title: Case C-84/00: Action brought on 7 March 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
10.6.2000                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 163/9
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der
                                                                          Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 28 April 1999
                                                                          in the case of Welthgrove BV against Secretary of State
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case                                           for Finances
C-57/00 P.
                                                                                (Case C-102/00)
(1) OJ 2000 C 79, p. 22.
                                                                                (2000/C 163/14)
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad der
                                                                          Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of 28 April
                                                                          1999, received at the Court Registry on 20 March 2000, for a
                                                                          preliminary ruling in the case of Welthgrove BV against
                                                                          Secretary of State for Finances on the following questions:
Action brought on 7 March 2000 by the Commission of                       1. In light of the judgment in Polysar (1), particularly para-
 the European Communities against the French Republic                          graphs 13 and 14 thereof, where a parent company
                                                                               involves itself in the management of a subsidiary, is the
                           (Case C-84/00)                                      receipt of dividends from that subsidiary to be deemed to
                                                                               constitute consideration for such involvement within the
                                                                               meaning of Article 11(A)(1)(a) of the Sixth Directive (2)?
                          (2000/C 163/13)
                                                                          2. If the answer to the first question is in the negative, does
                                                                               the mere fact that the appellant involves itself in the
An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                               management of its subsidiary companies, in the manner
Court of Justice on 7 March 2000 by the Commission of the
                                                                               described in paragraph 14 of the Polysar judgment, mean
European Communities, represented by Richard Wainwright,
                                                                               that the appellant is to be deemed a taxable person within
Principal Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for
                                                                               the meaning of Article 4 of the Sixth Directive?
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                          3. If the answer to the first or second question is affirmative,
                                                                               does such involvement come within the exception of
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    Article 13B(d)(5) of the Sixth Directive, that is to say within
                                                                               the transactions mentioned therein?
— declare that, by failing to allow the marketing within
     France of works made of precious metals which come                   (1) Case C-60/90 [1991] ECR I-3111.
     from other Member States and which indicate a standard               (2) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
     of fineness of ‘999 parts per thousand’, despite the fact                harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
     that that standard is commonly used in commercial                        turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
     practice, the French Republic has failed to comply with its              basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).
     obligations under Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after
     amendment, Article 28 EC);
— order the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                          Action brought on 17 March 2000 by the Commission of
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
The Commission considers that the exclusion by the French                                           (Case C-103/00)
legislation (1) of a standard of fineness of 999 parts per
thousand, in relation to both works made from gold and                                             (2000/C 163/15)
works made from silver and platinum, cannot be justified
either on grounds of consumer protection or on grounds of
fair trading.                                                             An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
                                                                          the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 March
                                                                          2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                          represented by Richard Wainwright, Principal Legal Adviser in
(1) In the present case, Articles 521 and 522 of the Code Général des
                                                                          its Legal Service, and Panagiotis Panagiotopoulos, a national
    Impôts (General Tax Code), as amended by Law 94-6.
                                                                          civil servant on secondment to its Legal Service, with an
                                                                          address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                                                                          Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
                                                                          Kirchberg.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato in sede giurisdizionale (Sezione Quarta) by order of that court of 21 March 1995 in the case of (1) S. Agri snc and (2) Agricola Veneta sas v. Regione Veneto (Case C-255/95)

