epikrateias

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Anonymi Geniki Etairia Tsimenton Iraklis (AGET Iraklis)

      Defendant: Ypourgos Ergasias, Koinonikis Asfalisis kai Koinonikis Allilengyis

      Intervener: Enosi Ergazomenon Tsimenton Chalkidas

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies must be interpreted as not precluding, in principle, national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which, if there is no agreement with the workers’ representatives on projected collective redundancies, an employer can effect such redundancies only if the competent national public authority which must be notified of the projected collective redundancies does not adopt, within the period prescribed by that legislation and after examining the documents in the file and assessing the conditions in the labour market, the situation of the undertaking and the interests of the national economy, a reasoned decision not to authorise some or all of the projected redundancies. The position is different, however, if — a matter which is, as the case may be, for the referring court to ascertain — in the light of the three assessment criteria to which that legislation refers and of the specific application of them by the public authority, subject to review by the courts having jurisdiction, that legislation proves to have the consequence of depriving the provisions of that directive of their practical effect.
               Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, national legislation such as that referred to in the first sentence of the first paragraph of this point.

               2.

               The fact that the context in a Member State may be one of acute economic crisis and a particularly high unemployment rate is not such as to affect the answers set out in point 1 of this operative part.

      (1)  OJ C 221, 6.7.2015.


title: Joined Cases T-42/12 and T-181/12: Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Bateni v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted against Iran in order to prevent nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
               19.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 304/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Bateni v Council
   (Joined Cases T-42/12 and T-181/12) (1)

   (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Iran in order to prevent nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Manifest error of assessment)
   2013/C 304/30
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Naser Bateni (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: J. Kienzle, M. Schlingmann and F. Lautenschlager, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop, J.-P. Hix and Z. Kupčová, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   In Case T-42/12, application for annulment of Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71), in so far as it included the applicant in the list set out in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11), in so far as it included the applicant in Annex VIII to Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1), and, in Case T-181/12, application for annulment of Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1), in so far as the applicant’s name has been maintained in the list of persons, entities and bodies whose assets have been frozen.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Joins Cases T-42/12 and T-181/12 for the purposes of the judgment;

               2.

               Rules that, in Case T-42/12, there is no further need to adjudicate on the application for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as it concerns Mr Naser Bateni;

               3.

               Annuls Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as it included Mr Bateni in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP;

               4.

               Annuls Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 in so far as it concerns Mr Bateni;

               5.

               Upholds the effects of Decision 2010/413/CFSP, as amended by Decision 2011/783, as regards Mr Bateni, since its entry into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union until the annulment in part of Regulation No 267/2012 takes effect;

               6.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs incurred by Mr Bateni and to bear its own costs;

               7.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 98, 31.3.2012.


title: Case T-135/14: Action brought on 20 February 2014 — Kicktipp v OHIM — Società Italiana Calzature (kicktipp)

text:
               5.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 135/54

         Action brought on 20 February 2014 — Kicktipp v OHIM — Società Italiana Calzature (kicktipp)
   (Case T-135/14)
   2014/C 135/70
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Kicktipp GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: A. Dreyer, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Società Italiana Calzature Srl (Milan, Italy)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 December 2013 given in Case R 1061/2012-2;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘kicktipp’ for goods and services in Classes 25, 35, 38 and 41 — Community trade mark application No 8 874 281

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Italian trademarks Nos 348 149, 905 554, 905 554 for goods in Class 25

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) CTMR.


title: Case C-514/04: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 July 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Uroplasty BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst — Douanedistrict Rotterdam (Tariff classification — Sterile flakes of polydimethilsiloxane — Silicone elastomer — Meaning of primary form — Medicament — Packaging — Meaning of appliance implanted in the body )

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/8

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 July 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Uroplasty BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst — Douanedistrict Rotterdam
   (Case C-514/04) (1)

   (Tariff classification - Sterile flakes of polydimethilsiloxane - Silicone elastomer - Meaning of ‘primary form’ - Medicament - Packaging - Meaning of ‘appliance implanted in the body’)
   (2006/C 224/13)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Gerechtshof te Amsterdam
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Uroplasty BV

      Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst — Douanedistrict Rotterdam
   Re:
   Preliminary ruling — Gerechtshof te Amsterdam — Tariff classification of the product Macroplastic implant — Injectable sterile suspension of solid particles of silicone elastomer for the treatment of vesicoureteral (or vesicorenal) reflux
   Operative part of the judgment
   Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2388/2000 of 13 October 2000, is to be interpreted as meaning that a product, such as the polydimethilsiloxane, made up of sterile flakes, specially developed and intended only to be implanted in the body for the treatment of a condition and which is packaged at the time of its presentation to customs in 1 kg bags, is to be regarded as an appliance to be implanted in the body which must be classified under heading 9021 of the Combined Nomenclature. Since the purpose of such a product is not to replace an organ but to enable a defective muscle to create connective tissues, it must be classified under subheading 9021 90 90 of the Combined Nomenclature.

      (1)  OJ C 57, 5.3.2005.


title: Case T-702/13: Action brought on 30 December 2013 — Unicaja Banco v Commission

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/46

         Action brought on 30 December 2013 — Unicaja Banco v Commission
   (Case T-702/13)
   2014/C 52/89
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Unicaja Banco, SA (Malaga, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, R. Calvo Salinero, A. Lamadrid de Pablo and A. Biondi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision in so far as it categorises the measures which, according to the decision, together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as beneficiaries of the alleged aid and as the sole addressees of the order for recovery;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid;

               —

               annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of the private contracts between the investors and other entities; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are those put forward in Case T-700/13 Bankia v Commission.


title: Joined Cases C-39/05 P and C-52/05 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 1 July 2008 — Kingdom of Sweden, Maurizio Turco v Council of the European Union, Kingdom of Denmark, Republic of Finland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Commission of the European Communities (Appeals — Access to documents of the institutions — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Legal opinion)

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 1 July 2008 — Kingdom of Sweden, Maurizio Turco v Council of the European Union, Kingdom of Denmark, Republic of Finland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Commission of the European Communities
   (Joined Cases C-39/05 P and C-52/05 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Access to documents of the institutions - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Legal opinion)
   (2008/C 209/02)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellants: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: K. Wistrand and A. Falk, acting as Agents) Maurizio Turco (represented by: O.Brouwer and C. Schillemans, advocaten)

      Intervener in support of the appellant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: H.G. Sevenster, C.M. Wissels and M. de Grave, acting as Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-C. Piris, M. Bauer and B. Driessen, acting as Agents) Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: B. Weis Fogh, acting as Agent), Republic of Finland (represented by: A. Guimaraes-Purokoski and J. Heliskoski, acting as Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: V. Jackson, S. Nwaokolo and T. Harris, acting as Agents, and J. Stratford, Barrister), Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Petite, C. Docksey and P. Aalto, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) in Case T-84/03 Turco v Council, by which the Court of First Instance dismissed the action brought in that case for the annulment of the Council's decision refusing, in part, Mr Turco's application for access to certain documents appearing on the agenda of the 2455th meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Council of 14 and 15 October 2002
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 23 November 2004 in Case T-84/03 Turco v Council in so far as it relates to the decision of the Council of the European Union of 19 December 2002 refusing Mr Turco access to opinion No 9077/02 of the Council's legal service concerning a proposal for a Council directive laying down minimum standards for the reception of applicants for asylum in Member States and orders Mr Turco and the Council each to pay half of the costs;

               2.

               Annuls the decision of the Council of the European Union of 19 December 2002 refusing Mr Turco access to opinion No 9077/02 of the Council's legal service;

               3.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs incurred by the Kingdom of Sweden in the appeal proceedings and those incurred by Mr Turco in the appeal proceedings and the proceedings at first instance which resulted in that judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities;

               4.

