title: Case T-32/03: Action brought on 3 February 2003 by Leder & Schuh AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
C 101/36                 EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         26.4.2003
22 September 1999, the Opposition Division held the oppo-                    Action brought on 3 February 2003 by Leder & Schuh
sition to be justified and dismissed the application for certain             AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
goods of class 30.                                                                    Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
                                                                                (Case T-32/03)
The applicant argued that it was only in the context of an
enquiry with the Office that it learned that opposition to the                                        (2003/C 101/67)
mark had been raised as early as 1998, and that up to that
point it had received no notification that an opposition had
been lodged.                                                                 (Language of the case: to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
                                                                             of the Rules of Procedure — Language in which the application was
                                                                                submitted: German)
In June 2000, the applicant made an application for restitutio
in integrum in accordance with Article 78 of Regulation (EC)
No 40/94, an application for inspection of the files and an                  An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
application for costs. The Opposition Division dismissed the                 Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
application for restitutio in integrum by decision of 25 October             the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
2000. By the contested decision, the Board of Appeal dismissed               3 February 2003 by Leder & Schuh AG, Graz (Austria),
the applicant’s appeal.                                                      represented by W. Kellenter and A. Schaffge, lawyers.
                                                                             Schuhpark Fascies GmbH, Warendorf (Germany), was also a
                                                                             party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
The applicant argues that the contested decision infringed
                                                                             The applicant claims that the Court should:
essential procedural requirements, the Treaty and Regulation
(EC) No 40/94. It argues that it was deprived of the possibility
of defending its right to a fair hearing, as it was unable to                —     annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the
contact the opposing party during the ‘cooling-off’ period in                      Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
order to make a settlement, and it was not possible for it either                  Marks and Designs) of 27 November 2002, in the
to submit its reaction to the opposition or to lodge an appeal                     amended version of 9 December 2002, in Case R 494/
within the time-limits against the decision of the Opposition                      1999-3;
Division. Accordingly, despite using all the care required in the
circumstances, the applicant was prevented from complying                    —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
with Office’s time-limits and is therefore, it submits, entitled to
restitutio in integrum.
                                                                             Pleas in law and main arguments
The legal argument of the Board of Appeal, that an application
for restitutio in integrum is possible only within a year after              Applicant for Com-             The Applicant
the expiry of the missed time-limit, cannot be accepted. Under               munity trade mark:
that argument, the possibility of restitution is removed by a
restrictive interpretation of Article 78 of Regulation (EC)                  Community trade mark           The     word      mark       ‘JELLO
No 94/40 in the very circumstances where protection is most                  sought:                        SCHUHPARK’ for products in
needed, namely when no written document whatever was                                                        Classes 18, 25 and 28 (particu-
served.                                                                                larly leather and imitations of
                                                                                leather, products of those
                                                                                materials in so far as they fall
                                                                                within Class 18, clothing, foot-
                                                                                wear and toys — Application
Finally, proof of service merely in the form of a fax confir-                                               No 107367
mation which the Office may have can never be sufficient.
                                                                             Proprietor of mark or          Schuhpark Fascies GmbH
                                                                             sign cited in the oppo-
                                                                             sition proceedings:
( 1) Decision of the First Board of Appeal in Case R 26/2001-1.
                                                                             Mark or sign cited in          German word mark ‘Schuhpark’
                                                                             opposition:                    for products in Class 25 (particu-
                                                                                larly boots, ankle boots, slippers,
                                                                                shoes and sandals)
 ---pagebreak--- 26.4.2003              EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 101/37
Decision of the Oppo-          Dismissal of the applicant’s appli-                —     the decision of the College of Commissioners of
sition Division:               cation for ‘clothing, footwear and                       5 December 2001 improperly terminating the
                               toys’. Dismissal of the opposition                       framework agreement of 20 September 1974, reiter-
                               as to the remainder.                                     ating its approval of ‘operational rules concerning
                                                                                the levels of concertation, the concertation body and
Decision of the Board of       Dismissal      of   the    applicant’s                   the relevant procedures’ dated 20 January 2000 and
Appeal:                        appeal.                                                  an alleged ‘agreement’ of 4 April 2001 on the
                                                                                ‘resources to be made available to the central and
Pleas in law:                  —     infringement                 of                    the local staff committees and the unions’;
                                     Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation
                                     (EC) No 40/94 (1);
                                                                            —     annul, to the extent necessary, the abovementioned
                               —     absence of risk of confusion;                decisions of 15 January 2002, 23 January 2002 and
                                                                                5 December 2001;
                               —     little distinctive character of
                                     the opposing trade mark
                                                                            —     order the defendant to pay damages amounting to
                               —     lack of similarity of trade
                                                                                EUR 100 000;
                                     marks
                               —     products largely dissimilar.
                                                                            —     order the defendant to pay the costs of of the action,
                                                                                pursuant to Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure and
( 1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the                  the expenses necessarily incurred for the purpose of the
     Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).                                   proceedings, in particular the travel and subsistence
                                                                                expenses and the remuneration of agents, advisers or
                                                                                lawyers, under Article 73(b) of those rules.
Action brought on 4 February 2003 by André Hecq and                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Syndicat des Fonctionnaires Internationaux et Européens
(SFIE) against Commission of the European Communities
                          (Case T-34/03)                                    The applicant is an official of the Commission and secretary
                                                                            general of the ‘Syndicat des Fonctionnaires Internationaux et
                         (2003/C 101/68)                                    Européens’ (SFIE) trade union.
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            In support of his application, the applicant alleges, first,
                                                                            infringement of the framework agreement of 20 September
                                                                            1974, in particular of the final provisions thereof, and breach
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                            of the general principles of contract law. According to the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                            applicant, the framework agreement does not provide for
European Communities on 4 February 2003 by André Hecq,
                                                                            unilateral termination.
residing in Mondercange (Luxembourg), and Syndicat des
Fonctionnaires Internationaux et Européens (SFIE), whose
main offices are in Brussels, represented by Lucas Vogel,
lawyer.
                                                                            The applicant also alleges infringement of Articles 11 and 12
                                                                            of the framework agreement of 20 September 1974 in that
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 the abovementioned provisions had not been agreed to by all
                                                                            the unions.
—     annul the decsion of the appointing authority of 4 Octo-
      ber 2002, notified to the applicant on 9 October 2002
      but received by him on 25 October 2002, rejecting the
      applicant’s complaint, lodged on 24 April 2002, pursuant              The applicant alleges next infringement of Article 24a of the
      to Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations in which he                 Staff Regulations, Articles 18, 19 and 20 of the framework
      criticised various decisions, in particular:                          agreement of 20 September 1974, manifest error of assessment
                                                                            and breach of the principle of non-discrimination. According
      —     two separate decisions notified on 15 January 2002              to the applicant, the criteria relating to representativeness are
            and 23 January 2002 respectively;                               erroneous and arbitrary and favour certain unions.