text:
23 . 9 . 95            EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 248/7
Action brought on 20 July 1995 by the Commission of the                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
    European Communities against the French Republic
                           Case C-252/95 )                               — declare that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary
                                                                              in order to comply with Council Directive 92/50/EEC ( 1 )
                            ( 95/C 248/ 13 )
                                                                              of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of
                                                                              procedures for the award of public service contracts, the
An action against the French Republic was brought before                      Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                           obligations under the third paragraph of Articles 189 of
20 July 1995 by the Commission of the European                                the EC Treaty in conjunction with Article 44 ( 1 ) of the
Communities, represented by Gerard Rozet, acting as                           said Directive,
Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the office of Mr Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,                        — declare, in the alternative, that by failing promptly to
Kirchberg .                                                                   communicate to the Commission the texts of the
                                                                              relevant provisions transposing the Directive, the
                                                                              Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                  obligations,
1 . declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws,               — order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
     regulations and administrative provisions necessary to                   costs .
     comply, as regards epizootic haemorrhagic disease
     of deer, with Council Directive 92/119/EEC ( ] ) of
     17 December 1992 introducing general Community                      The pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support are
     measures for the control of certain ainmal diseases and             the same as those in Case C-252/95 ; the time-limit for
     specific measures relating to swine vesicular disease,              transposition expired on 1 July 1993 .
     and/or by failing to communicate them to the
     Commission, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its            (!) OJ No L 209 , 24 . 7. 1992 , p . 1 .
     obligations under Article 27 of the abovementioned
     directive and under the Treaty;
2 . order the French Republic to pay the costs .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di
                                                                         Stato in sede giurisdizionale (Sezione Quarta) by order of
                                                                         that court of 21 March 1995 in the case of ( 1 ) S. Agri snc
The binding nature of the third subparagraph of Article 189                      and (2 ) Agricola Veneta sas v. Regione Veneto
and the first subparagraph of Article 5 of the EC Treaty
requires the Member States to adopt the measures necessary                                          Case C-255/95 )
to transpose into national law the directives addressed to                                           ( 95/C 248/15 )
them before the expiration of the time-limit set for that
purpose . When the deadline set in Article 27 ( 1 ) of Directive         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
 92/119/EEC expired on 30 September 1993 , France had not                European Communities by an order of the Consiglio di
taken the necessary measures as regards the control of                   Stato in sede giurisdizionale (Sezione Quarta) ( Fourth
epizootic haemorrhagic disease of deer.                                  Chamber of the Council of State, Judicial Division ) of
                                                                         21 March 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry
 (!) OJ No L 62 , 15 . 3 . 1993 , p . 69 .                               on 24 July 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                         (1 ) S. Agri snc and ( 2 ) Agricola Veneta sas v. Regione Veneto
                                                                         on the following questions :
                                                                          1 . is a provision of national law which, in the event of a
                                                                               period of time elapsing between the end of the reference
                                                                               period and the beginning of the period of the
 Action brought on 20 July 1995 by the Commission of the                       undertaking, takes into account not only the output ( the
 European Communities against the Federal Republic of                          number of units of lifestock ) for the reference period, in
                                Germany                                        relation to output to be achieved during the period of the
                          ( Case C-253/95 )                                    undertaking, but also fluctuations in output occurring
                             ( 95/C 248/ 14 )
                                                                               during that intermediate period, compatible with the
                                                                               Community legal order, in particular Article lb ( 3 ) ( c ) of
                                                                               Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 797/85 ( ] ) of 12 March
 An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                         1985 on improving the efficiency of agricultural
 brought before the Court of Justice of the European                           structures, inserted by Article 1 of Council Regulation
 Communities on 20 July 1995 by the Commission of the                          ( EEC ) No 1094/88 ( 2 ) of 25 April 1988 , and with
 European Communities, represented by Claudia Schmidt,                         Articles 4 ( 1 ) and ( 2 ), 7 and 10 ( 1 ) of Commission
 of the Legal Service, with an address for service in                          Regulation ( EEC ) No 4115/88 ( 3 ) of 21 December 1988
 Luxembourg at the office of Mr Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner                       laying down detailed rules for applying the aid scheme to
 Centre C 254, Kirchberg.                                                      promote the extension of production ?
 ---pagebreak--- No C 248/8               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    23 . 9 . 95
2 . If so, is a provision of national law compatible with the                 — Commission Directive 93/48/EEC of 23 June 1993
      Community legislation referred to above which, where                        setting out the schedule indicating the conditions to
      there is a reduction in the heads of livestock raised                       be met by fruit plant propagating material and fruit
      during the intermediate period between the end of the                       plants intended for fruit production, pursuant to
      reference period and the beginning of the period of the                     Council Directive 92/34/EEC ( 4 ),
      undertaking, not only excludes those animals from the
      aid but also provides that they must be excluded from                   — Commission Directive 93/49/EEC of 23 June 1993
      the calculation of the minimum 20 % reduction in                            setting out the schedule indicating the conditions to
      output between the reference period and the period of                       be met by ornamental plant propagating material
      the undertaking, which is a prerequisite for the grant of                   and ornamental plants pursuant to Council
      the aid ( with the result, in particular, that the aid is not               Directive 91 /682/EEC ( 5 ),
      payable even in respect of the actual reduction in
       livestock envisaged in the period of the undertaking,                  — Commission Directive 93/61 /EEC of 23 June 1993
      where that reduction is less than 20 % of the average                       setting out the schedules indicating the conditions
       number of livestock raised in the reference period )?                      to be met by vegetable propagating and planting
                                                                                material , other than seed pursuant to Council
f 1 ) OJ No L 93 , 30 . 3 . 1985 , p . 1 .                                        Directive 92/33/EEC ( 6 ),
( 2 ) OJ No L 106 , 27 . 4 . 1988 , p . 28 .
( 3 ) OJ No L 361 , 29 . 12 . 1988 , p . 13 .                                 and/or by failing to communicate them to the
                                                                              Commission, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
                                                                              obligations under the penultimate articles of those
                                                                              Directives and under the EC Treaty;
                                                                         2 . order the French Republic to pay the costs .
Action brought on 27 July 1995 by the Commission of the
      European Communities against the French Republic                   The pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support are
                                                                         similar to those in Case C-252/95 ( 7 ); the deadlines for
                           ( Case C-256/95 )
                                                                         transposition into national law set by the Directives expired
                             ( 95/C 248/16 )                             on 1 January 1994 .
An action against the French Republic was brought before                 (>)  OJ No L 268 , 14 . 9 . 1992 , p . 35 .
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                      (2 ) OJ No L 62 , 15 . 3 . 1993 , p. 38 .
27 July 1995 by the Commission of the European                           (3 ) OJ No L 62 , 15 . 3 . 1993 , p . 49 .
 Communities, represented by Gerard Rozet, acting as                     (4)  OJ No L 250 , 7. 10 . 1993 , p. 1 .
                                                                         (<)  OJ No L 250 , 7. 10 . 1993 , p. 9 .
Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                      (*)  OJ No L 250 , 7 . 10 . 1993 , p. 19 .
the office of Mr Gomez de la Gruz, Wagner Centre,                        (7)  See p. 7 of this Official Journal .
 Kirchberg.
 The applicant claims that the Court should :
  1 . declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws,
        regulations and administrative provisions necessary to           Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
       comply with                                                       Administratif de Clermont-Ferrand (2ème Chambre) by
                                                                         judgment of that court of 27 June 1 995 in the case of Gérard
       — Council Directive 92/45/EEC of 16 June 1992 on                  Bresle v. Préfet de la Région Auvergne and Préfet du
           public health and animal health problems relating to                                       Puy-de-Dôme
           the killing of wild game and the placing on the                                         ( Case C-257/95 )
           market of the wild-game meat ( ! ),
                                                                                ( 95/C 248/17 )
        — Council Directive 92/ 117/EEC of 17 December
            1992 concerning measures for protection against               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
            specified zoonoses and specified zoonotic agents in          European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal
            animals and products of animal origin in order to            Administratif Clermont-Ferrand              (2eme    Chambre)
            prevent outbreaks of food-borne infections and                ( Administrative Court of Clermont-Ferrand, Second
            intoxications (2 ),                                           Chamber) of 27 June 1995 , which was received at the Court
                                                                          Registry on 28 July 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case
        — Council Directive 92/ 118/EEC of 17 December                    of Gerard Bresle v. Prefet de la Region Auvergne ( Prefect of
            1992 laying down animal health and public health              the Auvergne Region) and Prefet du Puy-de-Dome (Prefect
            requirements governing trade in and imports into the          of Puy-de-Dome ) on the following question :
            Community of products not subject to the said
            requirements laid down in specific Community rules            Can the method of calculating the power-rating for
            referred to in Annex A ( I) to Directive 89/662/EEC           administrative purposes of vehicles under the Circular with
            and, as regards pathogens, to Directive                       retrospective statutory force of the Secretary of State for
            90/425/EEC ( 3 ),                                             Public Works, Transport and Tourism of 28 December


title: Case C-176/09: Action brought on 15 May 2009 — Grand Duchy of Luxembourg v European Parliament and Council of the European Union

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/29

         Action brought on 15 May 2009 — Grand Duchy of Luxembourg v European Parliament and Council of the European Union
   (Case C-176/09)
   2009/C 180/50
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, acting as Agent and P. Kinsch, avocat)

      Defendants: European Parliament and Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Delete, in Article 1(2) of Directive 2009/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009 on airport charges (1), the following phrase: ‘and to the airport with the highest passenger movement in each Member State’;

               —

               Alternatively, annul the directive in its entirety;

               —

               Order the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg raises two pleas in support of its action.
   By its first plea, the applicant alleges a breach of the principle of non discrimination in so far as an airport such as that of Luxembourg-Findel, as a result of the extension of the scope of Directive 2009/12/EC to airports ‘with the highest passenger movement in each Member State’, finds itself subject to administrative and financial obligations which other airports in a comparable situation are able to avoid, without such difference in treatment being objectively justified. The applicant invokes in particular, in that regard, the situation of Hahn and Charleroi airports, serving the same catchment area as Findel airport and each generating a higher volume of passengers than Findel, but which are not subject to the same obligations. The existence of borders between the three airports can in no way justify that they be treated differently.
   By its second plea, the applicant claims furthermore that the provision at issue does not comply with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. First, action at European level is not necessary so as to regulate a situation which could perfectly well have been regulated at national level as long as the threshold of 5 million passengers is not reached. Secondly, the application of the directive would result in supplementary procedures and costs which are not justified for an airport such as Findel, which has the sole particularity of having the highest passenger movement in a Member State, without that having a real relevance with regard to the objectives of the directive.

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 70, p. 11.


title: Case T-103/11: Action brought on 16 February 2011 — Shang v OHIM (Justing)

text:
               9.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/19

         Action brought on 16 February 2011 — Shang v OHIM (Justing)
   (Case T-103/11)
   2011/C 113/38
   Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Tiantian Shang (Rome, Italy) (represented by A. Salerni, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested provision.

               —

               Alter the decision taken by OHIM and recognise the right of seniority enjoyed by national mark RM 2006C002075 in relation to Community trade mark 008391202, including the name and symbol, with all the effects thus entailed as provided for in Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, as replaced by Regulation No 207/2009.