               Orders the Kingdom of Denmark, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Finland, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities to bear their own costs relating to the appeal;

               5.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs relating to the proceedings at first instance.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 30.4.2005.


title: Case T-43/06: Action brought on  19 February 2006  — Cofira SAC v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               8.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/37

         Action brought on 19 February 2006 — Cofira SAC v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-43/06)
   (2006/C 86/74)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Cofira SAC (Rousset Cedex, France) (represented by: Girolamo Addessi, Leonilda Mari, Daniella Magurno, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

               —

               annul the fine imposed on Cofira SAC;

               —

               impose the fines jointly and severally on all the companies that came into existence upon the demerger of Cofira Sepso;

               —

               reduce the amount of the fine;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Article 1 of the contested decision states that certain undertakings, including the applicant, infringed Community competition rules during the period from 24 March 1982 to 26 June 2002 by participating in agreements and concerted practices in the industrial plastic bag sector in Belgium, Germany, Spain, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. According to the defendant, the purpose of those infringements was to fix prices, implement common models, calculate prices, share markets, allocate sales quotas, customers, business and orders, collude in undermining certain invitations to tender and exchange individual information.
   In support of its claims, the applicant maintains first and foremost that the decision should not have been addressed to it.
   In this regard, it is pointed out that on 27 November 2003 COFIRA SEPSO, which, along with other concerns, was investigated, was split into three companies, one of them being the applicant. COFIRA SAC therefore came into existence after the occurrence of the events which gave rise to the imposition of penalties by the Commission.
   The contested decision does not even state the grounds on which the fine was imposed on the applicant alone, when all of the companies which came into existence as a result of the demerger of COFIRA SEPSO should have been required to answer for the wrongful acts alleged.
   Nor does the decision state the basis on which the total amount of the fine was calculated, bearing in mind the fact that fines are commensurate to turnover and that at the time of the alleged events the applicant did not have any turnover as it did not exist.
   Furthermore, the Commission does not set out the elements of fact which constituted the infringement. In fact, the whole decision is based on the assumption that the meetings between the representatives of the companies amounted, subsequently and in fact, to conduct contrary to Article 81 EC, and that such practices had a significant impact on competition. However, even if the facts relied on by the Commission were accepted, the fifteen year limitation period has expired.


