title: Case C-158/09: Action brought on 7 May 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/26

         Action brought on 7 May 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-158/09)
   2009/C 180/45
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: I. Martinez del Peral Cagigal and M. van Beek, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that by failing to adopt the legislative or regulatory measures necessary to transpose Directive 2003/88/EC (1) in respect of non-civilian personnel in public authorities, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 1(3) of Directive 2003/88/EC, and under Article 18(a) of Directive 93/104/EC (2) retained by Article 27(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC in conjunction with Annex I, part B, to that directive;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The purpose of Directive 2003/88/EC is to lay down minimum safety and health requirements for the organisation of working time. As a codifying directive it replaces Directive 93/104/EC without prejudice to the obligations of the Member States in respect of the deadlines for transposition.
   The transposition measures for Directive 2003/88/EC notified to the Commission by the Spanish authorities do not include the legislative or regulatory measures necessary for the transposition of the directive in respect of non-civilian personnel in public authorities.
   Article 1(3) of Directive 2003/88/EC provides that that directive is to apply to all sectors of activity, both public and private, within the meaning of Article 2 of Directive 89/391/EEC (3) which contains certain exceptions on account of characteristics peculiar to certain specific public service activities, such as the armed forces or the police, or to certain specific activities in the civil protection services. In accordance with the case-law of the Court of Justice, the criterion used by the Community legislature to determine the scope of application of Directive 89/391/EEC is not based on the fact of the workers belonging to the specific sectors of activity referred to in Article 2, considered as a whole, but rather is based exclusively on the specific nature of certain special tasks carried out by the workers in those sectors.
   Consequently, the applicant takes the view that there is no doubt that Directive 2003/88/EC applies to non-civilian personnel in public authorities and, within that sector, to the Guardia Civil (Civil Guard), as a consequence of which the failure to take the necessary transposition measures in that area constitutes an infringement of that directive.

      (1)  Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9).

      (2)  Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 1993 L 307, p. 18).

      (3)  Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (OJ 1989 L 183, p. 1).


title: Case T-66/06: Action brought on  23 February 2006  — JM Gesellschaft für industrielle Beteiligungen v Commission

text:
               22.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/26

         Action brought on 23 February 2006 — JM Gesellschaft für industrielle Beteiligungen v Commission
   (Case T-66/06)
   (2006/C 96/44)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: JM Gesellschaft für industrielle Beteiligungen mbH & Co. KGaA (Worms, Germany) (represented by: H.-J. Hellmann, lawyer)

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

               —

               annul the defendant's decision of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case C(2005) 4635 final, COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags), served on the applicant on 14 December 2005, in so far as it concerns the latter;
               in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed jointly and severally on the applicant;

               —

               order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant challenges Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 in Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags. In the contested decision a fine was imposed jointly and severally on RKW AG Rheinische Kunststoffwerke (RKW) and the applicant for infringement of Article 81 EC. According to the Commission, they participated in a complex of agreements and concerted practices in the industrial bags sector in Belgium, Germany, Spain, France, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.
   In support of its action the applicant submits that the contested decision infringes the duty of administrative authorities to comply strictly with the law. The defendant held the applicant jointly and severally liable with RKW without a legal basis or enabling act permitting it to do so.
   In addition, the applicant complains that it was also held liable for RKW's infringement. The conditions developed by the Court of Justice for such liability were not satisfied. Further, the applicant claims that, in holding it liable for RKW's infringement, the duty of administrative authorities to comply strictly with the law has been infringed since the defendant's method of levying fines does not fall within the scope of the enabling provision, namely Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 (1). In that regard, the applicant also claims that the principles of equal treatment and proportionality have been infringed.
   In addition, the applicant complains that Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 and the guidelines on fixing fines have been misapplied. In particular, the submission and evaluation of the evidence in relation to RKW was irregular. Furthermore, in view of previous administrative practice RKW was disproportionately fined. As regards the amount of the initial sum for the gravity of the infringement, the applicant alleges that RKW was treated unequally, in several respects, in relation to the other parties to which the contested decision was also addressed. In addition, the applicant claims that the Commission erred in law with regard to the assessment of the duration of the infringement and did not take mitigating circumstances into account in respect of RKW. Finally, the applicant submits that Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 has also been infringed as the fine was wrongly fixed in relation to RKW in the light of the application of the Notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines.

      (1)  Council Regulation No 17: First Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty (OJ, English Special Edition 1959-1962, p. 87).


title: Case C-119/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany), lodged on 6 March 2012 — Josef Probst v mr.nexnet GmbH

text:
               16.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 174/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany), lodged on 6 March 2012 — Josef Probst v mr.nexnet GmbH
   (Case C-119/12)
   2012/C 174/21
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant on a point of law: Josef Probst

      Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: mr.nexnet GmbH

      Question referred

   Does Article 6(2) and (5) of Directive 2002/58/EC (1) permit the passing of traffic data from the service provider to the assignee of a claim for payment in respect of telecommunications services in the case where the assignment effected with a view to the collection of transferred debts includes, in addition to the general obligation to respect the privacy of telecommunications and to ensure data protection as provided for under the applicable legislation, the following contractual stipulations:

               the service provider and the assignee undertake to process and use the protected data only within the framework of their cooperation and exclusively for the purpose of the contract and in the manner prescribed therein;

               as soon as the information in the protected data is no longer required for such purpose, all protected data held in that connection are to be irreversibly erased or returned;

               each contracting party is entitled to check that the other party has ensured data protection and data security in accordance with this agreement;

               confidential documents and information transferred may be made accessible only to such employees as require these for the purposes of performing the contract;

               the contracting parties are to require those employees to maintain confidentiality in accordance with this agreement;

               on request, or at the latest on termination of the cooperation between the contracting parties, all confidential data held in that connection are to be irreversibly erased or returned to the other party?

      (1)  Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications) (OJ 2002 L 201, p. 37).


title: Case C-458/09P: Appeal brought on 20 November 2009 by the Italian Republic against the judgment delivered on 4 September 2009 in Case T-211/05 Italy v Commission

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/34

         Appeal brought on 20 November 2009 by the Italian Republic against the judgment delivered on 4 September 2009 in Case T-211/05 Italy v Commission
   (Case C-458/09P)
   2010/C 24/63
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               allow the present appeal;

               —

               set aside the judgment of 4 September 2009 in Case T-211/05 Italy v Commission, notified by registered letter No 405966 of 4 September 2009, received on 8 September 2009, and as a consequence annul Decision 2006/261/EC of 16 March 2005 (notified under document number C(2005) 591) on aid scheme C 8/2004 (ex NN 164/2003) implemented by Italy in favour of newly listed companies.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