               —

               In the alternative, given that both the national and the Community mark share at the very least a common name element, consisting in the word ‘Justing’, recognise that the name element of the mark, or the name ‘Justing’, has a right of seniority, extending to it the retroactive effects of Community registration, with the possible exclusion solely of the graphic illustration surrounding the name.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘Justing’ (registration application No 8 391 203) for goods and services in Classes 18 and 25, in respect of which it is claimed that the national figurative mark (Italian registration No 1 217 203), which also contains the word element ‘Justing’, has a right of seniority

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejected the application claiming seniority of the national figurative mark on the ground that the Italian mark and the Community mark are not the same.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal.

      Pleas in law: Misapplication of Article 34 of Regulation No 207/2009 and infringement of Directive 98/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 on the legal protection of designs.


title: Case C-447/02 P: Appeal brought on 11 December 2002 by KWS Saat AG against the judgment delivered on 9 October 2002 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-173/00 between KWS Saat AG and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
C 55/6                  EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          8.3.2003
1.     Must Regulation No 2913/92 (1) (the Community Cus-                   Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-
       toms Code) and Regulation No 2454/93 ( 2) (the regu-                 hof by order of that Court of 29 October 2002 in the case
       lation implementing the Community Customs Code), in                  of Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas against Gouralnik &
       particular Article 379(1) of the regulation implementing                                      Partner GmbH
       the Community Customs Code, be construed as meaning
       that the customs debt arising by reason of an offence or
       irregularity in connection with external Community                                           (Case C-446/02)
       transit cannot be recovered by the office of departure
       from the principal if the principal did not, before the end
       of the eleventh month following the date of registration                                      (2003/C 55/12)
       of the Community transit declaration, receive the notifi-
       cation referred to in Article 379 of the regulation
       implementing the Community Customs Code?
                                                                            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
2.     Does the fact that the office of departure did not follow
                                                                            European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof
       an administrative instruction for the transmission of
                                                                            (Federal Finance Court) of 29 October 2002, received at the
       information laid down in the Customs Code Committee
                                                                            Court Registry on 10 December 2002, for a preliminary ruling
       (early warning system) or that the authorities in the office
                                                                            in the case of Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas against Gouralnik
       of departure can be criticised for failure to notify in good
                                                                            & Partner GmbH on the following questions:
       time have any bearing on the answer to this question?
                                                                            1.   Does an entitlement to an export refund exist at least at
( 1) OJ L 302 [1992], p. 1.                                                      the rate of refund applicable to the product actually
( 2) OJ L 253 [1993], p. 1.                                                      exported where it is established during a control by
                                                                                the customs authorities that the declared and exported
                                                                                consignment did not consist entirely of the declared
                                                                                product but contained a proportion of another product
                                                                                to which a lower rate of refund applied?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Vestre Landsret                   2.   Does the fact that the product which was incorrectly
by order of that Court of 15 November 2002 in the case                           declared is similar to that actually declared have any
of Fonden Marselisborg Lystbådehavn against Skattemini-                          bearing on the decision?
                                steriet
                                                                            3.   If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative, in accordance
                          (Case C-428/02)                                        with which criteria must it be determined whether the
                                                                                declaration also covers the incorrectly declared goods?
                           (2003/C 55/11)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Vestre Landsret
(Western Regional Court) of 15 November 2002, received at
the Court Registry on 26 November 2002, for a preliminary
ruling in the case of Fonden Marselisborg Lystbådehavn against
Skatteministeriet (Ministry of Fiscal Affairs) on the following             Appeal brought on 11 December 2002 by KWS Saat AG
questions:                                                                  against the judgment delivered on 9 October 2002 by the
                                                                            Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
1)     Must Article 13.B(b) of the Sixth VAT Directive (Council             European Communities in Case T-173/00 between KWS
       Directive 77/388) (1) be construed as meaning that the               Saat AG and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
       term ‘letting of immovable property’ includes the letting                         Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
       of a boat site consisting of a section of a land-based port
       area and of a defined and identifiable water-based area?
                                                                                (Case C-447/02 P)
2)     Must Article 13.B(b)(2) of the Sixth VAT Directive be
       construed as meaning that the term ‘vehicles’ includes
       boats?                                                                                (2003/C 55/13)
( 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             An appeal against the judgment delivered on 9 October 2002
     basis of assessment (OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1).                     by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                            European Communities in Case T-173/00 between KWS Saat
                                                                            AG and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
 ---pagebreak--- 8.3.2003               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                               C 55/7
(Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of                 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-
Justice of the European Communities on 11 December 2002                   hof by order of that Court of 29 October 2002 in the case
by KWS Saat AG, represented by Dr Christian Rohnke,                       of Hauptzollamt Bremen against Joh. C. Henschen GmbH
Jungfernstieg 51, D-20354 Hamburg, with an address for                                                 & Co. KG
service in Luxembourg.
                                                                                (Case C-451/02)
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                                        (2003/C 55/14)
1.    set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
      9 October 2002 in Case T-173/00 ( 1) in so far as it                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      dismisses the action;                                               European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof
                                                                          (Federal Finance Court) of 29 October 2002, received at the
2.    annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of 19 April               Court Registry on 12 December 2002, for a preliminary ruling
      2000 in Case R 282/1999-2), in so far as that has not               in the case of Hauptzollamt Bremen against Joh. C. Henschen
      already occurred as a result of the judgment of the Court           GmbH & Co. KG on the following questions:
      of First Instance in Case T-173/00;
                                                                          1.    Is a customs debt on importation incurred under
                                                                                Article 203(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (1) where
3.    order the defendant to pay the costs.                                     goods in temporary storage are removed from their place
                                                                                of storage without the authorisation of the customs
                                                                                authority where the goods were presented and are then
                                                                                presented again to another customs office without first
                                                                                having been placed under the Community transit pro-
Grounds of appeal and main arguments                                            cedure required for their movement?
                                                                          2.    If Question 1 should be answered in the negative: In the
—     The Court of First Instance wrongly rejected the appli-                   circumstances described in Question 1 is there a non-
      cant’s claims. The Court failed to recognise that                         fulfilment of an obligation that could result in the
      Article 74(1) of Regulation No 40/94 was infringed if                     incurrence of a customs debt on importation under
      only because up until the time of its appeal decision the                 Article 204(1)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92?
      Office did not in fact carry out any examination of its
      own. The reference for the first time in the appeal decision        3.    If Question 2 should be answered in the affirmative:
      to the web page of a single producer also infringes the                   Should Article 859, point 6, of Regulation (EEC)
      right to a fair hearing. Finally, the Court was compelled,                No 2454/93 (2) be interpreted as meaning that it applies
      in order to support the decision of the Board of Appeal, to               even if goods in temporary storage are moved to a
      construct its own replacement reasoning which, however,                   free warehouse in breach of the formalities relating to
      lacks detail and is formulaic.                                            temporary storage?
—     The Court of First Instance wrongly rejected the factual            4.    If Question 3 should be answered in the negative:
      claims concerning the distinctive character of the colour
      mark ‘orange’ (corresponding to colour code HKS7).                        (a)   Should Article 859, point 5, of Regulation (EEC)
      When assessing the distinctive character of colour marks,                       No 2454/93 be interpreted as referring only to an
      criteria different from those for other types of marks                          unauthorised movement of goods that could have
      cannot be applied. It is immaterial whether other colours                       been authorised by the customs office, or does it
      are used for identifying certain characteristics of the                         mean any movement of goods at all?
      goods at issue. Rather, it must be examined whether the
      specific colour applied for is understood by the public as                (b) Should Article 859, point 5, of Regulation (EEC)
      a reference to a characteristic. If different manufacturers                     No 2454/93 be interpreted as meaning that the
      use different colours as references to a characteristic, the                    condition laid down in that provision, that the
      public will see in those colours at least at the same time a                    goods in temporary storage can be presented to the
      reference to the producer. The colour ‘orange’ is not                           customs authorities at their request, is fulfilled only
      understood by the relevant public as a reference to a                           if the goods are presented again to the customs
      characteristic of the goods at issue. Nor is a decorative or                    office where they were originally presented, or is the
      functional use possible. Therefore the mark has distinctive                     condition fulfilled even if the goods are presented
      character.                                                                      again to any customs office at all — even if it is in
                                                                                another Member State?
( 1) OJ C 323, 21.12.2002.                                                (1 ) OJ L 302, p. 1.
                                                                          (2 ) OJ L 253, p. 1.