title: Case C-169/11: Order of the President of the Court of 7 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Frosinone (Italy)) — Procura della Repubblica v Patrick Conteh

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/39

         Order of the President of the Court of 7 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Frosinone (Italy)) — Procura della Repubblica v Patrick Conteh
   (Case C-169/11) (1)

   2011/C 269/84
   Language of the case: Italian
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 173, 11.6.2011.


title: Case F-71/07: Action brought on 16 July 2007 — Karatzoglou v EAR

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/70

         Action brought on 16 July 2007 — Karatzoglou v EAR
   (Case F-71/07)
   (2007/C 269/128)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Georgios Karatzoglou (Preveza, Greece) (represented by: S. A. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Order the EAR to pay the amount of EUR 348 965,96 in order to compensate the material damage suffered by the absence of compliance to judgement of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of 23 February 2006 in Case T-471/04 (Georgios Karatzoglou v European Agency for Reconstruction) (1);

               —

               Order the EAR to pay the amount of EUR 100 000 in order to compensate the non-material damage suffered by the absence of compliance to judgement T-471/04;

               —

               Order the EAR to pay the amount of EUR 100 000 in order to compensate the non-material damage suffered by the service related fault committed by EAR as it refused to take any specific measure to comply with judgement T-471/04;

               —

               Order the EAR to pay interest on the aforementioned amounts of 3 % since the publication of judgement T-471/04;

               —

               Order the EAR to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant mainly claims that The EAR infringed Article 233 EC in so far as it did not take the necessary measures to comply with the above-mentioned judgement of the Court of First Instance.