    Infringement of Articles 10 and 13 of Regulation No 659/99 (1) (“Procedure regarding unlawful aid”), Article 88(2) EC and the principle of audi alteram partem. Manifest error of assessment of documents.
   The Court of First Instance held that the letters of October and December 2003 from the Commission to Italy embodied a genuine preliminary discussion of the measures introduced by Decree Law 326/2003. The Court of First Instance did not regard those letters as consisting merely in general requests and in the negative assertion that the possibility could not be ruled out that the measures might entail State aid incompatible with the common market.
    Breach of the principle of audi alteram partem.
   In the decision initiating the formal investigation, the Commission had taken the fact that the tax concessions provided for were not available to companies established outside Italy as an indication that the measures were selective. In the final decision, on the other hand, the Commission held that the measures were selective because the tax concessions mainly favoured Italian undertakings — since they applied to their worldwide taxable income — as compared with Community companies, which are taxed in Italy only on the taxable income generated in that Member State. The Commission never warned the Italian Government of that change of approach and did not enable it to submit observations in that regard. The Court of First Instance erred in holding that the conduct of the Commission was lawful.
    Infringement of Article 87(1) EC.
   In any case, an advantage, such as the tax concession at issue, cannot be regarded as selective where it is available to all companies — whether Italian or Community — which meet the conditions for being listed on a regulated market of the European Union. The fact that Italian companies reap a greater benefit is a consequence of the tax system, which provides that taxation is to be based on the criterion of residence; however, when all companies are on an equal footing in relation to the tax measure in question, the mere fact that some benefit more than others cannot mean that the tax measure is selective. The Court of First Instance erred in holding that even such a difference can amount to selectivity.
    Infringement of Article 87(1) EC. Failure to state adequate reasons.
   The Court of First Instance erred in regarding the measure as selective in so far as it is not available to all companies. It is in fact available to all companies which meet the requirements for being listed on a regulated market. Furthermore, the decision to seek listing entails structural burdens of the highest order, which non-listed companies do not have to bear. The choice of listed companies is based on those objective criteria, and the advantage is consistent with and linked to the different situation — in terms of structural costs — in which the two categories of company are placed. That means that the measure is of general application and non-selective. The reasoning of the Court of First Instance, however, did not adequately address the evidence provided by Italy in that regard.
    Infringement of Article 87(1) EC.
   The Court of First Instance erred in holding that the measures are in any event selective on account of their brief duration, which means that companies which decide to seek listing at a later date are excluded. The temporary nature of the tax concession can be explained by the need for budget balances and the experimental nature of the measures; however, that does not affect their structure, which is the sole criterion on the basis of which their selectivity or non-selectivity falls to be determined.
    Infringement of Article 87(3)(c) EC. Failure to state adequate reasons.
   The measures, even if they are regarded as State aid, are compatible with the common market under Article 87(3)(c) EC, since they constitute investment aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities. The Court of First Instance erred in regarding the measures as operating aid, disregarding the ongoing character of the effects produced by listing on the structure and operating effectiveness of the companies, and in not holding that the increase in listings on regulated markets is an activity considered worthy of fostering, even at Community level. The Court of First Instance should therefore have criticised the Commission for exercising its discretion in the matter without taking as a basis a correct assessment of the facts.

      (1)  OJ L 83, 27.3.1999, p. 1.


title: Case T-173/08: Action brought on 13 May 2008 — Messe Düsseldorf v OHIM — Canon Communications (MEDTEC)

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/43

         Action brought on 13 May 2008 — Messe Düsseldorf v OHIM — Canon Communications (MEDTEC)
   (Case T-173/08)
   (2008/C 171/83)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Messe Düsseldorf GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: I. Friedhoff, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Canon Communications LLC (Los Angeles, United States)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 March 2008 in case R 0989/2005-1; and

               —

               order OHIM/the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘MEDTEC’ for goods and services in classes 16, 35 and 41 — application No 2 885 853

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

      Mark or sign cited: The national word trade mark ‘Metec’ for goods and services in classes 16, 35, 37, 38, 41 and 42; the international word trade mark ‘Metec’ for goods and services in classes 16, 35, 37, 38, 41 and 42

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition with respect to all goods and services

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the contested decision and rejection of the opposition in its entirety

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal was incorrect to allow the appeal and to state that there is no similarity between the trade marks; infringement of Article 62 of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal rendered a decision on facts which were not subject to appeal.


title: Case F-93/10: Action brought on 4 October 2010 — Blessemaille v Parliament

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/61

         Action brought on 4 October 2010 — Blessemaille v Parliament
   (Case F-93/10)
   ()
   2010/C 328/100
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Philippe Blessemaille (Remich, Luxembourg) (represented by: E. Boigelot and S. Woog, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the defendant’s decision not to include the applicant on the list of officials promoted to grade AST 8 under the 2009 promotion procedure and for compensation in respect of the non-material damage suffered

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Parliament, published on 2 December 2009, not to include the applicant on the list of officials promoted from grade AST 7 to grade AST 8 under the 2009 promotion procedure;

               —

               As a result of that annulment, carry out a new comparative examination of the merits of the applicant and the other candidates under the 2008 and 2009 promotion procedures and accord to the applicant the promotion to grade AST 8 with retroactive effect as from 1 January 2008 as well the payment of interest on arrears of remuneration as from 1 January 2008 at two points above the European Central Bank rate for main refinancing operations, without, however, calling into question the promotions of the other officials promoted;

               —

               Order the Parliament to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 3 500 as compensation for the non-material damage suffered as a result of his not being promoted on 1 January 2008, subject to the possibility of an increase in the course of the proceedings;

               —

               In the alternative, if the Tribunal should take the view that the promotion to grade AST 8 cannot take effect before 1 January 2009, order the Parliament to pay additional damages as compensation for material damage of an amount corresponding to the difference in salary between that actually received in 2008 and that which should have been received in 2008 following the promotion on 1 January 2008, and calculated in respect of the period either from 1 January to 31 December 2008 or from 1 January to 31 August 2008, depending on the date on which the disputed promotion is deemed to have taken effect (respectively 1 January 2009 or 1 September 2008);

               —

               Order the Parliament to pay the costs.


title: Joined Cases C-14/06 and C-295/06: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 1 April 2008 — European Parliament (C-14/06), Kingdom of Denmark (C-295/06) v Commission of the European Communities (Directive 2002/95/EC — Electrical and electronic equipment — Restriction of use of certain hazardous substances — Decabromodiphenyl ether ( DecaBDE ) — Commission Decision 2005/717/EC — Exemption of DecaBDE from the prohibition on use — Actions for annulment — Commission's implementing powers — Infringement of the enabling provision)

text:
               9.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 116/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 1 April 2008 — European Parliament (C-14/06), Kingdom of Denmark (C-295/06) v Commission of the European Communities
   (Joined Cases C-14/06 and C-295/06) (1)

   (Directive 2002/95/EC - Electrical and electronic equipment - Restriction of use of certain hazardous substances - Decabromodiphenyl ether (‘DecaBDE’) - Commission Decision 2005/717/EC - Exemption of DecaBDE from the prohibition on use - Actions for annulment - Commission's implementing powers - Infringement of the enabling provision)
   (2008/C 116/04)
   Languages of the case: English and Danish
   Parties

