title: Case C-294/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Civile di Bologna by order of that court of 24 May 2001 in the case of Granarolo SpA against Comune di Bologna

text:
29.9.2001             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 275/9
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Consiglio di                 that (according to the interpretation which has been given
Stato by order of that court of 12 June 2001 in the case               thereto in the present case) would mean that a ‘best before’
of Albacom S.p.A. against Ministero del Tesoro, del                    date of four days after preparation would apply to milk
        Bilancio e della Programmazione economica                      pasteurised at high temperature (a type of milk contemplated
                                                                       and governed solely by Directive 46/92/EEC and Decree
                        (Case C-292/01)                                54/97/EEC).
                        (2001/C 275/18)                                (1) OJ L 268, 14.9.1992, p. 1.
                                                                       (2) OJ L 186, 30.6.1989, p. 17.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 (3) OJ L 186, 30.6.1989, p. 21.
European Communities by order of the Consiglio di Stato
(Council of State) of 12 June 2001, received at the Court
Registry on 23 July 2001, in the case of Albacom S.p.A. against
Ministero del Tesoro, del Bilancio e della Programmazione
economica on the following question:
                                                                       Action brought on 7 August 2001 by the Commission of
                                                                       the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
May Directive 97/13/EC (1) permit Member States to require
undertakings holding a licence or authorisation to carry on                                      (Case C-312/01)
telecommunications activities to make financial payments,
whatever they may be called, other than and in addition to                                       (2001/C 275/20)
those allowed by the Directive?
                                                                       An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
(1) OJ L 117, 7.5.1997, p. 15.                                         the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 7 August
                                                                       2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                       represented by Elsa Christina Tufvesson, Commission Legal
                                                                       Adviser, and Maria Patakia, of its Legal Service.
                                                                       The Commission claims that the Court should:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Civile
di Bologna by order of that court of 24 May 2001 in the                —     declare that, by failing to adopt and to notify to the
     case of Granarolo SpA against Comune di Bologna                         Commission, within the time-limit laid down, the laws,
                                                                             regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
                        (Case C-294/01)                                      comply fully with Directive 98/78/EC of the European
                                                                             Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 1998 (1) on
                        (2001/C 275/19)                                      the supplementary supervision of insurance undertakings
                                                                             in an insurance group, the Hellenic Republic has failed to
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty;
European Communities by order of the Tribunale Civile di
                                                                       —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
Bologna (District Civil Court, Bologna) of 24 May 2001,
received at the Court Registry on 23 July 2001, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Granarolo SpA against
Comune di Bologna on the following question:                           Pleas in law and main arguments
May application of the combined provisions of Council                  The Member States are required by the binding character of
Directive 92/46/EEC of 16 June 1992 laying down the health             the third paragraph of Article 249 EC and Article 10 EC (ex
rules for the production and placing on the market of raw milk,        Articles 189 and 5 of the EC Treaty) to adopt the measures
heat-treated milk and milk-based products (1) (implemented in          needed to transpose directives into national law before the
Italy by Presidential Decree No 54 of 14 January 1997) and             expiry of the time-limit laid down for that purpose and to
Directives 89/395/EEC (2) and 89/396/EEC (3), which concern            communicate those measures immediately to the Commission.
the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs              That time-limit expired on 5 June 2000 without the Hellenic
(implemented in Italy by Legislative Decree No 109 of                  Republic having notified to the Commission the provisions
27 January 1992) be limited by the content of a piece of               transposing the directive in question into national law.
national legislation (in particular Article 5(3), in relation to
Article 3, of Law No 169 of 3 May 1989). If it is so limited,          (1) OJ L 330, 5.12.1998, p. 1.


title: Case C-221/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Ufficio del Giudice di Pace di Genova (Magistrate's Court, Genoa) by order of that court of 6 May 1999 in the case of Giuseppe Conte against Stefania Rossi

text:
28.8.1999               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 246/11
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tampereen                          (a) the final measure of the public authorities is essentially
Käräjäoikeus by order of that court of 1 June 1999 in the                           an act confirming the independently expressed will of
case of Neste Markkinointi Oy v Yötuuli Ky, Eija Ritamäki,                          the national councils of the associations concerned; or
             Anna-Kaisa Jukkola and Jari Jukkola
                          (Case C-214/99)                                      (b) the final measures of the public authorities essentially
                                                                                delegate to the members of the associations concerned
                                                                                the power to set the fee scale at their own discretion,
                          (1999/C 246/21)                                           even after the professional services requested of them
                                                                                have been performed; or
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Tampereen Kärä-
jäoikeus (Tampere District Court), Finland, of 1 June 1999,                    (c) the final measures of the public authorities do not
which was received at the Court Registry on 7 June 1999, for                        contain any indication of being in the public interest
a preliminary ruling in the case of Neste Markkinointi Oy v                         or any upper and longer limits with which the fee scale
Yötuuli Ky, Eija Ritamäki, Anna-Kaisa Jukkola and Jari Jukkola                      set at the practitioner’s discretion must comply; or
on the following question:
Is the prohibition referred to in Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty               (d) the final measures of the public authorities do not
applicable to an exclusive purchasing agreement concluded by                        require professionals to communicate in advance
a supplier of goods, which could be terminated by the retailer                      and/or publicise in any other way the fee scales which
at any time on one year’s notice, if all the exclusive purchasing                   they intend to apply for the services requested of them?
agreements concluded by that supplier have had a significant
influence on the partitioning of the market, either on their               3. Are the combined provisions of Articles 5 and 85 of the
own or together with the network of exclusive purchasing                       Treaty compatible with national legislation which, without
agreements concluded by all suppliers, but the agreements of                   requiring public interest considerations to be taken into
similar duration to the exclusive purchasing agreement in                      account, confers on a fee committee set up by the
question represent only a very small proportion of all the                     association council and composed solely of association
exclusive purchasing agreements of the same supplier, the                      members the power to adopt a discretionary measure
majority of which are fixed-term agreements which have been                    settling the fee, even where it confirms the fee set by the
concluded for a period of several years?                                       member at his own discretion, the force of which is such
                                                                               as to bind the court to make an order for payment in
                                                                               accordance with the measure adopted by the council itself
                                                                               settling the fee?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Ufficio del
Giudice di Pace di Genova (Magistrate’s Court, Genoa) by
order of that court of 6 May 1999 in the case of Giuseppe                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte d’Appello
                  Conte against Stefania Rossi                             di Roma, First Civil Division, by order of that court of 12
                                                                           May 1999 in the case of Ministero delle Finanze and
                          (Case C-221/99)                                                            C.A.S.E.R. SpA
                          (1999/C 246/22)                                                           (Case C-222/99)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                              (1999/C 246/23)
European Communities by order of the Ufficio del Giudice di
Pace di Genova (Magistrate’s Court, Genoa) of 6 May 1999,
received at the Court Registry on 9 June 1999, for a preliminary           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
ruling in the case of Giuseppe Conte v Stefania Rossi on the               European Communities by an order of the First Civil Division
following questions:                                                       of the Corte d’Appello di Roma (Rome Court of Appeal) of 12
                                                                           May 1999, which was received at the Court Registry on 10
1. Is the concept of an ‘undertaking’ set out in the decisions             June 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ministero
     of the Commission and the case-law of the Court of Justice            delle Finanze and C.A.S.E.R. SpA, on the following questions:
     applicable to those carrying on a professional activity as
     architects and, if so, are architects’ professional associations
     to be regarded as ‘associations of undertakings’ within the           For the purposes of an action brought by a company before
     meaning of Article 85(1) of the Treaty?                               the Italian courts for the reimbursement of the tassa di
                                                                           concessione governativa (administrative charge) paid from 1985
2. Are the combined provisions of Articles 5 and 85 of the                 to 1992 under laws conflicting with Article 10 of Council
     Treaty compatible with a national rule which simply gives             Directive 69/335/EEC(1) of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect
     a fee scale drawn up and determined by the national                   taxes on the raising of capital (see the judgment of 20 April
     associations of engineers and architects the force of law             1993 in Joined Cases C-71/91 and C-178/91)(2),
     where:                                                                may Article 11(1) of Law No 448 of 23 December 1998 which


title: Case C-248/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 23 May 2007 — Trespa International B.V. v Nova Haven-en Vervoerbedrijf N.V. and Meadwestvaco Europe B.V.B.A.