      (1)  OJ C 96, of 22.4.2006, p. 13.


title: Case T-126/09: Action brought on 24 March 2009 — Italy v Commission

text:
               6.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/18

         Action brought on 24 March 2009 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-126/09)
   2009/C 129/31
   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

               —

               Annulment of Notices of open competitions EPSO/AD/144/09 (public health), EPSO/AD/145/09 (food safety (policy and legislation)), and EPSO/AD/146/09 (food safety (audit, inspection and evaluation)) for the drawing up of a reserve from which to recruit 35, 40 and 55 administrators (AD 5) respectively, with Bulgarian, Cypriot, Czech, Estonian, Hungarian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Romanian, Slovak and Slovenian citizenship, in the field of public health.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in Case T-166/07 Italy v Commission.


title: Case T-77/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 October 2007 — Feralpi Siderurgica v Commission (Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Producers of reinforcing bars — Decision establishing an infringement of Article 65 CS — Decision based on the ECSC Treaty after expiry of that treaty — Lack of competence of the Commission)

text:
               8.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/37

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 October 2007 — Feralpi Siderurgica v Commission
   (Case T-77/03) (1)

   (Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Producers of reinforcing bars - Decision establishing an infringement of Article 65 CS - Decision based on the ECSC Treaty after expiry of that treaty - Lack of competence of the Commission)
   (2007/C 297/75)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Feralpi Siderurgica SpA (Brescia, Italy) (represented by: G.M. Roberti, A. Franchi and I. Perego, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Pignataro-Nolin and A. Whelan, Agents, and P. Manzini, lawyer)
   Intervener in support of the applicant:Italian Republic (represented by: I. Braguglia, Agent)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2002) 5087 final of 17 December 2002, relating to a proceeding under Article 65 CS (Case COMP/37.956 — Reinforcing bars).
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision C(2002) 5087 final of 17 December 2002 relating to a proceeding under Article 65 CS (Case COMP/37.956 — Reinforcing bars) with regard to Feralpi Siderurgica SpA;

               2.

               Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Feralpi Siderurgica;

               3.

               Orders the Italian Republic to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 112, 10.5.2003.


title: Case C-290/99: Action brought on 3 August 1999 by the Council of the European Union against Dr Martin Bangemann