      Applicants: European Parliament, (represented by: K. Bradley, A. Neergaard and I. Klavina, Agents) (C-14/06), Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: J. Molde, B. Weis Fogh and J. Bering Liisberg, Agents) (C-295/06)

      Interveners in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Denmark (Case C-14/06), (represented by: J. Molde, B. Weis Fogh and J. Bering Liisberg, Agents), Portuguese Republic, (represented by: L. Fernandes and M.J. Lois, Agents), Republic of Finland, (represented by: A. Guimaraes-Purokoski, Agent), Kingdom of Sweden, (represented by: A. Kruse, Agent), Kingdom of Norway, (represented by: I. Djupvik, K. Waage and K.B. Moen, Agent, and by E. Holmedal, advokat)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by X. Lewis, M. Konstantinidis and H. Støvlbæk, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by V. Jackson, Agent, and by J. Maurici, Barrister)
   Re:
   Annulment of the Commission Decision of 13 October 2005 amending for the purposes of adapting to the technical progress the Annex to Directive 2002/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003, on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (notified under document number C(2005) 3754) (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2005 L 271, p. 48) — Exemption of decabromodiphenyl ether (‘DecaBDE’) from the marketing prohibition imposed by Article 4(1) of Directive 2002/95/EC without respecting the conditions laid down by Article 5(1) of that directive
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Point 2 of the Annex to Commission Decision 2005/717/EC of 13 October 2005 amending for the purposes of adapting to technical progress the Annex to Directive 2002/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment;

               2.

               Declares that the effects of point 2 of the Annex to Decision 2005/717 are maintained until 30 June 2008 inclusive;

               3.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs of the European Parliament and those of the Kingdom of Denmark in Case C-295/06;

               4.

               Orders the Kingdom of Denmark, in Case C-14/06, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Sweden, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Kingdom of Norway to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 86, 8.4.2006.


title: Case C-51/07: Action brought on 5 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               24.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/11

         Action brought on 5 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-51/07)
   (2007/C 69/24)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Condou-Durande, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/110/EC of 25 November 2003 on assistance in cases of transit for the purposes of removal by air (1) and, in any event, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for transposition of Directive 2003/110/EC expired on 5 December 2005.

      (1)  OJ L 321, 6.12.2003, p. 26.


title: Case C-186/14 P: Appeal brought on 14 April 2014 by ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Ostrava a.s. and others against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 29 January 2014 in Case T-528/09: Hubei Xinyegang Steel Co. Ltd v Council of the European Union

text:
               7.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/16

         Appeal brought on 14 April 2014 by ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Ostrava a.s. and others against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 29 January 2014 in Case T-528/09: Hubei Xinyegang Steel Co. Ltd v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-186/14 P)
   2014/C 212/18
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Ostrava a.s., ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Roman SA, Benteler Deutschland GmbH, formerly Benteler Stahl//Rohr GmbH, Ovako Tube & Ring AB, Rohrwerk Maxhütte GmbH, TMK-Artrom SA, Silcotub SA, Dalmine SpA, Tubos Reunidos, SA, Vallourec Oil and Gas France, formerly Vallourec Mannesmann Oil & Gas France, Vallourec Tubes France, formerly V & M France, Vallourec Deutschland GmbH, formerly V & M Deutschland GmbH, voestalpine Tubulars GmbH, Železiarne Podbrezová a.s. (represented by: Dr G. Berrisch, Rechtsanwalt, B. Byrne, Solicitor)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Hubei Xinyegang Steel Co. Ltd, Council of the European Union, European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The Appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2014 in Case T-528/09;

               —

               dismiss the first part of the third plea at first instance;

               —

               refer the case back to the General Court as to the remainder of the action;

               —

               order Hubei Xinyegang Steel Co. Ltd to pay the Appellants’ costs of this Appeal and of the procedure in Case T-528/09 in the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Appellants submit that the General Court committed three errors of law.
   First, the General Court misinterpreted Article 3(7) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation (1) by holding that the institutions were not entitled to take into account that the situation of unusually high demand would likely come to an end and that in a situation of ‘normal’ demand, the true injurious effects of the dumped imports will be revealed and that the institutions had attributed the effects of a contraction in demand to the dumped imports.
   Second, the General Court misapplied Article 3(9) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation and violated Article 6(1) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation in annulling the Contested Regulation (2) on the ground that the Commission’s predictions in the Provisional Regulation of the likely development of volumes and prices of dumped imports allegedly were not fully in line with the post-investigation period data.
   Third, the General Court erroneously concluded that the institutions’ findings were vitiated by a manifest error of appraisal and the General Court failed to respect the boundaries of judicial review.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community, OJ L 56, p. 1; replaced by Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (codified version), OJ (2009) L343, p. 51

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 926/2009 of 24 September 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel originating in the People’s Republic of China, OJ L 262, p. 19


title: Case F-77/07: Action brought on 31 July 2007 — Labate v Commission

text:
               22.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/22

         Action brought on 31 July 2007 — Labate v Commission
   (Case F-77/07)
   (2007/C 223/38)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Kay Labate (Tarquinia, Italy) (represented by: I. S. Forrester, Queen's Counsel)

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

               —

               Annul the Commission's decisions of 6 October 2006 and 18 October 2004,

               —

               Order the Commission to pay to the Applicant the sums provided for by the Article 73 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities (the ‘Staff Regulations’) and Article 9 of the Common Rules on the insurance of officials of the European Communities against the risk of accident and of occupational disease (the ‘Insurance Rules’),

               —

               Prescribe such other or further relief as justice may require,

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs of the present action.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, Mrs. Kay Labate, widow of former European Commission official Mario Labate, on her own behalf and on behalf of her husband's estate, contests the Commission's decisions refusing to recognise the lung cancer of her husband as an occupational disease.
   Mr Labate was an official with the Commission for 29 years, during which time he was exposed, according to the Applicant, to a large amount of secondhand tobacco smoke. He was declared permanently invalid following the discovery of the lung cancer which subsequently led to his death. He submitted a request for recognition of the illness as an occupational disease. While acknowledging Mr Labate's exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke and finding no other cause for his lung cancer, the Medical Committee in its decision nonetheless stated that it could not establish with certainty the connection with his professional activities. The Commission accordingly denied the request, following the finding by the Medical Committee that the connection between the disease and Mr Labate's professional activities was not sufficiently established.
   The applicant submits that the Commission erred as a matter of law by concluding that the cancer suffered by Mr. Labate is not covered by Article 73 of the Staff Regulations. She claims that the standard of ‘certainty’ employed by the Medical Committee is unreasonably strict and contrary to the case-law.
   The applicant also submits that the Medical Committee failed to address the possibility that the secondhand tobacco smoke which Mr. Labate was exposed to could have aggravated his cancer, as defined in Article 3 of the Insurance Rules. Further, the Commission failed to address the issue that although secondhand tobacco smoke is not itself listed under that Article, several specific carcinogenic elements of secondhand tobacco smoke are listed and therefore covered by Article 73 of the Staff Regulations. The applicant claims that the Medical Committee wrongly attempted to examine questions of proof and evidence, beyond its competence, rather than merely establishing the medical facts.
   Finally the Applicant contends that the decision by the Commission contained inadequate reasoning and that the time it took the Commission to arrive at a decision was excessive and contrary to principle of good administration. Had the decision been taken before Mr Labate's death and had it recognised his illness as work related, he would have received 8 years of salary by way of compensation.