text:
               21.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 170/15

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 23 May 2007 — Trespa International B.V. v Nova Haven-en Vervoerbedrijf N.V. and Meadwestvaco Europe B.V.B.A.
   (Case C-248/07)
   (2007/C 170/27)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hof van beroep te Antwerpen
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Trespa International B.V.

      Respondents: Nova Haven-en Vervoerbedrijf N.V. and Meadwestvaco Europe B.V.B.A.
   Questions referred

               1.

               Under Article 291 of Regulation No 2454/93 laying down provisions for the implementation of the Community Customs Code (1), as applicable during the period from 1 July 1997 to 15 May 1998 inclusive, who is ‘the person importing the goods or having them imported for free circulation’?: does this term include the customs agent which makes the customs declaration in its own name and for its own account or does it cover only the importer for which the goods are intended?

               2.

               Is there a transfer of goods within the Community for the purposes of Articles 297 and 1a of Regulation No 2454/93 in the case where goods are imported into the European Union at Antwerp and then transported to the Netherlands and/or should the person referred to in Article 291 of Regulation No 2454/93 laying down provisions for the implementation of the Community Customs Code, as applicable during the period from 1 July 1997 to 15 May 1998 inclusive, in such a case hold the authorisation referred to in that article?

               3.

               Does the term ‘transferee’ in Article 297 of Regulation No 2454/93 laying down provisions for the implementation of the Community Customs Code, as applicable during the period from 1 July 1997 to 15 May 1998 inclusive, refer to the customs agent which clears the goods inwards from outside the Community to a Member State of the European Union on behalf of the ultimate importer?

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1).


title: Case C-51/08: Action brought on 12 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               24.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 128/19

         Action brought on 12 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-51/08)
   (2008/C 128/32)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J.-P. Keppenne and H. Støvlbæk, agents)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by laying down a nationality requirement for access to the profession of notary and by failing to transpose Council Directive 89/48/EEC (1) in respect of the occupation of notary, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty, in particular Articles 43 and 45 EC, and Directive 89/48/EEC on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration;

               —

               order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By its action, the Commission first of all alleges that the defendant, by laying down a nationality requirement for access to the profession of notary and its practice, disproportionately restricts freedom of establishment as laid down in Article 43 EC. Admittedly, Article 45 EC exempts from the application of the chapter relating to the right of establishment activities connected directly and specifically with the exercise of public authority. According to the Commission, the tasks entrusted to notaries under Luxemburgish law are so distantly connected to the exercise of public authority that they do not fall within the scope of that article or warrant such a restriction of the freedom of establishment. Those tasks, in fact, do not confer on notaries a power of coercion and less restrictive measures than a nationality requirement could be laid down by the national legislature, such as subjecting the operators concerned to strict conditions for access to the profession, specific professional duties and/or a specific test.
   By its second complaint, the Commission further alleges that the defendant failed to fulfil its obligations by failing to transpose Directive 89/48/EEC in respect of the profession of notary. As it is a regulated profession, the directive is fully applicable to that profession and the high level of qualification required of notaries could easily be guaranteed by an aptitude test or an adaptation period.

      (1)  Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years duration (OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16).


title: Case C-281/09: Action brought on 22 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               24.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/7

         Action brought on 22 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-281/09)
   2009/C 256/14
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Lozano Palacios and C. Vrignon, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by allowing flagrant, repeated and serious infringements of the rules laid down in Article 18(2) of Council Directive of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (89/552/EEC (1)), the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(2) of that directive, read in conjunction with Article 10 of the EC Treaty;

               —

               Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission submits that the restrictive interpretation which the Kingdom of Spain gives to the concept of advertising spots — which results in certain advertising practices (in particular, infomercials, telepromotion spots, sponsorship spots and micro-advertising spots) not being regarded as advertising spots, and therefore not being subject to the hourly limits imposed by Directive 89/552/EEC — infringes that directive.

      (1)  OJ 1989 L 298, p. 23.


title: Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 106, 30.4.2004

text:
               29.5.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 146/10

         (2004/C 146/12)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the
         Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 146, 29.5.2004

   Past publications

      OJ C 106, 30.4.2004

      OJ C 94, 17.4.2004

      OJ C 85, 3.4.2004

      OJ C 71, 20.3.2004

      OJ C 59, 6.3.2004

      OJ C 47, 21.2.2004

   These texts are available on:

               EUR-Lex: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex

               CELEX: http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: Case T-271/13: Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2015 — Nutrexpa v OHIM — Kraft Foods Italia Intellectual Property (Cuétara MARĺA ORO) (Community mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark Cuétara MARÍA ORO — Earlier Community and national figurative marks ORO — Partial refusal of registration — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               6.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/11

         Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2015 — Nutrexpa v OHIM — Kraft Foods Italia Intellectual Property (Cuétara MARĺA ORO)
   (Case T-271/13) (1)

   ((Community mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark Cuétara MARÍA ORO - Earlier Community and national figurative marks ORO - Partial refusal of registration - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 221/14)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Nutrexpa, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Grau Mora, M. Ferrándiz Avendaño and Y. Sastre Canet, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Kraft Foods Italia Intellectual Property Srl (Milan, Italy) (represented by: A. Masetti Zannini de Concina, M. Bucarelli and G. Petrocchi, lawyers)