text:
C 314/2                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       30.10.1999
1. Does recourse to a clause in calls for tenders for public             The Council claims that the Court should:
     works contracts which prevents the participation of under-
     takings which have not submitted with their tenders                 — disallow Dr Bangemann’s rights as a former member of
     explanations in respect of the price indicated, being equal              the Commission to a pension or other payments in lieu, in
     to at least 75 % of the figure specified in the tender                   particular any transitional allowance to which he may be
     conditions, represent an obstacle to the application of                  entitled under Article 7 of regulation No 422/67/EEC,
     Article 30(4) of Directive 93/37 (1)?                                    5/67/Euratom of the Council of 25 July 1967 (1); the
                                                                              Council leaves to the discretion of the Court for how long
2. Does the establishment of a mechanism for automatically                    and to what extent those rights should be disallowed;
     identifying tenders which overstep a threshold indicative
     of irregularities and whose validity should therefore be
     checked, based on a case-by-case criterion and an arith-            — declare that disallowance of those rights does not apply to
     metical mean, which is such that undertakings are unable                 those entitled under Regulation No 422/67/EEC,
     to ascertain that threshold in advance, represent an obstacle            5/67/Euratom of the Council of 25 July 1967 in the event
     to the application of Article 30(4) of Directive 93/37?                  of Dr Bangemann’s death;
3. Does the fact that provision is made for a prior exchange             — order Dr Bangemann to pay the costs of the proceedings.
     of views, without the undertaking which has allegedly
     submitted an irregular tender having an opportunity to
     state its reasons, after the opening of the envelopes and
     before the adoption of the measure excluding it, represent          Pleas in law and main arguments
     an obstacle to the application of Article 30(4) of Direc-
     tive 93/37?
                                                                         The Council’s action is founded on subparagraph 3 of
                                                                         Article 213(2) of the EC Treaty, subparagraph 3 of Article 9(2)
4. Does a provision under which the contracting authority                of the ECSC Treaty and subparagraph 3 of Article 126(2) of
     may take account of explanations relating solely to the             the EAEC Treaty, and, specifically, solely on the duty to behave
     economy of the construction method or the technical                 with discretion. It is the view of the Council that to satisfy this
     solutions adopted or the exceptionally favourable con-              duty, it is necessary not only to comply with applicable
     ditions available to the tenderer represent an obstacle to          legislation and rules but also to assess and evaluate with
     the application of Article 30(4) of Directive 93/37?                circumspection what is the appropriate course of conduct in a
                                                                         given situation so as, in particular, not to jeopardise the
5. Does the exclusion of explanations relating to items for              Commission’s reputation as an independent and impartial
     which minimum figures can be inferred from official lists           body. The Council considers that, in taking up a post with
     represent an obstacle to the application of Article 30(4) of        Teléfonica, Herr Bangemann breached the duty to behave with
     Directive 93/37?                                                    discretion incumbent upon him because
(1) Council Directive of 14 June 1993, OJ 1993 L 199 of 9.8.1993,        — he is a politician in the public eye;
    p. 54.
                                                                         — he has been responsible for the field of information
                                                                              technology and telecommunications within the Com-
                                                                              mission since 1992 and has now taken up a post with one
                                                                              of the largest companies in that very sphere;
                                                                         — he made public the fact that he was taking up the post
                                                                              when he was still a member of the Commission and
Action brought on 3 August 1999 by the Council of the                         indeed stated that he intended to take up his new post
       European Union against Dr Martin Bangemann                             immediately;
                                                                         — the Commission was at that time in an extremely delicate
                          (Case C-290/99)                                     position and it suffered damage to its reputation;
                         (1999/C 314/03)                                 — the reactions of citizens, the media, political circles and
                                                                              public opinion were, in view of those circumstances,
An action against Dr Martin Bangemann was brought before                      clearly foreseeable.
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 3 August
1999 by the Council of the European Union represented by
Jean-Claude Piris, Director-General of the Legal Service of the          (1) Regulation No 422/67/EEC, 5/67/Euratom of the Council of
Council, and Martin Bauer, a member of the Legal Service,                    25 July 1967 determining the emoluments of the President and
assisted by Professor Doctor Hans-Jürgen Rabe, of the Ham-                   Members of the Commission and of the President, Judges,
burg Bar and the Brussels firm Gaedertz, with an address for                 Advocates General and Registrar of the Court of Justice.
service in Luxembourg at the office of Alessandro Morbilli,
General Counsel, Legal Affairs Directorate of the European
Investment Bank, 100 Boulevard Konrad Adenauer, L-2920
Luxembourg-Kirchberg.


title: Case T-579/15: Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2016 — For Tune v EUIPO — Gastwerk Hotel Hamburg (fortune) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark fortune — Earlier German word mark FORTUNE-HOTELS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               9.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/36

         Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2016 — For Tune v EUIPO — Gastwerk Hotel Hamburg (fortune)
   (Case T-579/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark fortune - Earlier German word mark FORTUNE-HOTELS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 006/44)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: For Tune sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: K. Popławska, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Gastwerk Hotel Hamburg GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 August 2015 (Case R 2808/2014-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Gastwerk Hotel Hamburg and For Tune.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders For Tune sp. z o.o. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 398, 30.11.2015.


title: Case C-240/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 14 May 2010 — Cathy Schulz-Delzers and Pascal Schulz v Finanzamt Stuttgart III

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/18

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 14 May 2010 — Cathy Schulz-Delzers and Pascal Schulz v Finanzamt Stuttgart III
   (Case C-240/10)
   ()
   2010/C 221/29
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Cathy Schulz-Delzers and Pascal Schulz

      Defendant: Finanzamt Stuttgart III

      Questions referred

               1.

                           (a)

                           Is Paragraph 3(64) of the Einkommensteuergesetz (Law on Income Tax), in the version applicable in 2005 and 2006, compatible with the freedom of movement of workers pursuant to Article 45 of the ‘Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union’ (TFEU) (Article 39 of the Treaty on the Establishment of the European Community; ‘EC Treaty’)?