title: Case T-436/15 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 21 September 2015 — Consorzio Vivaisti viticoli pugliesi and Negro v Commission (Interim measures — Agriculture — Protective measures against pests of plants — Measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the European Union of Xylella fastidiosa — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Failure to comply with the procedural requirements — Inadmissibility)

text:
               16.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/43

         Order of the President of the General Court of 21 September 2015 — Consorzio Vivaisti viticoli pugliesi and Negro v Commission
   (Case T-436/15 R)
   ((Interim measures - Agriculture - Protective measures against pests of plants - Measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the European Union of Xylella fastidiosa - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Failure to comply with the procedural requirements - Inadmissibility))
   (2015/C 381/52)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicants: Consorzio Vivaisti viticoli pugliesi (Otrante, Italy) and Negro Daniele (Otrante) (represented by: V. Pellegrino and A. Micolani, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi and I. Galindo Martín, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application to suspend the operation of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/789 of 18 May 2015 as regards measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the Union of Xylella fastidiosa (Wells et al.) (OJ 2015 L 125, p. 36) in so far as that decision encompasses grapevine varieties grown in the province of Lecce.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case F-62/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 June 2015 — Chezzi v Commission

text:
               10.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/44

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 June 2015 — Chezzi v Commission
   (Case F-62/14) (1)

   (2015/C 262/60)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 361, 13.10.2014, p. 31.


title: Case C-277/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Session (Scotland), Edinburgh (United Kingdom) made on 21 July 2009 — The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs v RBS Deutschland Holdings GmbH

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/30

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Session (Scotland), Edinburgh (United Kingdom) made on 21 July 2009 — The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs v RBS Deutschland Holdings GmbH
   (Case C-277/09)
   2009/C 267/53
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Court of Session (Scotland), Edinburgh

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

      Defendant: RBS Deutschland Holdings GmbH

      Questions referred

   In circumstances such as those of the present case, where:

               (a)

               a German subsidiary of a United Kingdom bank purchased cars in the United Kingdom with a view to leasing them to an unconnected company in the United Kingdom and paid value added tax on these purchases;

               (b)

               under the relevant United Kingdom legislation the supplies consisting of the rental of cars were treated as supplies of services made in Germany and accordingly not subject to value added tax in the United Kingdom. Under German law these supplies were treated as supplies of goods made in the United Kingdom and accordingly not subject to value added tax in Germany. The consequence was that no output tax was charged on these supplies in either member state;

               (c)

               the United Kingdom bank selected its German subsidiary as lessor and determined the duration of the leasing arrangements with a view to obtaining the tax advantage of no VAT being chargeable on the rental payments:

               1.

               Is Article 17(3)(a) of the Sixth Directive (1) (now Article 169(a) of the Principal VAT Directive) to be interpreted as entitling the United Kingdom tax authorities to refuse to allow the German subsidiary to deduct VAT which it paid in the United Kingdom in respect of the purchase of the cars?

               2.

               In determining the answer to the first question, is it necessary for the national court to extend its analysis to consider the possible application of the principle of prohibiting abusive practices?

               3.

               If the answer to Question 2 is yes, would the deduction of input tax on the purchase of the cars be contrary to the purpose of the relevant provisions of the Sixth Directive and thus satisfy the first requirement for an abusive practice as described in paragraph 74 of the decision of the Court in Halifax plc and Others v Customs & Excise Commissioners (Case C-255/02) having regard among other principles to the principle of the neutrality of taxation?

               4.

               Again if the answer to Question 2 is yes, should the court consider that the essential aim of the transactions is to obtain a tax advantage, so that the second requirement for an abusive practice as described in paragraph 75 of the said decision of the Court is satisfied, in circumstances where in a commercial transaction between parties operating at arm's length, the choice of a German subsidiary to lease the cars to a United Kingdom customer, and of the terms of the leases, are made with a view to obtaining the tax advantage of no output tax being charged on the rental payments?

      (1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment
   OJ L 145, p. 1


title: Case T-207/09: Action brought on 25 May 2009 — El Jirari Bouzekri v OHIM — Nike International (NC NICKOL)

text:
               18.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 167/21

         Action brought on 25 May 2009 — El Jirari Bouzekri v OHIM — Nike International (NC NICKOL)
   (Case T-207/09)
   2009/C 167/42
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Mustapha El Jirari Bouzekri (Malaga, Spain) (represented by: E. Ragot, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nike International Ltd (Beaverton, United States)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 February 2009 in case R 554/2008-2 in so far as it contains an error of law in the interpretation of Article 8(5) of Council Regulation 40/94 (which became Article 8(5) of Council Regulation 207/2009); and

               —

               Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs incurred in the proceedings before the Court of First Instance.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘NC NICKOL’, for goods in class 9

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

      Mark or sign cited: Community trade mark registration of the figurative mark ‘NIKE’ for a range of goods, amongst them goods in classes 9 and 25

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(5) of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal wrongly concluded that the conditions for the application of the said provision were fulfilled.


title: Case C-117/08: Action brought on 17 March 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               9.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 116/17

         Action brought on 17 March 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-117/08)
   (2008/C 116/30)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Kontou-Durande and L. Pignataro)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2005/62/EC (1) of 30 September 2005 implementing Directive 2002/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards Community standards and specifications relating to a quality system for blood establishments, and in any event by not notifying those provisions to the Commission, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The time-limit for transposition of Directive 2005/62 into domestic law expired on 31 August 2006.

      (1)  OJ L 256, 1.10.2005, p. 41.


title: Case C-33/13: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 February 2014 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Łodzi — Poland) — Marcin Jagiełło v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Łodzi (Request for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Taxation — VAT — Sixth Directive — Right of deduction — Refusal — Invoice issued by a company acting as a front)

text:
               10.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/16

         Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 February 2014 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Łodzi — Poland) — Marcin Jagiełło v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Łodzi
   (Case C-33/13) (1)

   ((Request for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Taxation - VAT - Sixth Directive - Right of deduction - Refusal - Invoice issued by a company acting as a front))
   2014/C 175/18
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Łodzi

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Marcin Jagiełło

      Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Łodzi

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Łodzi — Interpretation of Article 4(1) and (2), read in conjunction with Article 5(1), and of Article 17(2)(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Right to deduct input VAT — Refusal to allow a recipient of supplies to deduct VAT in the case where the vendor uses the corporate name of another person — Intentional non-disclosure of the vendor’s own activity — Invoice issued by a person other than the vendor — No need to establish that the purchaser was aware of the fact that the transaction in question was linked to criminal activity or to some other irregularity committed by the vendor or by the body cooperating with it

      Operative part of the order

   Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 2001/115/EC of 20 December 2001, must be interpreted as meaning that a taxable person may not be refused the right to deduct VAT due or paid in respect of goods supplied to him on the ground that, in view of fraud or irregularities committed by the issuer of the invoice for that supply, the supply is considered not to have actually been made by the issuer, unless it is established, on the basis of objective evidence and without requiring of the taxable person checks which are not his responsibility, that that taxable person knew, or should have known, that that supply was connected with VAT fraud — a matter which it is for the referring court to determine.