title: Case T-396/14: Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2015 — Best-Lock (Europe) v OHIM — Lego Juris (Shape of a toy figure with protrusion) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Three-dimensional Community trade mark — Shape of a toy figure with protrusion — Absolute grounds for refusal — Sign consisting exclusively of the shape which results from the nature of the goods themselves — Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result — Article 7(1)(e)(i) and (ii) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               10.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/25

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2015 — Best-Lock (Europe) v OHIM — Lego Juris (Shape of a toy figure with protrusion)
   (Case T-396/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Three-dimensional Community trade mark - Shape of a toy figure with protrusion - Absolute grounds for refusal - Sign consisting exclusively of the shape which results from the nature of the goods themselves - Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result - Article 7(1)(e)(i) and (ii) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 262/34)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Best-Lock (Europe) Ltd (Colne, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Becker, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Lego Juris A/S (Billund, Denmark) (represented by: V. von Bomhard, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 March 2014 (Case R 1696/2013-4), concerning invalidity proceedings between Best-Lock (Europe) Ltd and Lego Juris A/S.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders Best-Lock (Europe) Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 315, 15.9.2014.


title: Case T-5/04: Action brought on 2 January 2004 by Carlo Scano against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
6.3.2004              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 59/35
Action brought on 2 January 2004 by Carlo Scano against                   Action brought on 7 January 2004 by Shaker s.a.s. di
       the Commission of the European Communities                         Lucia Laudato & C. against the Office for Harmonisation
                                                                               in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                           (Case T-5/04)
                                                                                (Case T-7/04)
                         (2004/C 59/55)
                                                                                (2004/C 59/56)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 2 January 2004 by Carlo Scano,                    An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
resident in Brussels (Belgium), represented by Marc-Albert                Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Lucas, lawyer.                                                            European Communities on 7 January 2004 by Shaker s.a.s. di
                                                                          Lucia Laudato & C., represented by F. Sciaudone, lawyer. The
                                                                          other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal was
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          Liminana y Botella S.L.
—     annul the decision of the selection board in Competition
      COM/PA/02 determining the applicant’s results in the
      pre-selection tests;                                                The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the list of successful candidates in Subject Area             —     annul the contested decision and/or vary it by rejecting
      No 3 of the competition and any decision adopted on                       the opposition by Liminana y Botella S.L., and by granting
      that basis;                                                               the application for registration of the Community trade
                                                                                mark submitted by the applicant;
—     order the Commission to pay to him compensation for
      non-material damage to him in a sum to be fixed by the              —     order OHIM to pay the costs of these proceedings.
      Court;
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Party seeking the regis-      The applicant
                                                                          tration of the Com-
                                                                          munity trade mark:
The applicant, who lodged his candidature for Competition
COM/PA/02 for promotion from category B to category A,
                                                                          Relevant      Community       Figurative mark ‘Limoncello della
choosing the subject area ‘Human Resources Management/
                                                                          mark:                         Costiera Amalfitana-Shaker’ —
Administrative Organisation and Coordination’, seeks firstly
                                                                                Registration application No
the annulment of the selection board’s decision determining
                                                                                1267434 for products in Class-
his results in the pre-selection test and on that basis refusing
                                                                                es 29, 32 and 33 (jellies, preserves,
to admit him to the oral test.
                                                                                jams and liqueurs), subsequently
                                                                                limited to Classes 29 and 33.
In support of his claims the applicant pleads a breach of the
principles of good administration, of the duty to have regard             Owner of the mark or          Liminana y Botella S.L.
for the interests of officials, and of the principles of equal            distinctive sign asserted
treatment of candidates throughout the competition and                    in the opposition pro-
of objectivity when choosing between them. He claims,                     ceedings:
furthermore, that there was a manifest error of assessment in
that the sixth multiple choice question in the Italian version of         Mark or distinctive sign      Spanish word mark ‘limonchelo’,
the verbal and numerical test contained differences, caused by            asserted in the oppo-         for products in Class 33.
translation errors, from the English and French versions.                 sition proceedings:
Consequently the applicant, who had opted for the Italian
version, logically chose an answer considered incorrect and               Opposition      Division’s    Opposition upheld and appli-
did not choose that considered correct, unlike candidates who             decision:                     cation for registration rejected,
had opted for the other two language versions.                                                          limited to Class 33.
                                                                          Appeal Board’s decision:      Appeal dismissed.


title: Case T-131/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of 12 September 2008 — Jacobs v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Interlocutory judgment — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/35

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 12 September 2008 — Jacobs v Commission
   (Case T-131/04) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Interlocutory judgment - No need to adjudicate)
   (2008/C 301/58)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Luc Jacobs (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: N. Lhoëst, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and H. Krämer, Agents, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)
   Re:
   First, application for annulment of the Commission's decision of 14 April 2003 altering the applicant's classification in grade, in so far as it fixes his classification in step on recruitment in step 2 of Grade B4, fixes 5 October 1995 as the date on which the decision was to have pecuniary effect and did not re-establish the applicant's career grade, and an application for annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant's complaint and, second, an application for compensation for the damage allegedly caused by that decision.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               The Commission shall pay all the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 118, 30.4.2004.


               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/67

         Removal from the register of Case T-318/02 (1)

   (2004/C 94/170)

      (Language of the Case: English)

   By order of 14 November 2003 the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case T-318/02: H.O. Sports Inc. v Office for the Harmonisation of the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Design) (OHIM).