      Re

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 March 2013 (case R 1285/2012-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Kraft Foods Italia Intellectual Property Srl and Nutrexpa, SL.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders Nutrexpa, SL to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 215, 27.7.2013.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 11 March 1997 in Case C-264/95 P: Commission of the European Communities v. Union internationale des chemins de fer (UIC) (Appeal - Competition - Transport by rail - Legal basis for a decision - Regulation No 1017/68 - Scope)

text:
No C 131 /2                 EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      26 . 4 . 97
interpretation of Council Directive 77/187/EEC of                         with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
14 February 1977 on the approximation of the laws of the                  Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-rue — the Court,
Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees '                 composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, G. F.
rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses              Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida and J. L. Murray
or parts of businesses ( 2 ) — the Court, composed of: G. C.              ( Presidents of Chambers ), P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann,
Rodriguez Iglesias, President, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,                 D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann
J. L. Murray and L. Sevón ( Presidents of Chambers ),                     ( Rapporteur ) and M. Wathelet, Judges; C. O. Lenz,
P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P.                     Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
Puissochet ( Rapporteur), G. Hirsch, P. Jann and H.                       judgment on 11 March 1997, in which it:
Ragnemalm, Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate-General; D.
Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 March 1997, in                      1 . Dismisses the appeal.
which it has ruled :
                                                                          2 . Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
Article 1 (1 ) of Council Directive 77/187/EEC of
 14 February 1977 on the approximation of the laws of the                 C ) OJ No C 248 , 23 . 9 . 1995 , p . 10 .
Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees '
rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses
or parts of businesses is to be interpreted as meaning that
the Directive does not apply to a situation in which a
person who had entrusted the cleaning of his premises to a
first undertaking terminates his contract with the latter
and, for the performance of similar work, enters into a                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
new contract with a second undertaking, if there is no                                            of 11 March 1997
 concomitant transfer from one undertaking to the other of
significant tangible or intangible assets or taking over by               in Case C-357/95 P: Empresa Nacional de Urânio SA
 the new employer of a major part of the workforce, in                        (ENU ) v. Commission of the European Communities (')
 terms of their numbers and skills, assigned by his                        (Appeal — EAEC — Supply — Right of option and
predecessor to the performance of the contract.                            exclusive right of the Euratom Supply Agency to conclude
                                                                           contracts for the supply of ores, source materials and
 (') OJ No C 54, 4 . 3 . 1995 , p . 12 .                                   special fissile materials — Infringement of the rules of the
 ( 2 ) OJ No L 61 , 5 . 3 . 1977, p . 26 .                                 Treaty — Community preference — Principles of good
                                                                           faith and legitimate expectations — Non-contractual
                                                                                liability)
                                                                                ( 97/C 131/04 )
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                  (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                             of 11 March 1997
 in Case C-264/95 P: Commission of the European                               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
 Communities v. Union Internationale des chemins de fer                              published in the European Court Reports)
                                   (UIC) n
  (Appeal — Competition — Transport by rail — Legal                        In Case C-357/95 P: Empresa Nacional de Urânio SA
    basis for a decision — Regulation No 1017/68 — Scope)                   (ENU), a company incorporated under Portuguese law,
                               ( 97/C 131 /03                              established at Urgeiriça, Nelas (Portugal ), represented by
                                                                           João Mota de Campos and João Luis dos Reis Mota de
                                                                            Campos, of the Lisbon Bar, with an address for service in
                   (Language of the case: French)                           Luxembourg at the office of Joaquim Calvo Basáran,
                                                                            34 boulevard Ernest Feltgen — appeal against the
                                                                            judgment of the Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber,
      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                            Extended Composition) of 15 September 1995 in Joined
             published in the European Court Reports)                       Cases T-458/93 and T-523/93 ENU v. Commission [ 19951
                                                                            ECR 11-2459 , seeking to have that judgment set aside, the
  In Case C-264/95 P: Commission of the European                            other party to the proceedings being: Commission of the
  Communities (Agent: Giuliano Marenco ) — appeal                           European Communities ( Agents : Antonio Caeiro and
  against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third                Jürgen Grunwald ) — the Court, composed of: G. C.
  Chamber, Extended Composition ) of 6 June 1995 in Case                    Rodriguez Iglesias, President, G. F. Mancini, J. L. Murray
  T- 14/93     Union internationale        des chemins    de  fer v.        and L. Sevón ( Presidents of Chambers ), C. N. Kakouris,
  Commission [ 1995] ECR 11-1503 , seeking to have that                     D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann, H.
  judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings                    Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet ( Rapporteur ), Judges; N.
  being: Union internationale des chemins de fer (UIC ), an                 Fennelly, Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl, Principal
  association of railway companies, having its head office in               Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
  Paris, represented by Chantal Momége, of the Paris Bar,                    11 March 1997, in which it:


title: Case C-510/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Gent (Belgium) lodged on 9 November 2012 — Bloomsbury NV v Belgische Staat

text:
               16.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/13

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Gent (Belgium) lodged on 9 November 2012 — Bloomsbury NV v Belgische Staat
   (Case C-510/12)
   2013/C 46/23
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hof van Beroep te Gent

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Bloomsbury NV

      Defendant: Belgische Staat

      Question referred

   Should Article 2.3-4-5 of the Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 based on Article 54 (3) (g) of the Treaty on the annual accounts of certain types of companies, (1) be interpreted as meaning that, in a case where a company acquires an important asset free of charge and there is therefore no purchase value which it can enter in the accounts, with the result that a misleading impression is created of the company’s assets, liabilities, financial position and profit or loss, the important asset in question acquired free of charge should nevertheless be entered in the accounts at its true value?

      (1)  OJ 1978 L 222, p. 11.


title: Case T-3/09: Action brought on 2 January 2009 — Italy v Commission

text:
               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/45

         Action brought on 2 January 2009 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-3/09)
   (2009/C 55/81)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Commission Decision of 21 October 2008 on State aid C 20/2008 (ex N 62/2008) which Italy is planning to implement through a modification of scheme N 59/2004 concerning a temporary defensive mechanism to shipbuilding, registered as number C(2008)6015 final, notified to the Italian Republic on 22 October 2008 by note of 22 October 2008 No SG-Greffe (2008) D/206436.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The decision contested in the present case is the same as that contested in Case T-584/08 Cantiere Navale De Poli v Commission.
   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in that case.


title: Case C-338/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 20 June 2013 — Marjan Noorzia

text:
               10.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 233/4

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 20 June 2013 — Marjan Noorzia
   (Case C-338/13)
   2013/C 233/07
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Marjan Noorzia

      Defendant: Bundesministerin für Inneres

      Question referred

   Is Article 4(5) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification (1) to be interpreted as precluding a provision under which spouses and registered partners must already have reached the age of 21 years at the time at which the application is submitted in order to be considered to be entitled to join other family members?

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 251, p. 12.


title: Case C-288/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hessische Finanzgericht by order of that court of 11 March 1999 in the case of vauDe Sport Albrecht von Dewitz against Oberfinanzdirektion Koblenz, ZuVA-Außenstelle Frankfurt am Main