      (1)  OJ C 141, 18.05.2013


title: Case T-533/17: Action brought on 11 August 2017 — Next design+produktion v EUIPO — Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp (nuuna)

text:
               2.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 330/18

         Action brought on 11 August 2017 — Next design+produktion v EUIPO — Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp (nuuna)
   (Case T-533/17)
   (2017/C 330/23)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Next design+produktion GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: M. Hirsch, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp GmbH & Co. KG (Bremen, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark (Representation of ‘nuuna’) — Application for registration No 10 772 606

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 May 2017 in Case R 1448/2016-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 May 2017;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 1(1) Regulation No 207/2009 and of the principle of autonomy;

               —

               Infringement of the principles of legal certainty, legality and sound administration.


title: Case T-218/02: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 29 September 2005 — Napoli Buzzanca v Commission (Officials — Post of director — Procedure to fill vacant posts — Decision rejecting a candidature — Statement of reasons)

text:
               12.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/18

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 29 September 2005 — Napoli Buzzanca v Commission
   (Case T-218/02) (1)

   (Officials - Post of director - Procedure to fill vacant posts - Decision rejecting a candidature - Statement of reasons)
   (2005/C 281/33)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Daniela Napoli Buzzanca (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers)

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and V. Joris, Agents)
   Application for
   firstly, annulment of the decisions of the Commission of 30 January 2002 appointing Ms S. as director, in grade A2, of Directorate ‘Multilateral relations and human rights’ of the ‘External Relations’ Directorate-General and rejecting the applicant's candidature for that post, and annulment, to the extent necessary, of the implied rejection by the Commission of her complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations, secondly, an order that the defendant pay damages assessed, as at the date of the action and subject to possible increase, in the sum of EUR 23 213,96 and, finally, an order that the Commission produce her administrative file.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1)

               Annuls the decisions of the Commission of 30 January 2002 appointing Ms S. to the post concerned by vacancy notice COM/156/01 and rejecting the applicant's candidature for that post.

               2)

               Dismisses the remainder of the application.

               3)

               Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 247, 12.10.2002.


title: Case C-211/16: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Torino — Italy) — Bimotor SpA v Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Provinciale II di Torino (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax — Principle of fiscal neutrality — National legislation laying down a fixed maximum ceiling limiting the amount of refund or compensation of credit or excess value added tax)

text:
               15.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/13

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Torino — Italy) — Bimotor SpA v Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Provinciale II di Torino
   (Case C-211/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax - Principle of fiscal neutrality - National legislation laying down a fixed maximum ceiling limiting the amount of refund or compensation of credit or excess value added tax))
   (2017/C 151/17)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Torino

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Bimotor SpA

      Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Provinciale II di Torino

      Operative part of the judgment

   The first paragraph of Article 183 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2010/45/EU of 13 July 2010, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which limits to a set maximum amount the compensation of certain tax debts by value added tax credits, for each taxation period, to the extent that national law provides in any event the possibility for the taxable person to recover the full value added tax credit within a reasonable period.

      (1)  OJ C 251, 11.7.2016.


title: Case T-209/09: Judgment of the General Court of 13 April 2011 — Alder Capital v OHIM — Gimv Nederland (ALDER CAPITAL) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark ALDER CAPITAL — Earlier Benelux word marks Halder and Halder Investments — Earlier international word mark Halder — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Genuine use of the trade mark — Article 15 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 15 of Regulation No 207/2009))

text:
               28.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 160/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 April 2011 — Alder Capital v OHIM — Gimv Nederland (ALDER CAPITAL)
   (Case T-209/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark ALDER CAPITAL - Earlier Benelux word marks Halder and Halder Investments - Earlier international word mark Halder - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Genuine use of the trade mark - Article 15 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 15 of Regulation No 207/2009))
   2011/C 160/25
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Alder Capital Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider and R. Manea, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Gimv Nederland BV (The Hague, Netherlands) (represented by: M. van de Braak and S. Beelaard, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 February 2009 (Case R 486/2008-2) in relation to invalidity proceedings between Halder Holdings BV and Alder Capital Ltd.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Alder Capital Ltd to pay the costs, including the costs necessarily incurred by Gimv Nederland BV 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 180, 1.8.2009.


title: Case T-235/09: Judgment of the General Court of 9 March 2011 — Commission v Edificios Inteco (Arbitration clause — Programme concerning the promotion of energy technologies for Europe (Thermie) — Contract concerning the construction in Valladolid (Spain) of a commercial and business centre equipped with a solar powered air conditioning system — Non-performance of the contract — Reimbursement of sums advanced — Late payment interest — Procedure by default)

text:
               16.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 120/12

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 March 2011 — Commission v Edificios Inteco
   (Case T-235/09) (1)

   (Arbitration clause - Programme concerning the promotion of energy technologies for Europe (Thermie) - Contract concerning the construction in Valladolid (Spain) of a commercial and business centre equipped with a solar powered air conditioning system - Non-performance of the contract - Reimbursement of sums advanced - Late payment interest - Procedure by default)
   2011/C 120/29
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Valero Jordana)

      Defendant: Edificios Inteco SL (Valladolid, Spain) (represented by: C. de la Red Mantilla, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought by the Commission pursuant to Article 238 EC for reimbursement of the sum of EUR 157 238,07, paid by it to the defendant in relation to a construction project in Valladolid of a commercial and business centre equipped with a solar powered air conditioning system (contract BU/104/93) plus late payment interest.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Orders Edificios Inteco SL to reimburse to the European Commission the sum of EUR 157 238,07, plus EUR 81 686,22 corresponding to interest due on 1 June 2009;

               2.

               Orders Edificios Inteco to reimburse the Commission the sum of EUR 2 173 796 for each additional day’s delay from 2 June 2009 to payment in full of the debt.

               3.