                           (b)

                           Does Paragraph 3(64) of the Einkommensteuergesetz, in the version applicable in 2005 and 2006, constitute covert discrimination on grounds of nationality prohibited by Article 18 TFEU (Article 12 EC Treaty)?

               2.

               If the reply to the first question is in the negative: is Paragraph 3(64) of the Einkommensteuergesetz, in the version applicable in 2005 and 2006, compatible with the freedom of movement of Union citizens under Article 21 TFEU (Article 18 EC Treaty)?


title: Case T-203/12: Action brought on 16 May 2012 — Alchaar v Council

text:
               21.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/24

         Action brought on 16 May 2012 — Alchaar v Council
   (Case T-203/12)
   2012/C 217/52
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Mohamad Nedal Alchaar (Alep, Syria) (represented by: A. Korkmaz, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul, as far as those acts concern the applicant:

                           —

                           Implementing Regulation No 1244/2011 of 1 December 2011;

                           —

                           Decision No 2011/782/CFSP as amended and supplemented up to now, in particular by implementing Decision No 2012/37/CFSP, Decision 2012/122/CFSP, Implementing Decision 2012/172/CFSP and Decision 2012/206/CFSP;

                           —

                           Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 as amended and supplemented up to now, in particular by Implementing Regulation No 55/2012, Regulation No 168/2012 and Implementing Regulation No 266/2012

                           —

                           All future acts amending or supplementing Decision 2011/782/CFSP and Council Regulation No 36/2012

               —

               annul the Council’s decision in its letter of 16 March 2012 addressed to the applicant, in so far as it maintains his inclusion on the contested lists;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging an infringement of fundamental rights and procedural guarantees, in particular rights, the duty to state reasons and the principle of effective judicial protection, in so far as the applicant did not receive formal notification of his inclusion on the list of persons sanctioned and or the grounds for his inclusion in the contested acts and were not sufficient to justify the sanctions.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the right to property and economic freedom.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 September 1999 in Case C-232/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandse Raad van State): L. Nederhoff & Zn. v Dijkgraaf en hoogheemraden van het Hoogheemraadschap Rijnland (Environment - Directives 76/464/EEC, 76/769/EEC and 86/280/EEC - 'Discharge' - Possibility for a Member State to adopt more stringent measures than those provided for in Directive 76/464/EEC - Effect of Directive 76/769/EEC on such a measure)