      (1)  OJ C 7 of 11.01.2003.


title: Case C-154/05: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 July 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — J.J. Kersbergen-Lap, D. Dams-Schipper v Raad van Bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut Werknemersverzekeringen (Social security for migrant workers — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Article 4(2a), Article 10a and Annex IIa — Special non-contributory benefits — Netherlands benefit for disabled young people — Non-exportability)

text:
               2.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/8

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 July 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — J.J. Kersbergen-Lap, D. Dams-Schipper v Raad van Bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut Werknemersverzekeringen
   (Case C-154/05) (1)

   (Social security for migrant workers - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 4(2a), Article 10a and Annex IIa - Special non-contributory benefits - Netherlands benefit for disabled young people - Non-exportability)
   (2006/C 212/13)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Rechtbank Amsterdam
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: J.J.Kersbergen-Lap, D. Dams-Schipper

      Defendant: Raad van Bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut Werknemersverzekeringen
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank Amsterdam — Interpretation of Articles 4(2a) and10a of and Annex IIa to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416), as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1247/92 of 30 April 1992 (OJ 1992 L 136, p.1) — Special non-contributory benefits — System of coordination laid down under Article 10a of Regulation No 1408/71 — Field of application — Whether or not a benefit for young disabled people mentioned in Annex IIa to Regulation No 1408/71 is included — Recipients resident outside the Netherlands
   Operative part of the judgment
   A benefit under the Wet arbeidsongeschiktheidsvoorziening jonggehandicapten of 24 April 1997 (law on provision of incapacity benefit to disabled young people) must be regarded as a special non-contributory benefit, as referred to in Article 4(2a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 307/1999 of 8 February 1999, with the result that only the coordinating provision in Article 10a of that regulation must be applied and that benefit cannot be paid to any person residing outside the Netherlands.

      (1)  OJ C 155, 25.06.2005.


title: Case T-651/11: Action brought on 16 December 2011 — Syriatel Mobile Telecom v Council

text:
               11.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/20

         Action brought on 16 December 2011 — Syriatel Mobile Telecom v Council
   (Case T-651/11)
   2012/C 39/39
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Syriatel Mobile Telecom (Joint Stock Company) (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: J. Pujol, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the applicant’s action admissible and well-founded;

               —

               consequently, annul Decision 2011/628/CFSP, and Regulation (EU) No 950/2011 (EU) and the subsequent measures implementing it, in so far as they relate to the applicant;

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law alleging an absence of a legal basis for Decision 2011/628/CFSP (1) due to the repeal of Decision 2011/273/CFSP (2) by Decision 2011/782/CFSP. (3)

               2.

               Second plea in law alleging an absence of a legal basis for Regulation No 950/2011 (4) due to the repeal of Decision 2011/273/CFSP.

               3.

               Third plea in law alleging that the contested measures are in breach of the rights of the defence and in particular the right to effective judicial protection provided for in Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), Article 215 TFEU and Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law alleging that the defendant failed to fulfil its obligation to state reasons, since the reasons provided do not satisfy the obligation imposed on the institutions of the European Union by Article 6 of the ECHR, Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law alleging that the contested measures impose unwarranted and unjustified restrictions on the applicant’s fundamental rights and in particular its property rights, provided for in Article 1 of the Additional Protocol to the ECHR and in Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and the right to respect for its reputation, provided for in Articles 8 and 10(2) of the ECHR.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law alleging an adverse effect on competition within the European Union in that the adopted measures will result in a distortion of the normal operation of the telecommunications market within the European Union and thereby adversely affect competition between European operators and in trade between the Member States.

      (1)  Council Decision 2011/628/CFSP of 23 September 2011 amending Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2011 L 247, p. 17).

      (2)  Council Decision 2011/273/CFSP of 9 May 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2011 L 121, p. 11).

      (3)  Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP of 1 December 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/273/CFSP (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 56).

      (4)  Council Regulation (EU) No 950/2011 of 23 September 2011 amending Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2011 L 247, p. 3).


title: Case C-576/08 P: Appeal brought on 23 December 2008 by People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 23 October 2008 in Case T-256/07 People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran v Council of the European Union

text:
               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/15

         Appeal brought on 23 December 2008 by People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 23 October 2008 in Case T-256/07 People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-576/08 P)
   (2009/C 55/24)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellant: People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (represented by: J.-P. Spitzer, lawyer, D. Vaughan QC, M.-E. Demetriou, Barrister)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Commission of the European Communities, Kingdom of the Netherlands
   Form of order sought
   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the decision of the Court of First Instance insofar as that Court dismissed the PMOI's application to annul Council Decision 2007/445/EC (1) as unfounded;

               —

               annul Decision 2007/445/EC insofar as it concerned the PMOI;

               —

               order the Council to pay the Appellant's costs in this Court and with regard to Decision 2007/445/EC in the Court of First Instance.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Appellant contends that in a case which concerned fundamental rights and the application of Article 1(4) and 1(6) of Common Position 931/2001 and Article 2(3) of Regulation 2580/2001 in relation to a Community measure which maintained the People's Mojahedin of Iran on the list of proscribed organisations:

               (1)

               In determining whether the Council had made a manifest error of assessment, the Court of First Instance failed to provide a full review of Decision 2006/445/EC as required by the EC Treaty;

               (2)

               The Court of First Instance failed to respect the principle of effective judicial protection by failing to provide full review;

               (3)

               The Court of First Instance was wrong in law to conclude that the Council had not committed a manifest error of assessment in reaching its Decision. The Council and the CFI had before it all the facts and arguments that were before the national tribunal and should have considered the exculpatory material in detail;

               (4)

               The Court of First Instance was wrong in law under Articles 1(4) and (6) of the aforesaid Common Position and Article 2(3) of the aforesaid Regulation to reject the Appellant's contention that only contemporaneous terrorist activity or threats are capable of justifying the continued inclusion of a person on the list;

               (5)

               The CFI was wrong to conclude that the Council could correctly exclude the exculpatory material adduced by the Appellant on the basis of its conclusion on the matters addressed by the previous ground of appeal;

               (6)

               The Court of First Instance was wrong to reject the Appellant's argument that the Council had failed to give adequate reasons in respect of the exculpatory material adduced by the Appellant concerning matters since 2001, and why the continued inclusion of the Appellant on the list of proscribed organisations was justified.

      (1)  Council Decision of 28 June 2007 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measres directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decisions 2006/379/EC and 2006/1008/EC (2007/445/EC) (OJ L 169, p. 58).


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) of 23 November 1995 in Case C-476/93 P: Nutral SpA v. Commission of the European Communities (Appeal - Action for annulment of measures - Admissibility)