               Orders Edificios Inteco to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 220, 12.9.2009.


title: Case T-110/16: Action brought on 18 March 2016 — Savant Systems v EUIPO — Savant Group (SAVANT)

text:
               17.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/20

         Action brought on 18 March 2016 — Savant Systems v EUIPO — Savant Group (SAVANT)
   (Case T-110/16)
   (2016/C 175/24)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Savant Systems LLC (Osterville, Massachusetts, United States) (represented by: O. Nilgen, A. Kockläuner, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Savant Group Ltd (Burton in Kendal, United Kingdom)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘SAVANT’ — EU trade mark No 32 318

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 January 2016 in Case R 33/2015-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision insofar as protection of the contested EU trademark No 32 318 ‘SAVANT’ was maintained with regard to ‘computer software’ in class 9 and for all services in classes 41 and 42;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) in connection with Article 15 of Regulation No 207/2009 insofar as the Board of Appeal wrongly held that the proprietor had proven genuine use of the contested CTM for the goods and services as registered, in particular ‘computer software’ and the related services in classes 41 and 42;

               —

               Infringement, by the Board of Appeal, of the obligation to state reasons why it did not take the ‘in use investigation’ report into consideration.


title: Case C-330/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 10 June 2016 — Piotr Zarski v Andrzej Stadnicki

text:
               12.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 335/33

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 10 June 2016 — Piotr Zarski v Andrzej Stadnicki
   (Case C-330/16)
   (2016/C 335/45)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Piotr Zarski

      Respondent: Andrzej Stadnicki

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the letting of premises constitute a service within the meaning of Articles 2(1) and 3 (and recitals 2, 3, 7, 11, 18 and 23) of Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions? (1)

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, where a letting contract of indefinite duration is concluded, does the contract or the single, separate ‘transaction’, which is what each individual rental payment in return for access to the premises and utilities is, constitute a commercial transaction within the meaning of Articles 1(1), 2(1), 3, 6 and 8 (and recitals 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 26 and 35) of Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions?

               3.

               If in the answer to Question 2 it is established that each individual payment of rent in return for access to the premises and utilities does constitute a commercial transaction, must Articles 1(1), 2(1) and 12(4) (and recital 3) of Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions be interpreted as meaning that the Member States can exclude application of the directive to letting contracts concluded before 16 March 2013 in cases where late individual payments of rent occur after that date?

      (1)  OJ 2011 L 48, p. 1.


title: Case T-402/14: Action brought on 6 June 2014  — FCC Aqualia v OHIM — Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona (AQUALOGY)

text:
               11.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/40

         Action brought on 6 June 2014 — FCC Aqualia v OHIM — Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona (AQUALOGY)
   (Case T-402/14)
   2014/C 261/66
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: FCC Aqualia, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. de Oliveira Vaz Miranda de Sousa and N. González-Alberto Rodríguez, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, SA (Barcelona, Spain)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul in part the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 13 March 2014 in Case R 1209/2013-1, and refuse registration of Community trade mark No 10 122 976 ‘AQUALOGY’ for services in Classes 35, 37, 39, 40 and 42 on the basis of the relative ground for refusal set out in Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               in the alternative, should the above form of order not be granted in its entirety, annul in part the contested decision on the basis of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009, in so far as that decision confirmed the rejection of the opposition against Community trade mark No 10 122 976 ‘AQUALOGY’ for services in Classes 35, 37, 39, 40 and 42, and refer the matter back to the Board of Appeal for the appeal to be examined once more in its entirety so far as the ground for refusal set out in the abovementioned article is concerned;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, SA

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark including the word element ‘AQUALOGY’ for goods and services in Classes 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 17, 19, 27, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44 and 45 — Community trade mark application No 10 122 976

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark ‘AQUALIA’ and national figurative mark including the word element ‘AQUALIA’ for goods and services in Classes 7, 9, 32, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40 and 42

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case F-98/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 23 October 2013 — Verstreken v Council (Civil service — Officials — Promotion — 2008 promotion procedure — 2009 promotion procedure — Decision not to promote the applicant — Statement of reasons — General and stereotypical statement of reasons)

text:
               30.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/25

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 23 October 2013 — Verstreken v Council
   (Case F-98/12) (1)

   (Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2008 promotion procedure - 2009 promotion procedure - Decision not to promote the applicant - Statement of reasons - General and stereotypical statement of reasons)
   2013/C 352/48
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

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

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and A. Bisch, Agents)

      Re:

   Application to annul the decisions not to promote the applicant to grade AD12 under the 2008 and 2009 promotion procedures.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Council of the European Union of 7 November 2011 not to promote Ms Verstreken under the 2008 and 2009 promotion procedures;

               2.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Ms Verstreken.

      (1)  OJ C 343, 10.11.2012, p. 24.


title: Case C-574/08: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Internal market — Free movement of capital — Fight against fraud and money laundering)

text:
               12.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/14

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-574/08) (1)

   (Internal market - Free movement of capital - Fight against fraud and money laundering)
   2009/C 220/23
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Peere and P. Dejmek, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: D. Haven, Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt or to communicate, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2006/70/EC of 1 August 2006 laying down implementing measures for Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the definition of politically exposed person and the technical criteria for simplified customer due diligence procedures and for exemption on grounds of a financial activity conducted on an occasional or very limited basis (OJ 2006 L 214, p. 29)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Declares that, by not adopting within the prescribed period all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2006/70/EC of 1 August 2006 laying down implementing measures for Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the definition of politically exposed person and the technical criteria for simplified customer due diligence procedures and for exemption on grounds of a financial activity conducted on an occasional or very limited basis, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.


title: Case T-72/08: Action brought on 11 February 2008 — Travel Servis v OHIM — Eurowings Luftverkehrs (smartWings)

text:
               26.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/32

         Action brought on 11 February 2008 — Travel Servis v OHIM — Eurowings Luftverkehrs (smartWings)
   (Case T-72/08)
   (2008/C 107/53)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Travel Service a.s. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: S. Hejdová)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Eurowings Luftverkehrs AG (Dortmund, Germany)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Alter the contested decision of the Second Board of Appeal in Case R 1515/2006-2 as follows:

                           —

                           annul the Opposition Division decision relating to opposition proceedings No B 782 351 of 29 September 2006 in its entirety;

                           —

                           order the opponent to bear the costs incurred by the applicant with respect to the opposition and the appeal proceedings before the OHIM.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative Community trade mark ‘smartWings’ for goods and services in classes 16, 21, 37, 39, 41 and 43 — Application No 3 650 595

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Eurowings Luftverkehrs AG

      Mark or sign cited: The national and international word mark ‘EuroWings’ for goods and services in classes 16 and 41, the national and international word mark ‘EUROWINGS’ for goods and services in classes 39 and 42 and the national word mark ‘WINGSGLASS’ for goods and services in classes 16, 39, 41 and 42

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 and of essential procedural requirements enshrined in Articles 73 and 79 CTMR.


title: Case C-188/14: Order of the President of the Court of 17 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 58 de Madrid — Spain) — Juan Pedro Ludeña Hormigos v Banco de Santander SA

text:
               19.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/23

      Order of the President of the Court of 17 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 58 de Madrid — Spain) — Juan Pedro Ludeña Hormigos v Banco de Santander SA
      (Case C-188/14) (1)

      (2015/C 016/36)
      Language of the case: Spanish
      The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.


title: Case F-2/06: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 2 May 2007 — Marcuccio v Commission (Officials — Social Security — Insurance against the risk of occupational disease and of accident — Accident at work — Termination of the application procedure under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations)

text:
               7.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/44

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 2 May 2007 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case F-2/06) (1)

   (Officials - Social Security - Insurance against the risk of occupational disease and of accident - Accident at work - Termination of the application procedure under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations)
   (2007/C 155/80)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: I. Cazzato, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser, Agent, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)
   Re:
   Annulment of the Commission's decision to terminate the procedure for granting the applicant the benefits provided for by Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and linked to an accident he suffered on 10 September 2003.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               The parties shall bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 86, 8.4.2006, p. 48.


title: Case C-251/04: Action brought on 14 June 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
               7.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 201/13

         Action brought on 14 June 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-251/04)
   (2004/C 201/24)
   An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 June 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Georgios Zavvos and Knut Simonsson, of its Legal Service.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by allowing only vessels flying the Greek flag to provide towage services on the high seas, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 (1) of 7 December 1992 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within Member States (maritime cabotage);

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Greek legislative provisions in force are contrary to Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92.