text:
C 366/12                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        18.12.1999
2. The term ‘discharge’ in Article 1(2)(d) of Directive 76/464 must        to Directive 76/464 (OJ 1986 L 181, p. 16) — the Court (Sixth
    be interpreted as covering the emission of contaminated steam          Chamber), composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn, President of the
    which is first precipitated on to land and roofs and then reaches      Chamber, G. Hirsch (Rapporteur) and R. Schintgen, Judges;
    the surface water via a storm water drain. It is not material in       A. Saggio, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for
    this respect whether the drain in question belongs to the              the Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 September 1999, in
    establishment concerned or to a third party.                           which it has ruled:
(1) OJ No C 252 of 16.8.1997.                                              1. The term ‘discharge’ in Article 1(2)(d) of Council Directive
                                                                               76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by certain
                                                                               dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of
                                                                               the Community must be interpreted as not including the pollution
                                                                               from significant sources, including multiple and diffuse sources,
                                                                               referred to in Article 5(1) of Council Directive 86/280/EEC of
                                                                               12 June 1986 on limit values and quality objectives for
                                                                               discharges of certain dangerous substances included in List I of
                                                                               the Annex to Directive 76/464.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                  2. The expression ‘significant sources ... (including multiple and
                                                                               diffuse sources)’ in Article 5(1) of Directive 86/280 must be
                                                                               interpreted as not including the escape of creosote from wooden
                       of 29 September 1999                                    posts placed in surface water, where the pollution caused by that
                                                                               substance is attributable to a person.
in Case C-232/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Nederlandse Raad van State): L. Nederhoff & Zn. v
Dijkgraaf en hoogheemraden van het Hoogheemraad-                           3. The term ‘discharge’ in Article 1(2)(d) of Directive 76/464 must
                          schap Rijnland (1)                                   be interpreted as including the placing by a person in surface
                                                                               water of wooden posts treated with creosote.
(Environment — Directives 76/464/EEC, 76/769/EEC and
86/280/EEC — ‘Discharge’ — Possibility for a Member
                                                                           4. Directive 76/464 permits Member States to make the authoris-
State to adopt more stringent measures than those provided
                                                                               ation for a discharge subject to additional requirements not
for in Directive 76/464/EEC — Effect of Directive
                                                                               provided for in that directive, in order to protect the aquatic
                76/769/EEC on such a measure)
                                                                               environment of the Community against pollution caused by
                                                                               certain dangerous substances. The obligation to investigate or
                           (1999/C 366/19)                                     choose alternative solutions which have less impact on the
                                                                               environment constitutes such a requirement, even if it may have
                                                                               the effect of making the grant of authorisation impossible or
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)                             altogether exceptional.
                                                                           5. The limitative conditions for the use of creosote laid down in
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published         point 32 of Annex I to Council Directive 76/769/EEC of
                    in the European Court Reports)                             27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and
                                                                               administrative provisions of the Member States relating to
In Case C-232/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                  restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Nederlandse                        substances and preparations, as amended by European Parlia-
Raad van State for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                     ment and Council Directive 94/60/EC of 20 December 1994,
pending before that court between L. Nederhoff & Zn. and                       do not preclude an authority of a Member State, when considering
Dijkgraaf en hoogheemraden van het Hoogheemraadschap                           applications for authorisation concerning the introduction into
Rijnland — on the interpretation of Council Directive                          surface water by professional users of wood treated with that
76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by certain                        substance, from establishing criteria of assessment such that its
dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment                   use is impossible or altogether exceptional.
of the Community (OJ 1976 L 129, p. 23), Council Directive
76/769/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the
laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member
States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of
certain dangerous substances and preparations (OJ 1976                     (1) OJ No C 252 of 16.8.1997.
L 262, p. 201), as amended by European Parliament and
Council Directive 94/60/EC of 20 December 1994 (OJ 1994
L 365, p. 1), and Council Directive 86/280/EEC of 12 June
1986 on limit values and quality objectives for discharges of
certain dangerous substances included in List I of the Annex


title: Case C-102/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, lodged on 21 February 2007 — Adidas AG and Adidas Benelux BV v Marca Mode, C&A Nederland, H&M Hennes & Mauritz Netherlands BV and Vendex KBB Nederland BV

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/26

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, lodged on 21 February 2007 — Adidas AG and Adidas Benelux BV v Marca Mode, C&A Nederland, H&M Hennes & Mauritz Netherlands BV and Vendex KBB Nederland BV
   (Case C-102/07)
   (2007/C 82/48)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Adidas AG and Adidas Benelux BV

      Respondents: Marca Mode, C&A Nederland, H&M Hennes & Mauritz Netherlands BV and Vendex KBB Nederland BV
   Questions referred

               1.

               In the determination of the extent to which protection should be given to a trade mark formed by a sign which does not in itself have any distinctive character or by a designation which corresponds to the description in Article 3(1)(c) of Directive 89/104/EEC (1), but which has become a trade mark through the process of becoming customary and has been registered, should account be taken of the general interest in ensuring that the availability of given signs is not unduly restricted for other traders offering the goods or services concerned (the requirement of availability)?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: does it make any difference whether the signs which are referred to therein and which are to be held available are seen by the relevant public as being signs used to distinguish goods or merely to embellish them?

               3.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: does it, further, make any difference whether the sign contested by the holder of a trade mark is devoid of distinctive character, within the terms of Article 3(1)(b) of Directive 89/104/EEC, or contains a designation, within the terms of Article 3(1)(c) of the Directive?