text:
No C 31 /4             EN |               Official Journal of the European Communities                                       3 . 2 . 96
Arbeit ( Federal Labour Office ) — on the interpretation of          other party to the proceedings being the Commission of the
Article 1 ( 1 ) of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3427/89 of          European Communities ( Agents : Eugenio de March and
30 October 1989 amending Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71               Alberto Dal Ferro ) — the Court ( Third Chamber ),
on the application of social security schemes to employed            composed of J. -P. Puissochet ( Rapporteur ), President of the
persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their            Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida and C. Gulmann,
families moving within the Community and Regulation                  Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General ;
( EEC ) No 574/72 laying down the procedure for                      R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 November
implementing Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 ( OJ 1989 No              1995 , in which it:
L 331 , p. 1 ) — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of
C. N. Kakouris, President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch ,                1 . dismisses the appeal;
G. F. Mancini, F. A. Schockweiler and J. L. Murray
( Rapporteur ), Judges; P. Leger, Advocate General ; H. A.           2 . orders the appellant to pay the costs.
Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar , has given a
judgment on 23 November 1995 , in which it rules :
                                                                     (') OJ No C 43 , 12 . 2 . 1994 .
Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on
the application of social security schemes to employed
persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their
families moving within the Community, as amended by
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001 /83 of 2 June 1983 , and                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
as subsequently amending Regulation (EEC) No 3427/89 of                                  of 30 November 1995
30 October 1989 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71
on the application of social security schemes to employed            in Case C-55/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their            the Consiglio Nazionale Forense ): Reinhard Gebhard v.
families moving within the Community and Regulation                  Consiglio dell'Ordine degli Avvocati e Procuratori di
(EEC) No 574/72 laying down the procedure for                                                     Milano ( 1 )
implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 , does not                  (Directive 77/249/EEC — Freedom to provide services —
prevent a national provision limiting the retroactive effect of      Lawyers — Possibility of opening chambers — Articles 52
applications for family benefits to a period of six months                             and 59 of the EC Treaty)
from being applied to an application by a Spanish national                                      ( 96/C 31 /08 )
for payment as from IS January 1986 of family benefits in
respect of the members of his family resident in Spain.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
(>) OJ No C 263 , 29 . 9 . 1993 .
                                                                     (Provisional translation• the definitive translation will be
                                                                              published in the European Courts Report)
                                                                     In Case C-55/94 : reference to the Court under Article 1 77 of
                                                                     the EC Treaty from the Consiglio Nazionale Forense
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                 ( National Council of the Bar ), Italy, for a preliminary ruling
                        (Third Chamber )                             in the proceedings pending before that court between
                                                                     Reinhard Gebhard and Consiglio dell'Ordine degli Avvocati
                     of 23 November 1995                             e Procuratori di Milano — on the interpretation of Council
in Case C-476/93 P: Nutral SpA v. Commission of the                  Directive 77/249/EEC of 22 March 1977 to facilitate the
                   European Communities (')                          effective exercise by lawyers of freedom to provide services
      (Appeal — Action for annulment of measures —                   ( OJ 1977, No L 78 , p. 17 ) — the Court, composed of G. C.
                          Admissibility)                             Rodriguez Iglesias , President, C. N. Kakouris , D. A. O.
                                                                     Edward ( Rapporteur ) and G. Hirsch ( Presidents of
                           ( 96/C 31 /07                             Chambers ), G. F. Mancini , F. A. Schockweiler, J. C.
                                                                     Moitinho de Almeida , P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann , J. L.
                 (Language of the case: Italian)                     Murray, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and L. Sevòn, Judges;
                                                                     P. Leger, Advocate General ; H. A. Rühl , Principal
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be         Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
          published in the European Courts Report)                   30 November 1995 , in which it rules :
In Case C-476/93 P : Nutral SpA, established at                       1 . The temporary nature of the provision of services,
Casalbuttano, Cremona ( Italy ), represented by Emilio                    envisaged in the third paragraph of Article 60 of the EC
Cappelli and Paolo de Caterini, of the Rome Bar, and Mario                Treaty, is to be determined in the light of its duration,
de Bellis , of the Mantua Bar, with an address for service in             regularity, periodicity and continuity.
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Charles Turk, 1 3b Avenue
 Guillaume — appeal against the order of the Court of First           2 . The provider of services, within the meaning of the
Instance of the European Communities of 21 October 1993                   Treaty, may equip himselfin the host Member State with
in Cases T-492/93 and T-492/93 R Nutral v. Commission                     the infrastructure necessary for the purposes of
 [ 1993 ] ECR 11-1023 , seeking to have that order set aside, the         performing the services in question.


title: Appeal Chamber

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/42

         Appeal Chamber
   (2007/C 269/73)
   On 19 September 2007, the Court of First Instance decided that, for the period from 25 September 2007 to 30 September 2008, the Appeal Chamber will be composed of the President of the Court and, in rotation, four Presidents of Chambers.


title: Case T-148/16: Judgment of the General Court of 20 July 2017 — Barnett and Mogensen v Commission (Appeal — Cross-appeal — Civil Service — Officials — Pensions — Adaptation of the weightings — Interim update — Adversely affecting act — Admissibility of the cross-appeal — Article 65(4) of the Staff Regulations — Update for 2014 — Sensitivity threshold concerning the progression of the cost of living)

text:
               28.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/39

         Judgment of the General Court of 20 July 2017 — Barnett and Mogensen v Commission
   (Case T-148/16) (1)

   ((Appeal - Cross-appeal - Civil Service - Officials - Pensions - Adaptation of the weightings - Interim update - Adversely affecting act - Admissibility of the cross-appeal - Article 65(4) of the Staff Regulations - Update for 2014 - Sensitivity threshold concerning the progression of the cost of living))
   (2017/C 283/58)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellants: Adrian Barnett (Roskilde, Denmark) and Sven-Ole Mogensen (Hellerup, Denmark) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 5 February 2016, Barnett and Mogensen v Commission (F-56/15, EU:F:2016:11) seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal and the cross-appeal;

               2.

               Orders Messrs Adrian Barnett and Sven-Ole Mogensen to bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission in the appeal;

               3.

               Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by Messrs Barnett and Mogensen in the cross-appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 191, 30.5.2016.


title: Case T-53/05: Action brought on 24 January 2005 by Calavo Growers of California against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
               2.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/43

         Action brought on 24 January 2005 by Calavo Growers of California against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case T-53/05)
   (2005/C 82/77)
   Language in which the application was submitted: Spanish
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (O.H.I.M.) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 24 January 2005 by Calavo Growers of California, represented by Enrique Armijo Chavarri and Antonio Castán Pérez-Gómez, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 8 November 2004 in Case R 159/2004, and

               —

               order O.H.I.M. to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   On 8 March 2001 Luis Calvo Sanz applied for registration of the figurative mark ‘CALVO’ (No 2.127.132) in respect of products in Classes 29, 30 and 31.
   On 21 December 2001 Calavo Growers of California, the applicant in these proceedings, lodged a notice of opposition against the earlier application, on the basis of the word Community trade mark ‘CALAVO’ (No 102.822) registered for products in Classes 29 and 31. This notice of opposition fell into two parts. The first contained a form in Spanish, indicating the language of the opposition proceedings, the application for registration under challenge, the opponent and its representative, the current account for payment of the fee and the earlier Community trade mark. This first part also stated that the opposition was based on ‘all the products/services in respect of which the earlier trade mark has been registered/applied for’, and on ‘an earlier trade mark and the risk of confusion’.
   The second part of the notice of opposition contained a statement of the grounds of opposition. That part of the notice was drafted in English.
   On 18 December 2003 the Opposition Division gave its decision No 2927/2003, upholding in part the applicant's opposition. That decision did not take into consideration the claims made in English, because they had not been translated into the language of the case within the period prescribed for that purpose.
   The competent Board of Appeal upheld the action brought by the applicant for a Community trade mark against that decision, on the ground that the Opposition Division had no jurisdiction to rule on the opposition, because the applicant's arguments on the merits of the case were inadmissible, for want of translation into the language of the case.
   In support of its claims, the applicant alleges infringement of Articles 42(3) and 74(1) of Regulation (European Communities) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, in conjunction with Rule 20(3) of the Implementing Regulations.


title: Case C-325/06 P: Order of the Court of 20 March 2007 — Galileo International Technology LLC, Galileo International LLC, Galileo Belgium SA, Galileo Danmark A/S, Galileo Deutschland GmbH, Galileo España SA, Galileo France SARL, Galileo Nederland BV, Galileo Nordiska AB, Galileo Portugal Ltd, Galileo Sigma Srl, Galileo International Ltd, The Galileo Company, Timas Ltd (trading as Galileo Ireland) v Commission of the European Communities (Appeals — Community project for a satellite navigation system (GALILEO) — Harm suffered by the proprietors of trade marks and business names containing the word Galileo — Appeal partly manifestly admissible and partly manifestly unfounded)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/27