      (1)  OJ No L 364, 12.12.1992, p. 7.


title: Case C-47/10 P: Appeal by the Republic of Austria brought on 28 January 2010 against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 18 November 2009 in Case T-375/04 Scheucher-Fleisch GmbH and Others v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               27.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/21

         Appeal by the Republic of Austria brought on 28 January 2010 against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 18 November 2009 in Case T-375/04 Scheucher-Fleisch GmbH and Others v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-47/10 P)
   2010/C 80/36
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Republic of Austria (represented by: E. Riedel, acting as Agent; M. Núñez-Müller and J. Dammann, lawyers)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Scheucher-Fleisch GmbH, Tauernfleisch Vertriebs GmbH, Wech-Kärntner Truthahnverarbeitung GmbH, Wech-Geflügel GmbH, Johann Zsifkovics, European Commission

      Forms of order sought

   The Republic of Austria claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 November 2009 in Case T-375/04 (Scheucher and Others v Commission);

               —

               give final judgment in the case and dismiss the application as inadmissible or, in the alternative, as unfounded;

               —

               order the applicants in the original proceedings to pay the costs on appeal and the costs of the first instance proceedings in Case T-375/04.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant argues that the contested judgment infringes Article 263(4) TFEU. The Court overlooked the fact that the applicants in the original proceedings were not individually or directly affected by the Commission decision in dispute. The contested decision did not lead to any noticeable prejudice to their market position, and the general sectoral aid rules of the Republic of Austria, approved by the Commission, did not lead to any distortions of competition since the granting of aid was dependent in each case on an individual decision by the relevant authorities. Finally, the applicants in the original proceedings do not have the necessary legal interest in bringing proceedings, as the contested decision of the Commission does not affect them themselves.
   The appellant further argues that the contested judgment infringes Article 108(2) TFEU. The Court erred in law by assuming that, during the preliminary investigation procedure, the Commission encountered serious difficulties in assessing the disputed measures and was therefore obliged to initiate the formal investigation procedure.
   The appellant also takes the view that the contested judgment infringes the rules on the burden of proof. The Court obliged the Commission to initiate the formal investigation procedure, even though the applicants had not produced the necessary evidence that they were affected.
   In the appellant's submission, the contested judgment also infringes Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court for contradictory reasoning.
   Finally, the appellant argues that the contested decision infringes Article 64 of the Rules of Procedure, because the Court failed to verify circumstances that were relevant for the decision by measures of organisation of procedure.


title: Case T-372/08: Order of the Court of First Instance of 20 April 2009 — Murnauer Markenvertrieb v OHIM — Fitne Gesundheit und Wellness (Notfall Bonbons) (Community trade mark — Application for a declaration of invalidity — Withdrawal of the application for a declaration of invalidity — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               18.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 167/11

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 20 April 2009 — Murnauer Markenvertrieb v OHIM — Fitne Gesundheit und Wellness (Notfall Bonbons)
   (Case T-372/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for a declaration of invalidity - Withdrawal of the application for a declaration of invalidity - No need to adjudicate)
   2009/C 167/22
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Murnauer Markenvertrieb GmbH (Trebur, Germany) (represented by: H. Daniel and O.I. Haleen, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Fitne Gesundheit und Wellness GmbH (Salzhemmendorf, Germany) (represented by: M. De Zorti, T. Grimm and M. Koch, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 July 2008 (Case R 909/2007-1) relating to invalidity proceedings between Murnauer Markenvertrieb GmbH and Fitne Gesundheit und Wellness GmbH.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               Murnauer Markenvertrieb GmbH and Fitne Gesundheit und Wellness GmbH are ordered to pay their own costs, and half each of the costs of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs).

      (1)  OJ C 313, 6.12.2008.


title: Case C-245/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof by order of that court of 26 May 2004 in the case of EMAG Handel Eder OHG against Finanzlandesdirektion für Kärnten (Berufungssenat II)

text:
               9.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/2

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof by order of that court of 26 May 2004 in the case of EMAG Handel Eder OHG against Finanzlandesdirektion für Kärnten (Berufungssenat II)
   (Case C-245/04)
   (2004/C 251/02)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Higher Administrative Court) (Austria), of 26 May 2004, received at the Court Registry on 10 June 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of EMAG Handel Eder OHG against Finanzlandesdirektion für Kärnten (Berufungssenat II) (Second Appeal Chamber of the Carinthia Regional Tax Authority) for a preliminary ruling on the following questions:

               1.

               Is the first sentence of Article 8(1)(a) of the Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (77/388/EEC) (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the place where dispatch or transport begins is relevant even when several undertakings enter into arrangements for the supply of the same goods and those arrangements are implemented by way of a single movement of goods?

               2.

               Are successive supplies to be treated as exempted intra-Community supplies when several undertakings enter into arrangements for the supply of the same goods and those arrangements are implemented by way of a single movement of goods?

               3.

               If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, is the place at which the second supply begins the actual place of departure of the goods or the place where the first supply finishes?

               4.

               Is the identity of the party having the right of disposal of the goods during their movement a relevant factor in answering the first, second and third questions?

      (1)  OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.


title: Case F-31/07: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 21 February 2008 — Putterie-De-Beukelaer v Commission (Staff cases — Officials — Promotion — Appraisal procedure — Attestation procedure — Appraisal of potential — Breach of the scope of the law — Raised by the Court of its own motion)

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/47

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 21 February 2008 — Putterie-De-Beukelaer v Commission
   (Case F-31/07) (1)

   (Staff cases - Officials - Promotion - Appraisal procedure - Attestation procedure - Appraisal of potential - Breach of the scope of the law - Raised by the Court of its own motion)
   (2008/C 92/95)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Françoise Putterie-De-Beukelaer (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and K. Herrmann, Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of the applicant's Career Development Report concerning the period from 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2005, in particular in respect of section 6.5 ‘Potential’, in so far as that report does not acknowledge the applicant's potential to carry out duties in category B* for the purposes of the attestation procedure.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal

               1.

               Annuls the Career Development Report of Ms Putterie-De-Beukelaer concerning the period from 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2005 in so far as it does not acknowledge the applicant's potential to carry out duties in category B*;

               2.