title: Case C-221/02: Action brought on 14 June 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
27.7.2002                 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 180/17
2.    Do Directive 79/112/EEC or Articles 28 and 30 EC                    The obligation on the part of the United Kingdom to take
      preclude a national provision which, on the placing into            measures in order to comply with the directive for the entirety
      circulation of foodstuffs, permits health-related infor-            of its territory is not disputed.
      mation such as that described in Question (1) to be
      affixed thereto only after prior authorisation by the
      competent federal minister, whereby a condition of
      authorisation is that the health-related information is             Since the United Kingdom has not informed the Commission
      consistent with protecting the consumer from being                  of the provisions adopted to comply with the directive with
      misled?                                                             regard to Gibraltar, and since the Commission is in possession
                                                                          of no other information enabling it to conclude that the United
                                                                          Kingdom has adopted the necessary provisions, it is compelled
(1) OJ L 33, p. 1.                                                        to assume that the United Kingdom has not yet adopted such
                                                                          provisions and has thus failed to fulfil its obligations under the
                                                                          directive.
                                                                          (1) OJ L 159 of 29.6.1996, p. 1.
Action brought on 12 June 2002 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the United Kingdom
             of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
                           (Case C-218/02)
                           (2002/C 180/28)
                                                                          Action brought on 14 June 2002 by the Commission of
                                                                           the European Communities against the French Republic
An action against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of
the European Communities on 12 June 2002 by the Com-                                                (Case C-221/02)
mission of the European Communities, represented by Thomas
Cusack, acting as agent, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.                                                                                (2002/C 180/29)
The Applicant claims that the Court should:
(1) declare that by failing to adopt for Gibraltar all the laws,
      regulations or administrative provisions necessary to               An action against the French Republic was brought before the
      comply with Council Directive 96/29/Euratom (1) of                  Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 June
      13 May 1996 laying down basic safety standards for the              2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
      protection of the health of workers and the general public          represented by D. Martin and M. França, acting as Agent, with
      against the dangers arising from ionizing radiation in its          an address for service in Luxembourg.
      whole territory, or in any event by failing to communicate
      them to the Commission, the United Kingdom has failed
      fully to fulfil its obligations under that Directive.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
(2) order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.
                                                                          —     Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
                                                                                within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
                                                                                administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 Directive 98/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the
                                                                                Council of 16 February 1998 amending Directive 87/
                                                                                102/EEC for the approximation of the laws, regulations
According to Article 192(1) of the Treaty, Member States shall                  and administrative provisions of the Member States
take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular,                   concerning consumer credit (1), or, in any event, by failing
to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty               to communicate such provisions to the Commission, the
or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the                       French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Community.                                                                      that directive;
 ---pagebreak--- C 180/18                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      27.7.2002
—     Order the French Republic to pay the costs.                         Action brought on 18 June 2002 by the Commission of
                                                                          the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
                                                                                Luxembourg
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Case C-228/02)
The period prescribed for transposition expired on 21 August                                        (2002/C 180/31)
2001.
(1) OJ L 101, 1.4.1998, p. 17.
                                                                          An action against The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                                                          brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties on 18 June 2002 by the Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities, represented by Denis Martin and Miguel França,
                                                                          acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
Action brought on 18 June 2002 by the Commission of                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
                             Luxembourg                                   —     Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force the
                                                                                laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary
                           (Case C-227/02)                                      to comply with Directive 97/7/EC of the European
                                                                                Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 1997 on
                                                                                the protection of consumers in respect of distance
                           (2002/C 180/30)                                      contracts (1), or, in any event, by failing to communicate
                                                                                to the Commission the adoption of such provisions, the
                                                                                Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
                                                                                obligations under that directive;
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-              —     Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
ties on 18 June 2002 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Denis Martin and Miguel França,
of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service
in Luxembourg.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          The period prescribed for transposition expired on 4 June
1.    Declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws,              2000.
      regulations and administrative provisions needed in order
      to comply with Directive 97/55/EC (1) of the European
                                                                          (1) OJ 1997 L 144, p. 19.
      Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 1997
      amending Directive 84/450/EEC (2) concerning mislead-
      ing advertising so as to include comparative advertising,
      or, in any event, by failing to have informed the
      Commission of any such laws, regulations or administrat-
      ive provisions, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has
      failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.
                                                                          Action brought on 21 June 2002 by French Republic
2.    Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
                                                                              against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case C-233/02)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (2002/C 180/32)
The period prescribed for transposition expired on 23 April
2000.
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
(1) OJ L 290, 23.10.1997, p. 18.                                          ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
(2) OJ L 250, 19.9.1984, p. 17.                                           Communities on 21 June 2002 by the French Republic,
                                                                          represented by R. Abraham, G. de Bergues and P. Boussaroque,
                                                                          acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.


title: Case T-258/13: Judgment of the General Court of 16 April 2015 — Matratzen Concord v OHIM — KBT (ARKTIS) (Community trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Community word mark ARKTIS — Genuine use of the mark — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Form of use of the mark — Proof use for the registered goods — Consent of the trade mark owner)

text:
               8.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/12

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 April 2015 — Matratzen Concord v OHIM — KBT (ARKTIS)
   (Case T-258/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Community word mark ARKTIS - Genuine use of the mark - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Form of use of the mark - Proof use for the registered goods - Consent of the trade mark owner))
   (2015/C 190/14)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Matratzen Concord GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: I. Selting and J. Mertens, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: KBT & Co. Ernst Kruchen agenzia commerciale sociétá in accomandita (Locarno, Switzerland) (represented by: K. Schulze Horn, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 March 2013 (Case R 2133/2011-4) relating to revocation proceedings between Matratzen Concord GmbH and KBT & Co. Ernst Kruchen agenzia commerciale sociétá in accomandita.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Matratzen Concord GmbH to pay the costs including the expenses necessarily incurred by KBT & Co. Ernst Kruchen agenzia commerciale sociétá in accomandita for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

      (1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.