      (1)  First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1).


title: Case T-416/10: Action brought on 15 September 2010 — Yoshida Metal Industry v OHMI — Pi-Design and Others (surface covered with black circles)

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/32

         Action brought on 15 September 2010 — Yoshida Metal Industry v OHMI — Pi-Design and Others (surface covered with black circles)
   (Case T-416/10)
   ()
   2010/C 328/56
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Yoshida Metal Industry Co., Ltd (Niigata, Japan) (represented by: S. Verea, K. Muraro, M. Balestriero, lawyers)

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

      Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pi-Design AG (Triengen, Switzerland), Bodum France SA (Neuilly sur Seine, France), Bodum Logistics A/S (Billund, Denmark)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 May 2010 in case R 1237/2008-1;

               —

               Confirm the decision of the Cancellation Division of 15 July 2008 regarding Community trade mark application No 1372580;

               —

               Confirm the validity of Community trade mark registration No 1372580;

               —

               Order the defendant and the other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The figurative mark representing a surface covered with black circles for goods in classes 8 and 21 — Community trade mark registration No 1372580

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark right of the parties requesting the declaration of invalidity: The parties requesting the declaration of invalidity grounded their request on absolute grounds for refusal pursuant to Article 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the application for declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and declared the Community trade mark registration invalid

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in concluding that the provisions of this article are applicable to the contested Community trade mark.


title: Case C-6/09: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2005/60/EC — Money laundering and terrorist financing — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/15

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-6/09) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2005/60/EC - Money laundering and terrorist financing - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   2009/C 282/28
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

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

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

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to have adopted or communicated, within the prescribed time-limit, all the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing (OJ 2005 L 309, p. 15)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 69, 21.03.2009.


title: Case C-191/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 19 May 1999 in the case of Kvaerner PLC (formerly Trafalgar House PLC) against Staatssecretaris van Financiën

text:
C 204/32                 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        17.7.1999
4. Do the principle of legal certainty and the rules on                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Sedgefield
     inward processing relief arrangements allow the competent           Magistrates’ Court , by order of that Court of 21 May
     customs authority unilaterally to alter the rate of yield           1999, in the case of Vehicle Inspectorate against Graeme
     fixed in the processing authorisation if it is proved that                                     Edgar Hume
     the said customs authority has been monitoring and
     supervising the operation of the undertaking in question                                     (Case C-193/99)
     since the inception of the arrangements in Portugal (in
     1986)?                                                                                (1999/C 204/64)
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1999/85 of 16 July 1985 on inward        European Communities by an order of the Sedgefield Magis-
    processing relief arrangements (OJ L 188 of 20.7.1985, p. 1).        trates’ Court, of 21 May 1999, which was received at the Court
                                                                         Registry on 25 May 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case
                                                                         of Vehicle Inspectorate against Graeme Edgar Hume, on the
                                                                         following questions:
                                                                         1. Where, pursuant to Article 8(5) of Council Regulation
                                                                              3820/85/EEC (1) a driver who is entitled to do so elects to
                                                                              postpone his weekly rest period until the week following
                                                                              that in which it is due, must the driver take two weekly
                                                                              rest periods, consecutively and without break between
                                                                              them, in that following week?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der                  2. If the answer to question (1) is in the negative, must such
Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 19 May 1999                          a driver nevertheless take two weekly rest periods in the
in the case of Kvaerner PLC (formerly Trafalgar House                         following week, or is he permitted to postpone, in turn,
         PLC) against Staatssecretaris van Financiën                          the weekly rest period for that second week to the next
                                                                              following week?
                           (Case C-191/99)
                                                                         (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 of 20 December 1985 on
                                                                             the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road
                          (1999/C 204/63)                                    transport (OJ L 370, 31.12.1985, p. 1).
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden (Netherlands Supreme Court) of 19 May 1999,
received at the Court Registry on 25 May 1999, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Kvaerner PLC (formerly                 Appeal brought on 25 May 1999 by British Steel plc
Trafalgar House PLC) v Staatssecretaris van Financiën on the             against the judgment delivered on 11 March 1999 by the
following questions:                                                     Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                         (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) in case
                                                                         T-151/94 between British Steel plc and the Commission
1. Is it permissible under Articles 2(c) and (d) and 3 of Second                          of the European Communities
     Council Directive 88/357/EEC of 22 June 1988 for a
     Member State to charge a legal person established in                                        (Case C-199/99 P)
     another Member State to insurance tax in respect of
     premiums paid to an insurer also established in another                                      (1999/C 204/65)
     Member State for the professional indemnity insurance of
     the minor subsidiary established in the Member State                An appeal against the judgment delivered on 11 March 1999
     making the levy?                                                    by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                         (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) in case T-151/94
2. Does it make any difference to the reply to Question 1 if             between British Steel plc and the Commission of the European
     the policy-holder is not the overall parent company but             Communities, was brought before the Court of Justice of the
     some other company in the group (for example a captive              European Communities on 25 May 1999 by British Steel plc,
     insurance company)?                                                 a company governed by the laws of England and Wales and
                                                                         whose registered office is at 15 Marylebone Road, London
                                                                         NW1 5JD, represented by Philip G.H. Collins and Matthew
3. Does it make any difference to the replies to Questions 1             Levitt, Solicitors of Lovell White Durrant, with an address for
     and 2 or to the interpretation of the terms ‘policy-holder’         service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch & Wolter,
     or ‘Member State where the risk is situated’ if the insurance       11 rue Goethe. B.P. 1107.
     premium relating to the insured risk is not (wholly or in
     part) invoiced to the minor subsidiary?                             The Appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         (a) set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance in case
                                                                              T-151/94. British Steel plc v Commission of the European
                                                                              Communities, of 11 March 1999;