         Order of the Court of 20 March 2007 — Galileo International Technology LLC, Galileo International LLC, Galileo Belgium SA, Galileo Danmark A/S, Galileo Deutschland GmbH, Galileo España SA, Galileo France SARL, Galileo Nederland BV, Galileo Nordiska AB, Galileo Portugal Ltd, Galileo Sigma Srl, Galileo International Ltd, The Galileo Company, Timas Ltd (trading as Galileo Ireland) v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-325/06 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Community project for a satellite navigation system (GALILEO) - Harm suffered by the proprietors of trade marks and business names containing the word Galileo - Appeal partly manifestly admissible and partly manifestly unfounded)
   (2007/C 96/47)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Galileo International Technology LLC, Galileo International LLC, Galileo Belgium SA, Galileo Danmark A/S, Galileo Deutschland GmbH, Galileo España SA, Galileo France SARL, Galileo Nederland BV, Galileo Nordiska AB, Galileo Portugal Ltd, Galileo Sigma Srl, (represented by: J.-N. Louis and C. Delcorde)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Huttunen and W. Wils, as Agents)
   Re:
   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) of 10 May 2006 in Case T-279/03 Galileo International Technology and Others v Commission by which the Court dismissed an application seeking, first, an order that the Commission cease to use the term Galileo in relation to the Community project for a global satellite navigation system and to encourage others to use that term, and, second, for compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicants on account of the use and promotion of that term by the Commission, which they claimed to be identical to trade marks registered by them and to their business names
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Galileo International Technology LLC, Galileo International LLC, Galileo Belgium SA, Galileo Danmark A/S, Galileo Deutschland GmbH, Galileo España SA, Galileo France SARL, Galileo Nederland BV, Galileo Nordiska AB, Galileo Portugal Ltd, Galileo Sigma Srl, Galileo International Ltd, The Galileo Co. and Timas Ltd are ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 224, 16.9.2006.


title: Case C-572/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 11 December 2014  — Austro-Mechana Gesellschaft zur Wahrnehmung mechanisch-musikalischer Urheberrechte Gesellschaft mbH v Amazon EU Sàrl and Others

text:
               9.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 81/5

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 11 December 2014 — Austro-Mechana Gesellschaft zur Wahrnehmung mechanisch-musikalischer Urheberrechte Gesellschaft mbH v Amazon EU Sàrl and Others
   (Case C-572/14)
   (2015/C 081/07)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Austro-Mechana Gesellschaft zur Wahrnehmung mechanisch-musikalischer Urheberrechte Gesellschaft mbH

      Defendants: Amazon EU Sàrl, Amazon Services Europe Sàrl, Amazon.de GmbH, Amazon Logistik GmbH, Amazon Media Sàrl

      Question referred

   Does a claim for payment of ‘fair compensation’ under Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (1) which, in accordance with Austrian law, is directed against undertakings that are first to place recording material on the domestic market on a commercial basis and for consideration constitute a claim arising from ‘tort, delict or quasi-delict’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (2)?

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10.

      (2)  OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 May 2000 in Case C-296/98: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directives 92/49/EEC and 92/96/EEC — National legislation requiring notification to the competent minister of the conditions of a standard form contract of insurance when it is first marketed)