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

      (1)  OJ C 117, 26.5.2007, p. 38.


title: Case T-105/02: Action brought on 6 April 2002 by Matratzen Concord GmbH against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and designs)

text:
C 144/56              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     15.6.2002
Action brought on 6 April 2002 by Matratzen Concord                     Decision of the Oppo-         Rejection of the application for
GmbH against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                   sition Division:              goods in classes 20 and 24, rejec-
              Market (Trade marks and designs)                                                        tion of the opposition as regards
                                                                                goods in class 10
                        (Case T-105/02)                                 Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of the applicant’s appeal
                                                                        Appeal:
                       (2002/C 144/110)                                 Grounds of claim:             —    No likelihood of confusion
                                                                                under Article 8 of Regulation
                                                                                (EC) No 40/94 (1);
(Language of the case to be determined in accordance with
Article 131(2) of the Rules of Procedure — Language in which the                                      —    No similarity between the
                 application was drafted: German)                                                          opposing marks;
                                                                                —    Incorrect division of the tra-
                                                                                de mark into its individual
                                                                                components;
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade marks and designs) was brought before the                                               —    Failure to follow the case-
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                                                     law of the Court of Justice
6 April 2002 by Matratzen Concord GmbH, of Cologne                                                         concerning the overall
(Germany), represented by W.-W. Wodrich, lawyer, with an                                                   impression of the trade
address for service in Luxembourg. The other party before the                                              mark;
Board of Appeal was Hukla Germany, S.A., of Castellbisbal
(Spain).                                                                                —    Right of a competitor in the
                                                                                market to combine the desig-
                                                                                nation of his main products
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                                with the name of his firm;
                                                                                —    Opposing mark not capable
—     Set aside the decision of the defendant (Second Board of                                             of protection.
      Appeal) of 25 January 2002 (reference of the appeal R
      1045/2000-2);
                                                                        (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
                                                                            Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
—     Dismiss the opposition of the opponent of 17 December
      1998 (reference B 115 057);
—     Order the defendant and the opponent to pay all the
      costs of the procedure before the Opposition Division
      and the Board of Appeal and of the present proceedings.
                                                                        Action brought on 15 April 2002 by BaByliss SA against
                                                                              the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-114/02)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (2002/C 144/111)
Applicant for the Com-         The applicant
munity trade mark:                                                                        (Language of the Case: French)
Community trade mark           Figurative       trade       mark
applied for:                   ‘MATRATZEN CONCORD’ for                  An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                               goods in classes 10, 20 and 24 —         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                               Application No 739722                    European Communities on 15 April 2002 by BaByliss SA, of
                                                                        Montrouge (France), represented by Jacques-Philippe Gunther,
Proprietor of the right to     Hukla Germany, S.A.                      lawyer.
the trade mark or sign
asserted by way of oppo-                                                The applicant claims that the Court should:
sition in the opposition
proceedings:                                                            —     annul the decision adopted by the Commission on
                                                                              8 January 2002 in the case of COMP/M.2621 SEB v
Trade mark or sign             Spanish word trade mark                        MOULINEX;
asserted by way of oppo-       ‘MATRATZEN’ for goods in
sition:                        class 20                                 —     order the Commission to pay all the costs.


title: Case C-374/08: Action brought on 13 August 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Hungary

text:
               11.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/12

         Action brought on 13 August 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Hungary
   (Case C-374/08)
   (2008/C 260/22)
   Language of the case: Hungarian
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Dejmek and B.D. Simon, acting as Agent(s))

      Defendant(s): Republic of Hungary
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on the capital adequacy of investment firms and credit institutions (1) or by failing to inform the Commission of such provisions, the Republic of Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order Republic of Hungary to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The time limit for implementing the directive expired on 31 December 2006.

      (1)  OJ L 177, p. 201.


title: Case T-496/10: Action brought on 7 October 2010 — Bank Mellat v Council

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/56

         Action brought on 7 October 2010 — Bank Mellat v Council
   (Case T-496/10)
   ()
   2010/C 328/86
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Bank Mellat (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: S. Gadhia, S. Ashley, Solicitors, D. Anderson, QC and R. Blakeley, Barrister)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul paragraph 2 of Table B of the Annex to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 (1) in so far as it relates to the applicant;

               —

               annul paragraph 4 of Table B of Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (2) in so far as it relates to the applicant;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs of the application.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In the present case the applicant seeks the partial annulment of Council Implementing Regulation No 668/2010 and of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP in so far as the applicant is included on the list of natural and legal persons, entities and bodies whose funds and economic resources are frozen in accordance with this provision.
   The three pleas in law relied on by the applicant are identical or similar to the first, second and fifth pleas relied on in Case T-492/10 Melli Bank v Council.

      (1)  Council implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 of 26 July 2010 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, OJ 2010 L 195, p. 25

      (2)  Council Decision of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP, OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39


title: Case T-72/10: Judgment of the General Court of 26 October 2011 — Intermark v OHIM — Natex International (NATY’S) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark NATY’S — Earlier Community figurative mark Naty — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of goods — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Partial rejection of opposition)

text:
               3.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 26 October 2011 — Intermark v OHIM — Natex International (NATY’S)
   (Case T-72/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark NATY’S - Earlier Community figurative mark Naty - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of goods - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Partial rejection of opposition)
   2011/C 355/31
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Intermark Srl (Stei, Romania) (represented by: Á. László, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Natex International Trade SpA (Pioltello, Italy)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 December 2009 (Case R 953/2009-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Intermark Srl and Natex International Trade SpA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Intermark Srl to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.


title: Case C-656/13: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky — Czech Republic) — L v M (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Article 12(3) — Child whose parents are not married — Prorogation of jurisdiction — No other related proceedings pending — Acceptance of jurisdiction — Challenge to the jurisdiction of a court by a party who has made an application to that court)

text:
               19.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/8

      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky — Czech Republic) — L v M
      (Case C-656/13) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Article 12(3) - Child whose parents are not married - Prorogation of jurisdiction - No other related proceedings pending - Acceptance of jurisdiction - Challenge to the jurisdiction of a court by a party who has made an application to that court)
      (2015/C 016/11)
      Language of the case: Czech

         Referring court

      Nejvyšší soud České republiky

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: L

         Defendant: M

         Interveners: R, K

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Article 12(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, must be interpreted as allowing, for the purposes of proceedings in matters of parental responsibility, the jurisdiction of a court of a Member State which is not that of the child’s habitual residence to be established even where no other proceedings are pending before the court chosen.

                  2.

                  Article 12(3)(b) of Regulation No 2201/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that it cannot be considered that the jurisdiction of the court seised by one party of proceedings in matters of parental responsibility has been ‘accepted expressly or otherwise in an unequivocal manner by all the parties to the proceedings’ within the meaning of that provision where the defendant in those first proceedings subsequently brings a second set of proceedings before the same court and, on taking the first step required of him in the first proceedings, pleads the lack of jurisdiction of that court.

         (1)  OJ C 85, 22.3.2014.