text:
C 299/10              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    16.10.1999
   Staff Regulations did not lead to an infringement of the                 before the Commission and the pleadings and supplemen-
   right to property. Finally, the Court of First Instance                  tary pleadings presented by the applicant before the
   misinterprets the scope of Article 11 of the Staff Regu-                 Disciplinary Board.
   lations in that it distorts the system established by that
   provision by making it subject to the system of prior               — Lack of reasoning; failure to reply to the plea for annulment;
   authorisation under Article 17.                                          misinterpretation of the second paragraph of Article 87 of
                                                                            the Staff Regulations.
                                                                       — Infringement of the legal rules governing the proof of facts
                                                                            and the burden of proof; lack of reasoning; misinterpret-
— Infringement of Article 6(2) (ex Article F) of the TEU,                   ation of Articles 3, 6 and 7 of Annex IX to the Staff
   Article 10 ECHR, Articles 116 point 3 (ex 109 E3), 177.2                 Regulations; failure to give due weight to acts, particularly
   (ex 109 F2), 121 (ex 109 J), 220 (ex 164a), 225 (ex 168a)                the minutes of the first meeting of the Disciplinary Board
   and 236 (ex 179) of the EC Treaty, and of Articles 12, 87                and the Commission’s defence.
   and 91 of the Staff Regulations and Annex IX thereto,
   more particularly in Article 1 of the latter, and of the            — Infringement of Articles 164, 168a and 179 of the
   prohibition on the substitution of reasoning, failure to give            EC Treaty and of Article 91 of the Staff Regulations;
   due weight to acts and infringement of the rules governing               infringement of the rules on the burden of proof and on
   the adducing of evidence: The Court of First Instance                    the method and admissibility of evidence; infringement of
   infringed the above provisions by taking account of certain              the rights of the defence and of the prohibition of reliance
   references in the applicant’s book on the (unjustified)                  by the court on all facts known to it personally.
   reading of them by the Commission, without having regard
   to, or giving reasons for its rejection of the objections put       — Inadequate reasoning for the judgment and failure to reply
   forward by the applicant relating to the fact that, by so                to the pleas in the action for annulment.
   doing, the Commission continues to feed the disciplinary
                                                                       — Lack of reasoning.
   inquiry in the adversarial stage of the dispute.
— Insufficient reasons for the judgment; failure to give due
   weight to acts, particularly the report of the appointing           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hessische
   authority and the minutes of the hearing of the applicant           Finanzgericht by order of that court of 11 March 1999 in
   before the Disciplinary Board; lack of reasoning; infringe-         the case of vauDe Sport Albrecht von Dewitz against
   ment of the rights of the defence; failure to respond to            Oberfinanzdirektion Koblenz, ZuVA-Außenstelle Frank-
   pleas; flawed logic in reasoning: The applicant argues that,                                   furt am Main
   in holding that the Commission’s report included the
   contents of the book amongst the facts of which he stood                                     (Case C-288/99)
   accused, meaning the expression of an economic argument
   at odds with the line of action adopted by the Commission                                    (1999/C 299/10)
   as an institution of the European Union, the Court of First
   Instance fails to give due weight to the Commission report
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
   which referred to ‘derogatory and unsubstantiated attacks’          European Communities by order of the Hessische Finanzge-
   and commits an error of logic in giving the term ‘contents’         richt (Finance Court, Hessen) of 11 March 1999, received at
   a variable meaning, referring sometimes to allegedly diver-         the Court Registry on 2 August 1999, for a preliminary ruling
   gent economic arguments and sometimes to derogatory
                                                                       in the case of vauDe Sport Albrecht von Dewitz against
   attacks on persons.
                                                                       Oberfinanzdirektion Koblenz, ZuVA-Außenstelle Frankfurt am
                                                                       Main on the following question:
                                                                       Is the term ‘similar containers’ in CN heading 4202 of the
— Failure to give due weight to acts, particularly the minutes         Common Customs Tariff to be interpreted as including a
   of the hearing before the Disciplinary Board and of the             product described as a child carrier consisting essentially of a
   work published by the applicant; infringement of the law            support frame made of aluminium tubing and woven fabric
   on the proof of facts, the burden of proof and the duty to          made of synthetic fibres — assembled by being sewn together
   give a fair hearing; lack of adequate and relevant reasoning        — in which a child may be carried in a seated position on a
   for the judgment; infringement of Articles 220 (ex 164),            person’s back and small items stored under the seat,
   225 (ex 168a) and 236 (ex 179) of the EC Treaty, of
   Articles 87 and 91 of the Staff Regulations and Article 1           or
   of Annex IX thereto. The Court of First Instance was not
   entitled to regard an essential element of the Commission’s         is the aforementioned product to be classified pursuant to
   disciplinary decision (the existence of a conflict of opinion)      General Rule 3(b) among other made up textile articles of
   as an established fact when it did not appear in argument           woven fabric under CN subheading 6307 9099 0990
   from the disciplinary procedure.
                                                                       or
                                                                       is the aforementioned product covered by another heading?
— Insufficient reasons for the judgment; failure to give due
   weight to acts, particularly the minutes of the hearing


title: Case T-169/10: Action brought on 14 April 2010 — Grupo Osborne v OHIM — Industria Licorera Quezalteca (TORO XL)

text:
               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/49

         Action brought on 14 April 2010 — Grupo Osborne v OHIM — Industria Licorera Quezalteca (TORO XL)
   (Case T-169/10)
   2010/C 148/79
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Grupo Osborne SA (El Puerto de Santa María, Spain) (represented by: J. Iglesias Monravá, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Industria Licorera Quezalteca, SA

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision dated 22.01.2010 of the Board of Appeal of OHIM in Case R 223/2009-2 refusing registration of the Community trade mark No 4 769 279 TORO XL in Class 33;

               —

               Permit, consequently, registration of the Community trade mark No 4 769 279 TORO XL in Class 33, and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Grupo Osborne.

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘TORO XL’ (application for registration No 4 769 279) for goods and services in Classes 32, 33 and 43.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Industria Licorera Quezalteca, SA.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community figurative mark (No 4 027 124) containing the expression ‘XL’ for goods in Class 33 (alcoholic drinks).

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Opposition upheld and application for registration refused.

      Pleas in law: Incorrect interpretation of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark.


title: Case C-374/00: Action brought on 11 October 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
C 335/40                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     25.11.2000
3)    Commission Decision 98/687/ECSC of 10 June 1998 on                   4)    the Court of First Instance should not have rejected the
      German aid to the coal industry for 1997 (OJ 1998                          pleas under Article 111 of the Rules of Procedure.
      L 234, p. 30) be annulled, or, alternatively, the case be
      remitted back to the CFI;
                                                                           (1) OJ C 299, 26.9.1998, p. 38.
4)    the Commission pay the costs of this appeal and those
      incurred before the Court of First Instance.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           Action brought on 11 October 2000 by the Commission
Without progressing to an oral hearing, the Court of First                 of the European Communities against the Hellenic Repub-
Instance, in its order of 25 July 2000, held, pursuant to                                                     lic
Article 111 of its Rules of Procedure, that RJB Mining’s
application was lacking in any foundation in law in so far as it                                      (Case C-374/00)
was based on pleas that were not rejected in the interlocutory
judgment dated 9 September 1999.
                                                                                (2000/C 335/71)
The Court of First Instance ruled that:                                    An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
                                                                           the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
a)    the plea relating to the erroneous test of mere reduction            11 October 2000 by the Commission of the European Com-
      in production costs was a new plea, was raised for the               munities, represented by Richard Wainwright, Principal Legal
      first time on 1 March 2000 and was therefore manifestly              Adviser in its Legal Service, and Panagiotis Panagiotopoulos, a
      inadmissible by reason of the operation of Article 48(2)             national civil servant on secondment to its Legal Service, with
      of the Rules of Procedure; and                                       an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                                                                           Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
                                                                           Kirchberg.
b)    the plea of lack of reasons was manifestly unfounded
      because it merely repeated the arguments put forward in
                                                                           The Commission claims that the Court should:
      support of the substantive pleas rejected as inadmissible.
                                                                           —     declare that, by failing to enact and to notify to the
The Appellant contends that:                                                     Commission, within the time-limit laid down, the laws,
                                                                                regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
                                                                                comply fully with Council Directive 97/11/EC (1) of
1)    the Appellant did not raise a new plea on 1 March 2000.                    3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the
      This is because:                                                           assessment of the effects of certain public and private
                                                                                projects on the environment, the Hellenic Republic has
      a)     the Court of First Instance misconstrued Article 48                 failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty;
             of the Rules of Procedure — the argument relating
             to mere reduction of production costs was not a               —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
             ‘plea’ within that Article;
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
      b)     alternatively, the Court of First Instance wrongly
             held that the plea of mere reduction of production
             costs was not already a separate plea from that               The Member States are required by the binding character of
             relating to viability; and                                    the third paragraph of Article 249 and Article 10 EC (ex third
                                                                           paragraph of Article 189 and Article 5 of the EC Treaty) to
                                                                           adopt the measures needed to transpose directives into national
      c)     in the further alternative, if the Appellant is wrong         law before the expiry of the period laid down for that purpose
             in relation to (a) and (b), the plea of mere reduction        and to communicate those measures immediately to the
             of production costs was so closely connected with             Commission. The Commission states that up until now the
             the viability plea that it should be regarded as              Hellenic Republic has not adopted the appropriate measures
             amplification of that plea and the Appellant should           for fully incorporating the directive at issue into national law,
             be entitled to raise it;                                      nor indeed has it communicated such measures to the
                                                                           Commission.
2)    the Court of First Instance should, in any event, have
      raised the plea of its own motion;
                                                                           (1) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.
3)    the Court of First instance erred in rejecting the plea of
      breach of the duty to state reasons;