text:
22.7.2000                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 211/3
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                           of 11 May 2000
in Case C-38/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                                of 11 May 2000
the Corte d’Appello di Torino): Régie Nationale des Usines
     Renault SA v Maxicar SpA and Orazio Formento (1)
                                                                            in Case C-296/98: Commission of the European Communi-
(Brussels Convention — Enforcement of judgments —
                                                                                ties v French Republic (1)
Intellectual property rights relating to vehicle body parts —
                             Public policy)
                           (2000/C 211/04)                                  (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                            Directives 92/49/EEC and 92/96/EEC — National legis-
                                                                            lation requiring notification to the competent minister of the
                     (Language of the case: Italian)                        conditions of a standard form contract of insurance when it
                                                                                is first marketed)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (2000/C 211/05)
In Case C-38/98: Reference to the Court pursuant to the
Protocol of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of
Justice of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdic-
tion and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commer-                                       (Language of the case: French)
cial Matters by the Corte d’Appello di Torino, Italy, for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings before that court
between Régie Nationale des Usines Renault SA and Maxicar
SpA, Orazio Formento on the interpretation of Article 27,                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
point 1, of the abovementioned Convention of 27 September                                       in the European Court Reports)
1968 (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 36), as amended by the Convention
of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of
Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain
                                                                            In Case C-296/98: Commission of the European Communities
and Northern Ireland (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 1 and — amended
                                                                            (Agents: C. Tufvesson and B. Mongin) v French Republic
version — p. 77) and by the Convention of 25 October 1982
                                                                            (Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger and S. Seam) — application for a
on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic (OJ 1982 L 388,
                                                                            declaration that, by maintaining in force Article L. 310-8 of
p. 1), and of Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty (now, after
                                                                            the Insurance Code, which provides that, when marketing a
amendment, Articles 28 EC and 30 EC) and Article 86 of the
                                                                            standard form contract of insurance for the first time in France,
EC Treaty (now Article 82 EC) — the Court (Fifth Chamber),
                                                                            insurance and capitalisation undertakings must notify it to the
composed of: D.A.O. Edward, President of the Chamber,
                                                                            Minister for Economic and Financial Affairs in accordance
L. Sevón, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and M. Wathe-
                                                                            with the conditions laid down by order of that minister, and
let, Judges, S. Alber, Advocate General; Lynn Hewlett, Adminis-
                                                                            Article A. 310-1 of the same code, which provides that the
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 May
                                                                            information referred to in the first paragraph of Article L. 310-
2000, in which it has ruled:
                                                                            8 is to be provided in the form of a information sheet drawn
                                                                            up in French containing the information mentioned in the
Article 27, point 1, of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on
                                                                            annex to Article A. 310-1, the French Republic has failed to
Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commer-
                                                                            fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and under Articles 6,
cial Matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on
                                                                            29 and 39 of Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992
the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United
                                                                            on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and by the
                                                                            provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance
Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic
                                                                            and amending Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (third
Republic, must be interpreted as meaning that a judgment of a court
                                                                            non-life insurance directive) (OJ 1992 L 228, p. 1) and
or tribunal of a Contracting State recognising the existence of an
                                                                            Articles 5, 29 and 39 of Council Directive 92/96/EEC of
intellectual property right in body parts for cars, and conferring on
                                                                            10 November 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations
the holder of that right protection by enabling him to prevent third
                                                                            and administrative provisions relating to direct assurance and
parties trading in another Contracting State from manufacturing,
                                                                            amending Directives 79/267/EEC and 90/619/EEC (third life
selling, transporting, importing or exporting in that Contracting
                                                                            assurance directive) (OJ 1992 L 360, p. 1) — the Court
State such body parts, cannot be considered to be contrary to public
                                                                            (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J.C. Moitinho de Almeida
policy.
                                                                            (Rapporteur), President of the Sixth Chamber, acting as
                                                                            President of the Fifth Chamber, L. Sevón, C. Gulmann,
(1) OJ C 113 of 11.4.1998.                                                  J.-P. Puissochet and M. Wathelet, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate
                                                                            General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar,
                                                                            has given a judgment on 11 May 2000, in which it:
 ---pagebreak--- C 211/4                  EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      22.7.2000
1. Declares that, by maintaining in force the combined provisions            declaration that by maintaining in force Real Decreto
     of Article L. 310-8 and Article A. 310-1 of the Insurance Code,         157/1988, por el que se establece la normativa a que deben
     which provide that insurance or capitalisation undertakings             ajustarse las denominaciones de origen y las denominaciones
     which market for the first time in France a standard form contract      de origen calificadas de vinos y sus respectivos Reglamentos
     of insurance must systematically send the Minister for Economic         (Royal Decree No 157/88 laying down the rules governing
     and Financial Affairs an information sheet containing infor-            designations of origin and controlled designations of origin
     mation on the general conditions of insurance policies, the French      for wines and regulations implementing it, BOE No 47 of
     Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 6, 29      24 February 1988, p. 5864)) and in particular Article 19(1)(b)
     and 39 of Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the            thereof, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations
     coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions         under Article 34 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
     relating to direct insurance other than life assurance and              Article 29 EC), as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the
     amending Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (third non-               European Communities in its judgment of 9 June 1992 in
     life insurance directive) and Articles 5, 29 and 39 of Council          Case C-47/90 Delhaize v Promalvin [1992] ECR I-3669, and
     Directive 92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992 on the coordi-                  Article 5 of the EC Treaty (now Article 10 EC — the Court,
     nation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating      composed of G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho
     to direct life assurance and amending Directives 79/267/EEC             de Almeida, D.A.O. Edward, L. Sevón, R. Schintgen (Presidents
     and 90/619/EEC (third life assurance directive);                        of Chambers), C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet,
                                                                             G. Hirsch, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet, Judges,
2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.                              Advocate General: A. Saggio, D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal
                                                                             Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 16 May
                                                                             2000, in which it:
(1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.
                                                                             1. Dismisses the action;
                                                                             2. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium and the Kingdom of Spain to
                                                                                bear their own costs;
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                             3. Orders the Kingdom of Denmark, the Italian        Republic, the
                                                                                Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Portuguese       Republic, the
                           of 12 May 2000
                                                                                Republic of Finland, the United Kingdom of       Great Britain
                                                                                and Northern Ireland and the Commission of       the European
in Case C-388/95: Kingdom of Belgium v Kingdom of                                Communities to bear their own costs.
                                Spain (1)
(Article 34 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
                                                                             (1) OJ C 46 of 14.2.1996.
Article 29 EC) — Regulation (EEC) No 823/87 — Quality
wines produced in a specified region — Designations of
origin — Obligation to bottle in the region of production —
Justification — Consequences of an earlier judgment giving
a preliminary ruling — Article 5 of the EC Treaty (now
                            Article 10 EC))
                           (2000/C 211/06)
                     (Language of the case: Spanish)                         Action brought on 21 February 2000 by the Commission
                                                                             of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
(Provisional translation: the definitive translation will be published
                in the Reports of Cases before the Court)                                               (Case C-54/00)
In Case C-388/95, Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: J. Devadder),
supported by Kingdom of Denmark (Agent: P. Biering), the                                               (2000/C 211/07)
Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents: M. Fierstra and J. van
den Oosterkamp), the Republic of Finland (Agents: H. Rotkirch,
T. Pynna and K. Castrén) and by the United Kingdom of Great                  An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: S. Ridley, assisted by                  Court of Justice of the European Communities on 21 February
E. Sharpston), v Kingdom of Spain (R. Silva de la Puerta),                   2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
supported by the Italian Republic (Agent: Professor U. Leanza,               represented by Richard Wainwright, of its Legal Service, and
assisted by I. M. Braguglia), the Portuguese Republic (Agents:               Giacinto Bisogni, appeal court judge on secondment to the
L. Fernandes, Â. Cortesão Seiça Neves and L. Bigotte Chorão)              Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
and the Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                      Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner
J.L. Iglesias Buhigues and H. van Lier) — application for a                  Centre, Kirchberg.


title: Joined Cases C-359/08 to C-361/08: Order of the President of the Court of 2 April 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — The Netherlands) — Stichting Greenpeace Nederland (C-359/08 to C-361/08), Stichting ter Voorkoming Misbruik Genetische Manipulatie VoMiGen (C-360/08) v Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer, other party: Pioneer Hi-Bred Northern Europe Sales Division GmbH

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/36

         Order of the President of the Court of 2 April 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — The Netherlands) — Stichting Greenpeace Nederland (C-359/08 to C-361/08), Stichting ter Voorkoming Misbruik Genetische Manipulatie ‘VoMiGen’ (C-360/08) v Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer, other party: Pioneer Hi-Bred Northern Europe Sales Division GmbH
   (Joined Cases C-359/08 to C-361/08) (1)

   2009/C 180/64

      Language of the case: Dutch

   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 285, 8.11.2008.


title: Case F-85/10: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 11 July 2012 — AI v Court of Justice (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Internal competition — Elimination from the competition in consequence of the result obtained in the first written test — Reexamination — Equal treatment — Reclassification of a fixed-term employment contract as a contract for an indefinite period — Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract as a member of the temporary staff — Action for annulment — Action for damages)

text:
               16.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/26

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 11 July 2012 — AI v Court of Justice
   (Case F-85/10) (1)

   (Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Internal competition - Elimination from the competition in consequence of the result obtained in the first written test - Reexamination - Equal treatment - Reclassification of a fixed-term employment contract as a contract for an indefinite period - Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract as a member of the temporary staff - Action for annulment - Action for damages)
   2013/C 46/48
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: AI (represented: initially by M. Erniquin, lawyer, and subsequently by M. Erniquin and L. N’Gapou, lawyers)

      Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: A. V. Placco, Agent)

      Re:

   Civil service — First, application for the annulment of the deliberations of the Selection Board concerning the results of the French test in internal competition on the basis of tests No CJ 12/09 and, to the extent necessary, annulment of the contracts and appointments of the persons who passed that competition and, second, application for the annulment of the decision not to renew the applicant’s temporary staff contract, and application for compensation for damage.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders AI to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the Court of Justice of the European Union.

      (1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2011, p. 39.


title: Case T-211/07: Action brought on 13 June 2007 — AWWW v European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions

text:
               4.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/39

         Action brought on 13 June 2007 — AWWW v European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions
   (Case T-211/07)
   (2007/C 183/75)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: AWWW GmbH ArbeitsWelt — Working World (Göttingen, Germany) (represented by: B. Schreier, M. Kappuhne, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions
   Form of order sought

               —

               the lifting of procurement procedure: fast track restricted tender No 2007/S 13-014125 published in the OJ S 13 on 19 January 2007 relating to information and analysis on quality of work and employments, industrial relations and restructuring covering the European level of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant claims that the method of execution of the above mentioned procurement procedure was not conducted fairly by the defendant.
   The applicant submits, first, that the grounds for rejecting its bid are not sufficiently motivated. In particular, the extracts of the evaluation sheet which have been forwarded to the applicant allegedly fail to explain adequately why the contract was awarded to another tenderer.
   Secondly, the applicant further submits that the defendant's letter dated 15 May 2007 contains formal defects since the annex B to the evaluation report was allegedly not signed by persons entrusted with the tenders' assessment.