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 2004 in Case T-270/02: MLP Finanzdienstleistungen AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Word mark ‘bestpartner’ — Absolute grounds for refusing registration — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Mark devoid of distinctive character — Descriptive mark)

text:
               25.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/20

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 8 July 2004
   in Case T-270/02: MLP Finanzdienstleistungen AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Word mark ‘bestpartner’ - Absolute grounds for refusing registration - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Mark devoid of distinctive character - Descriptive mark)
   (2004/C 239/40)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case T-270/02: MLP Finanzdienstleistungen AG, established in Heidelberg (Germany), represented by W. Göpfert, lawyer, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: G. Schneider) — action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 June 2002 (Case R 206/2002-3) refusing to register the word mark ‘bestpartner’ — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, A.W.H. Meij and N.J. Forwood, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, acting for the Registrar, has given a judgment in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 274 of 9.11.2002.


title: Case T-464/09: Action brought on 20 November 2009 — European Commission v New Acoustic Music et Anna Hildur Hildibrandsdottir

text:
               27.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/33

         Action brought on 20 November 2009 — European Commission v New Acoustic Music et Anna Hildur Hildibrandsdottir
   (Case T-464/09)
   2010/C 51/65
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A.-M. Rouchaud-Joët, N. Bambara, Agents, assisted by C. Erkelens, lawyer)

      Defendant: New Acoustic Music Association (Orpington, United Kingdom), Anna Hildur Hildibrandsdottir (Orpington)

      Form of order sought

               —

               order the defendants to repay to the Commission the amount of EUR 31,136.23 in principal, to be accrued with interests at 7,70 % per annum as of 14 January 2008 until the date of final payment;

               —

               order the defendants to pay the procedural costs, including those incurred by the Commission.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The application is filed in relation to a grant agreement identified with the contract number 2003-1895/001-001, entered into between the European Commission (hereinafter ‘Commission’) and New Acoustic Music Association (hereinafter ‘NAMA’), represented by Ms Anna Hildur Hildibrandsdottir, with a view to carrying out the action entitled CLT2003/A1/GB-317 — European Music Roadwork in framework of the Programme ‘Culture 2000’ (1).
   By means of its application, the applicant seeks an order from the Court requesting the defendants, each liable for the entire amount, one in the absence of the other, to repay to the Commission the sum of EUR 31,136.23, accrued with default interests, resulting from the difference between the sum paid in advance by the applicant to NAMA for the implementation of the actions provided for in the grant agreement and the sum which NAMA is entitled to.
   In support of its application, the applicant raises a single plea in law. It submits that NAMA has allegedly breached its contractual obligations by failing to reimburse part of the advance payment made by the Commission since the actual eligible expenses were lower than the estimated total costs.
   The Commission contends that both Acoustic and Ms Anna Hildur Hildibrandsdottir, in her capacity as partner and authorised legal representative of NAMA, are jointly liable for the sum due.

      (1)  Decision No 508/2000/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 February 2000 establishing the Culture 2000 programme (OJ 2000 L 63, p. 1)


title: Case C-348/12 P: Appeal brought on 16 July 2012 by Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 25 April 2012 in Case T-509/10 Manufacturing Support & Procurement Kala Naft v Council

text:
               22.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/27

         Appeal brought on 16 July 2012 by Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 25 April 2012 in Case T-509/10 Manufacturing Support & Procurement Kala Naft v Council

   (Case C-348/12 P)
   2012/C 287/53
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro, acting as Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Manufacturing Support & Procurement Kala Naft Co., Tehran; European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment delivered on 25 April 2012 by the General Court (Fourth Chamber) in Case T-509/10;

               —

               Give a final ruling in the dispute and dismiss as inadmissible the action brought by Kala Naft against the acts of the Council at issue or, in the alternative, dismiss the action as unfounded;

               —

               Order Kala Naft to pay the costs incurred by the Court at first instance and on appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Council submits that the judgment of the General Court in the abovementioned case is vitiated by two errors and that, in consequence, the judgment should be set aside.
   Firstly, the Council is of the opinion that the General Court erred in law by failing to dismiss the action brought by Kala Naft as inadmissible, given that, in the Council’s submission, that undertaking is an entity of the Iranian Government.
   Secondly, the Council argues that the General Court erred in law in holding that one of the grounds justifying the imposition of restrictive measures against Kala Naft was not sufficient to satisfy the duty to state reasons and that the Council was required to adduce evidence to support another of those grounds. The Council also submits that the General Court erred in law by holding that the fact that Kala Naft markets equipment for the oil and gas sectors which is liable to be used in the Iranian nuclear programme cannot be regarded as ‘supporting’ nuclear proliferation, without placing that fact in context with the other justifying grounds.


title: Case T-176/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of  6 March 2006  — Marcuccio v Commission (Officials — Social security benefits — Access to information about the existence of a medical report — Transmission after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               20.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/12

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 6 March 2006 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case T-176/04) (1)

   (Officials - Social security benefits - Access to information about the existence of a medical report - Transmission after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate)
   (2006/C 121/20)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: A. Distante, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, acting as Agents, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)
   Re:
   Application for, in the first place, annulment of the Commission's implied decision rejecting the applicant's request to be sent a medical report or the written confirmation that that report does not exist; in the second place, annulment of the Commission's implied decision rejecting the complaint made about the rejection of that request and, in the third place, a declaration of the applicant's right to have the claims in his request and in his complaint granted.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no further need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The Commission is to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant before the notification of the defence. The applicant is to bear his own costs incurred after the notification of the defence.

      (1)  OJ C 179, 10.7.2004.


title: Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 March 2003 in Case C-449/01 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division): Abbey Life Assurance Co. Ltd v Kok theam Yeap (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Directive 86/653/EEC — Coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents — Applicability to agents in the insurance and financial services fields)

text:
21.6.2003                EN                            Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 146/13
                     ORDER OF THE COURT                                        Appeal brought on 4 February 2003 by Rica Foods (Free
                                                                               Zone) NV against the judgment delivered on 14 Novem-
                                                                               ber 2002 by the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber)
                                                                               in Joined Cases T-332/00 and T-350/00 Rica Foods (Free
                            (First Chamber)                                    Zone) NV, supported by the Kingdom of the Netherlands
                                                                               and Free Trade Foods NV, v Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities, supported by the Kingdom of Spain
                            of 6 March 2003
                                                                                (Case C-40/03 P)
in Case C-449/01 Reference for a preliminary ruling by
the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division):
      Abbey Life Assurance Co. Ltd v Kok theam Yeap ( 1)                                                 (2003/C 146/22)
(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Directive 86/
653/EEC — Coordination of the laws of the Member States
relating to self-employed commercial agents — Applicability                    An appeal has been brought before the Court of Justice of the
     to agents in the insurance and financial services fields)                 European Communities on 4 February 2003 by Rica Foods
                                                                               (Free Zone) NV, represented by G. van der Wal, advocaat
                                                                               before the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, against the judgment
                                                                               delivered on 14 November 2002 by the Court of First Instance
                            (2003/C 146/21)
                                                                               (Third Chamber) in Joined Cases T-332/00 and T-350/00 Rica
                                                                               Foods (Free Zone) NV, supported by the Kingdom of the
                                                                               Netherlands and Free Trade Foods NV, v Commission of the
                    (Language of the case: English)                            European Communities, supported by the Kingdom of Spain.
                                                                               The appellant claims that the Court should:
In Case C-449/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234                     1.   declare admissible the appeal lodged by the appellant
EC by the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division)                      against the judgment delivered on 14 November 2002 by
(United Kingdom) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                        the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
pending before that court between Abbey Life Assurance Co.                          in Joined Cases T-332/00 and T-350/00;
Ltd and Kok Theam Yeap, on the interpretation of Council
Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordi-
nation of the laws of the Member States relating to self-                      2.   set aside the judgment delivered on 14 November 2002
employed commercial agents (OJ 1986 L 382, p. 17), the                              by the Court of First Instance of the European Communi-
Court (First Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of                       ties in Joined Cases T-332/00 and T-350/00 and, ruling
the Chamber, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and A. Rosas, Judges;                             afresh pursuant to the application at first instance lodged
C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made                      by the present appellant on 27 October 2000:
an order on 6 March 2003, the operative part of which is as
follows:
                                                                                —     annul Regulation (EC) No 2081/2000; ( 1)
Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the
                                                                                —     declare that the Community is liable for the damage
coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-                           suffered by the appellant by reason of the fact that
employed commercial agents must be interpreted as meaning that
                                                                                imports of the products referred to in Regulation
self-employed agents appointed for the purpose of soliciting appli-
                                                                                (EC) No 2081/2000 have, since 1 October 2000,
cations for policies for life assurance, annuities or savings do not fall                 been prevented or restricted as a result of that
within its scope.
                                                                                regulation, and order the parties to reach agreement
                                                                                on the extent of the damage suffered by the appel-
                                                                                lant, and, if no agreement is reached on that matter,
                                                                                order that the procedure be continued within a
( 1) OJ C 84 of 6.4.2002.                                                                 period to be determined by the Court of Justice for
                                                                                the purpose of determining the extent of the damage,
                                                                                or at any rate order the Community to pay compen-
                                                                                sation for the provisionally estimated damage and
                                                                                for that still to be assessed; in the further alternative,


title: Case C-677/13: Action brought on 18 December 2013 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/30

         Action brought on 18 December 2013 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-677/13)
   2014/C 52/55
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Patakia and E. Sanfrutos Cano)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that the Hellenic Republic,

                           —

                           by not taking the necessary measures to ensure that (a) waste management at the Kiato landfill site is carried out without endangering human health and without harming the environment and (b) the abandonment, dumping or uncontrolled management of waste at said landfill site is prohibited,

                           —

                           by tolerating the operation of the said landfill site without agreed environmental conditions and a valid permit which comply with the prerequisites for the issue of such a permit and its content, and consequently not ensuring that only waste that has been subject to treatment is landfilled, the holder of the waste or the operator of the said landfill site not being able to show before or at the time of delivery that the waste in question can be accepted at that landfill site according to the conditions set out in the permit, and that it fulfils the acceptance criteria set out in Annex II,

                           —

                           by not ensuring that monitoring and control procedures during the operational phase meet the minimum legal requirements,

                     has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 13, 23 and 36(1) of Directive 2008/98/EC (1) on waste and Article 6 (subparagraph (a)), Article 8, Article 9 (subparagaphs (a) (b) and (c)), Article 11(1) (subparagraph (a)) and Article 12 of Directive 99/31/EC (2) on the landfill of waste;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               The Greek authorities continue to tolerate the Kiato landfill site without agreed environmental conditions and without the appropriate permit (infringement of Article 23 of Directive 2008/98/EC and Articles 8 (particularly subparagraph (a)) and 9 (subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c)) of Directive 99/31/EC. Because of the absence of that permit, the Hellenic Republic is consequently not in a position to meet the obligations which stem from Article 6, subparagraph (a), and Article 11(1), (subparagraph (a)) of Directive 99/31/EC.
               The inspections which were carried out on 24 October 2007, 3 November 2011 and 31 July 2012 revealed some substantial problems of malfunctioning at the Kiato landfill site and the overfilling of the site. There is a clear infringement of Articles 13 and 36(1) of Directive 2008/98/EC and Articles 8, 9, and 12 of Directive 99/31/EC.

      (1)  OJ 2008 L 312, p. 3.

      (2)  OJ 1999 L 182, p. 1.


title: Case T-348/10: Action brought on 16 August 2010 — Panzeri v OHIM — Royal Trophy (Royal veste e premia lo sport)

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/52

      Action brought on 16 August 2010 — Panzeri v OHIM — Royal Trophy (Royal veste e premia lo sport)
      (Case T-348/10)
      ()
      (2010/C 288/97)
      Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Luigi Panzeri (Monguzzi, Italy) (represented by: C. Galli, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Royal Trophy Srl (Cava di Tirreni, Italy)

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 20 May 2010 and the decision of the Opposition Division of 30 June 2009;

                  —

                  declare that the applicant’s opposition to the application for registration of mark No 5 285 507 is upheld and reject the application for that mark in respect of goods in Class 25 (Clothing) and Class 28 (gymnastic and sporting articles not included in other classes) and/or adopt such other measure as the Court may deem appropriate;

                  —

                  order Royal Trophy Srl to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

         Applicant for a Community trade mark: Royal Trophy Srl

         Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘Royal veste e premia lo sport’ (Registration application No 5 285 507) for goods in Classes 25 and 28

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

         Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community word mark (No 1533504) and international word mark (No 5769068) ‘VESTE LO SPORT’ for goods in Class 25, and figurative mark ‘PANZERI veste lo sport’, not registered but used in the course of trade, for ‘clothing and, in particular, sportswear’

         Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

         Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

         Pleas in law: Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark


title: Court of First Instance of 29 April 1999 in case T-120/98: Alce Srl v Commission of the European Communities (Inadmissibility)

text:
C 265/14                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   18.9.1999
1. There is no need to give a decision on the application.                      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
2. The applicants and the Commission are to bear their own costs.                                 of 30 April 1999
3. The interveners are to bear their own costs.                           in Case T-311/97, Pescados Congelados Jogamar, SL v
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities (1)
(1) OJ C 318 of 26.10.1996.                                                (Action for declaration of failure to act — Inadmissibility)
                                                                                (1999/C 265/28)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                          In Case T-311/97, Pescados Congeloados Jogamar, SL, estab-
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               lished in Las Palmas, Spain, represented by Manual de Cristóbal
                                                                          López, of the Madrid Bar with an address for service in
                                                                          Luxembourg at Fiduciaire Beaumanoir, 48 Rue de Bragance,
                       of 20 February 1997                                against the Commission of the European Communities (acting
                                                                          by Thomas van Rijn and Juan Guerra Fernández as Agents), an
in Case T-141/96: Bergpracht Milchwerk GmbH & Co. KG                      application for a declaration that the Commission unlawfully
and Others v Commission of the European Communi-                          failed to intervene in pursuance of its powers in regard to
                                ties (1)                                  fishing, and particularly its powers in the context of the
                                                                          cooperation agreement entered into by the European Com-
                                                                          munity and the Kingdom of Morocco in that field, when the
                    (Disclaimer of jurisdiction)
                                                                          Moroccan authorities arrested the ship Albor Uno, the Court
                                                                          (Fifth Chamber), composed of J.D. Cooke, President and
                          (1999/C 265/27)                                 R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
                                                                          made an order on 30 April 1999 the operative part of which
                                                                          states as follows:
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                          1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
In Case T-141/96: Bergpracht Milchwerk GmbH & Co. KG,                     2. The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
established at Tettnang (Germany), Hochland Reich, Summer
& Co. KG, established at Heimenkirch (Germany) Milchwerk
Crailsheim eG, established at Crailsheim (Germany), Milchwerk             (1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.
Geislingen eG, established at Geislingen/Steige (Germany),
Wendelstein Käsewerk Molkerei Ziegenhain GmbH & Co. KG,
established at Bad Aibling (Germany) and Zentral-Molkerei
Aurich GmbH, established at Aurich (Germany). represented
by Jürgen Salzwedel and Michael Loschelder, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 11
Rue Goethe, against Commission of the European Communi-                                   COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
ties (Agents: J.L. Buhigues and U. Wölker) — application for
the annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96                                            of 29 April 1999
of 12 June 1996 on the registration of geographical indications
and designations of origin under the procedure laid down in               in case T-120/98: Alce Srl v Commission of the European
Article 17 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 (OJ 1996                                         Communities (1)
L 148, p. 1) in so far as concerns the registration of feta as a
protected designation of origin — the Court of Firs Instance                                       (Inadmissibility)
(Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Garcia-Valdecasas, President,
J. Azizi and M Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order                                   (1999/C 265/29)
on 20 February 1997, the operative part of which is as follows:
1. Jurisdiction is declined in Case T-141/96 Bergpracht Milchwerk                             (Language of the case: Italian)
     GmbH & Co. KG and Others v Commission of the European
     Communities in order to enable the Court of Justice to rule on       In Case T-120/98: Alce Srl, established in Novara, Italy,
     the application for annulment;                                       represented by Celestino Corica, of the Novara Bar, with an
                                                                          address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Franco
2. The costs are reserved.                                                Colussi, 36 Rue de Wiltz, v Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities (Agent: Paolo Stancanelli) — application for
                                                                          annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1160/98 of
(1) OJ C 336 of 9.11.1996.                                                2 June 1998 concerning the classification of certain goods
                                                                          inthe Combined Nomenclature (OJ 1998 L 160, p. 20) —
                                                                          the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of:
                                                                          M. Jagaer, President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi,
 ---pagebreak--- 18.9.1999              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 265/15
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 29 April 1999,              Action brought on 22 April 1999 by Eoghan O’Hannra-
the operative part of which is as follows:                                           chain against the European Parliament
1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
2. The applicant shall bear its own costs and those of the                                        (Case T-99/99)
    Commission.
(1) OJ C 327 of 24.10.1998.
                                                                                (1999/C 265/31)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE FIFTH CHAMBER                              An action against the European Parliament was brought before
           OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                         on 22 April 1999 by Eoghan O’Hannrachain residing in
                                                                         Luxembourg, represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure
                        of 28 April 1999                                 Levi, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                         Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue
in Case T-11/99 R: NV Firma Léon Van Parys and Others                    de Cessange.
       v Commission of the European Communities
(Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets —                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
Bananas — Application for additional import licences —
   Procedure for interim relief — Manifestly inadmissible)
                                                                         — annul the decision taken by the appointing authority
                                                                             on 16 July 1998 appointing Mr L.V. to the post of
                        (1999/C 265/30)                                      Director-General of the Directorate-General for Finance
                                                                             and Financial Control, the decision of the same date
                                                                             rejecting the application for that post submitted by the
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)                             applicant and, in so far as may be necessary, the decision
                                                                             dated 21 January 1999 rejecting the applicant’s complaint;
In Case T-11/99 R: NV Firma Léon Van Parys and NV Pacific
Fruit Company, both established in Antwerp (Belgium), Pacific            — request the defendant to produce the notes sent by the
Fruchtimport GmbH, established in Hamburg (Germany), and                     Secretary-General to the Bureau on 22 December 1997
Pacific Fruit Company Italy SpA, established in Rome (Italy),                and 13 and 16 July 1998 (documents PE 265.377/BUR,
all represented by P. Vlaemminck, L. Van Den Hende and                       PE 271.309/BUR and PE 271.309/BUR/ADD), together
J. Holmens, of the Ghent Bar, with an address for service in                 with the file relating to Mr L.V.’s application for the post
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 11 Rue                        of Director-General of the Directorate-General for Finance
Goethe, against the Commission of the European Communities                   and Financial Control;
(Agent: Hubert van Vliet), supported by the Kingdom of Spain
(Agent: Rosario Silva de Lapuerta) and the French Republic               — order the defendant to pay damages provisionally quanti-
(Agent: Kareen Rispal-Bellanger) — application under                         fied, on an equitable basis, in the sum of 100 000 euros;
Articles 185 and 186 of the EC Treaty requesting the Court of
First Instance to allow the applicants — or order the Com-               — order the defendant to pay the costs.
mission to take the necessary measures to allow them — to
import in 1999 a quantity of bananes equal to the average of
the quantifies imported by them into the European Community
during 1994 to 1996 and cleared through customs on the
strength of an import licence either by the applicants them-
selves or by another licensee or to make any other appropriate           Pleas in law and main arguments
interim order — the President of the Fifth Chamber of the
Court of First Instance made an order on 28 April 1999, the
operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                         The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
                                                                         advanced in Case T 97/99 (Chamier v Parliament).
1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
2. Costs are reserved.


title: Case T-462/09: Judgment of the General Court of 12 January 2012 — Storck v OHIM — RAI (Ragolizia) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark Ragolizia — Earlier Community word mark FAVOLIZIA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               18.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 49/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 January 2012 — Storck v OHIM — RAI (Ragolizia)
   (Case T-462/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark Ragolizia - Earlier Community word mark FAVOLIZIA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2012/C 49/40
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: August Storck KG (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: I. Rohr, P. Goldenbaum and T. Melchert, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Radiotelevisione italiana SpA (RAI) (Rome, Italy)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 September 2009 (Case R 1779/2008-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Radiotelevisione italiana SpA (RAI) and August Storck KG.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders August Storck KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 11, 16.1.2010.


title: Case C-363/10: Order of the President of the Court of 6 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial de Póvoa de Lanhoso (Portugal)) — Maria de Jesus Barbosa Rodrigues v Zurich Companhia de Seguros, S.A.

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/27

         Order of the President of the Court of 6 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial de Póvoa de Lanhoso (Portugal)) — Maria de Jesus Barbosa Rodrigues v Zurich Companhia de Seguros, S.A.
   (Case C-363/10) (1)

   2011/C 252/58
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.2010.


title: Case T-179/01: Action brought on 30 July 2001 by Dilexport s.r.l. against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 289/34                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   13.10.2001
Action brought on 31 July 2001 by Di Lenardo Adriano                            —     introducing ex novo the condition set forth at
 s.r.l. against Commission of the European Communities                                Article 6(c) of Regulation No 896/200 of not being
                                                                                related to another traditional operator;
                          (Case T-178/01)                                       —     using Article 143 of the Customs Code as a pre-
                                                                                sumption juris et de jure in order to prevent new
                                                                                operators gaining access to the market in bananas.
                          (2001/C 289/74)
                                                                           —    infringement of the first and third paragraphs of
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                             Article 3b (now Article 5) of the EC Treaty, as well as
                                                                                breach of the fundamental principles of legal certainty
                                                                                and legitimate expectations, and infringement of the first
                                                                                and second paragraphs of Article F (now Article 6) of the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                       Treaty on European Union. The applicant argues in this
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                      respect that the Commission has infringed the applicant’s
European Communities on 31 July 2001 by Di Lenardo                              property rights and the right to pursue a professional
Adriano s.r.l., represented by Aldo Bozzi, Claudia M.R. Gatti                   activity, having gone beyond what is necessary to achieve
and Bruno Telchini, lawyers.                                                    the objectives of the Community. Moreover, the prin-
                                                                                ciples of legal certainty and legitimate expectations have
                                                                                been infringed inasmuch as the new category of operators
                                                                                applies ex tunc.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           —    breach of the principle of non-discrimination, guaranteed
—     annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 896/2001 of                           under Article 34(2) of the EC Treaty
      7 May 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying
      Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 as regards the                    —    infringement of Article 85 (now Article 81) and Article 86
      arrangements for importing bananas into the Com-                          (now Article 82) of the EC Treaty, inasmuch as the
      munity;                                                                   contested regulation prevents competition between tra-
                                                                                ditional operators, creating a situation in the banana
                                                                                market which amounts to a de facto derogation from
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                                    Article 82.
Pleas in law and main arguments
For over 20 years the applicant company has been marketing                 Action brought on 30 July 2001 by Dilexport s.r.l. against
third-country bananas, having been recognised as a traditional                     Commission of the European Communities
operator A/B since the entry into force of Regulation
No 404/93. However, from 1 July 2001 it has been refused,                                          (Case T-179/01)
on the basis of the contested regulation, the chance to operate
in the banana importing sector either in respect of the quota
reserved for traditional operators (83 %) or of the quota                                          (2001/C 289/75)
reserved for non-traditional operators (17 %).
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
In support of its arguments, the applicant alleges:
                                                                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
—     infringement of Regulation No 404/93, as well as of                  European Communities on 30 July 2001 by Dilexport s.r.l.,
      Article 4 (now Article 7) of the EC Treaty. The applicant            represented by Aldo Bozzi, Claudia M.R. Gatti and Bruno
      claims in this respect that the Commission encroached                Telchini, lawyers.
      on the competencies which properly belong to the
      Council by:
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
      —     introducing ex novo a category of banana operator
            altogether foreign to the Council regulations;                 —    annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 896/2001 (1) of
                                                                                7 May 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying
                                                                                Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 as regards the
      —     introducing the concept of ‘primary imports’ as the                 arrangements for importing bananas into the Com-
            test for traditional operators;                                     munity;
 ---pagebreak--- 13.10.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 289/35
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                                    damage suffered by him, the sum of 10 000 euros,
                                                                                subject to increase or reduction during the course of the
                                                                                proceedings;
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           —     order the defendant to pay the costs in any event.
The pleas in law and main arguments are those relied upon in              Pleas in law and main arguments
Case T-178/01 Di Lenardo Adriano.
                                                                          In support of his action, the applicant invokes Articles 25 and
(1) OJ L 126, 8.5.2001, p. 6.                                             43 of the Staff Regulations, the general provisions for the
                                                                          implementation of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations and the
                                                                          principles of sound administration, the protection of legitimate
                                                                          expectations and legal certainty. The applicant further claims
                                                                          that there has been a misuse of powers.
Action brought on 7 August 2001 by Arnaldo Mellone
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                          Action brought on 20 August 2001 by Aristotelio Panepis-
                          (Case T-187/01)                                 timio Thessalonikis against the Commission of the Euro-
                                                                                pean Communities
                          (2001/C 289/76)
                                                                                (Case T-196/01)
                    (Language of the case: French)                                                (2001/C 289/77)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                                    (Language of the case: Greek)
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 7 August 2001 by Arnaldo Mel-                     An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
lone, residing in Brussels, represented by Eric Boigelot, avocat,         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
with an address for service in Luxembourg.                                European Communities on 20 August 2001 by Aristotelio
                                                                          Panepistimio Thessalonikis (Aristotle University, Thessaloniki),
                                                                          represented by Dimos Nikopoulos, of the Thessaloniki Bar.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision adopted by the appointing authority
      on 10 July 2000, whereby the applicant’s staff report for           —     annul Decision C (2001) 1284 of the European Com-
      the period from 1 July 1995 to 30 June 1997 were                          mission of 8 June 2001 withdrawing assistance granted
      declared definitive by the appeal assessor, and, in so far                to the Laboratory for Forest Genetics and Improvement
      as may be necessary, annul the note of 18 July 2000                       of Forest Species of the Aristotelio Panepistimio Thessa-
      rectifying the material error as to the period covered by                 lonikis by Commission Decision C (96) 2542 of 25 Sep-
      the report in question;                                                   tember 1996 concerning the grant of assistance by the
                                                                                EAGGF Guidance Section, pursuant to Council Regu-
—     annul the decision of 24 April 2001, received by the                      lation (EEC) No 4256/88, in connection with Project
      applicant on 7 May 2001, expressly rejecting his com-                     No 93.EL.06.023 entitled: pilot project relating to the
      plaint;                                                                   speeding-up of the replacement of forests destroyed by
                                                                                fire in Greece.
—     in consequence of those annulments, rule that the
      applicant’s staff report for the period from 1 July 1995            —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
      to 30 June 1997 is not definitive and should not, as it
      currently stands, be placed on the applicant’s personal
      file, or alternatively that it should be withdrawn pending          Pleas in law and main arguments
      completion of the proper, definitive staff report to be
      prepared;                                                           The applicant submits that the contested Commission decision
                                                                          infringes Article 24 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 and the
—     order the defendant to pay to the applicant, by way of              principle of proportionality. In addition, the reasoning given
      compensation for the professional and non-material                  in the decision is not lawful or sufficient.