title: Case T-199/04: Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2011 — Gul Ahmed Textile Mills v Council (Dumping — Imports of cotton bed linen originating in Pakistan — Injury — Causal link)

text:
               12.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2011 — Gul Ahmed Textile Mills v Council
   (Case T-199/04) (1)

   (Dumping - Imports of cotton bed linen originating in Pakistan - Injury - Causal link)
   2011/C 331/26
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd (Karachi, Pakistan) (represented by: L. Ruessmann, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg (Luxembourg))

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J. P. Hix and B. Driessen, Agents, and by G. Berrisch, lawyer)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by T. Scharf and K. Talabér-Ritz, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 397/2004 of 2 March 2004 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of cotton-type bed linen originating in Pakistan (OJ 2004 L 66, p. 1), in so far as it concerns the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Council Regulation (EC) No 397/2004 of 2 March 2004 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of cotton-type bed linen originating in Pakistan in so far as it concerns Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd;

               2.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Gul Ahmed Textile Mills;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 217, 28.8.2004.


title: Case T-639/11: Action brought on 14 December 2011 — Heads! v OHIM (HEADS)

text:
               18.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 49/29

         Action brought on 14 December 2011 — Heads! v OHIM (HEADS)
   (Case T-639/11)
   2012/C 49/53
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Heads! GmbH & Co. KG (Munich, Germany) (represented by A. Jaeger-Lenz and T. Bösling, lawyers)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 October 2011 in Case R 2348/2010-1 in so far as the registration of trade mark No 8327926 ‘HEADS’ for services in Class 35 (Business management; Business administration; Personnel and management consulting services; Personnel marketing; Recruitment of specialist and senior staff; Provision of temporary specialist and senior staff (temporary management)) was refused;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘HEADS’ for services in Class 35.

      Decision of the Examiner: Registration refused.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed in part.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 since the Community trade mark at issue has distinctive character and since the Board of Appeal did not make any specific findings with regard to the ground for refusal under Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 on which its decision is based; wrongfully took as a basis for its assessment word combinations not covered by the application for registration; wrongly relied on a decision of the (German) Federal Patent Court; and the conclusions drawn from the presumed point of view of the target public do not apply.


title: Case T-269/04: Action brought on 29 June 2004 by IDOM, SA against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
               28.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/38

         Action brought on 29 June 2004 by IDOM, SA against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case T-269/04)
   (2004/C 217/67)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 29 June 2004 by IDOM, SA, established in Bilbao (Spain), represented by T. Villate Consonni, lawyer at the Ilustre Colegio de Madrid (Madrid bar).
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of 27 April 2004 by OHIM's Second Board of Appeal in case R-153/2003-2;

               —

               annul decision 3707/2002 in opposition proceedings B282733 in so far as it rejects the opposition brought by IDOM, SA and allow the application for the contested mark for Class 37 and part of Class 42;

               —

               uphold the arguments of the appellant ordering the Opposition Division of OHIM entirely to refuse registration of the mark in question;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs arising from the present action if it is unsuccessful in its claims.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               Idom Incorporated

               Community trade mark sought:

               Figurative mark 'IDOM' – application No 1 185 800 for services in Classes 35, 37 and 42 (management, consultancy and informatics)

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               The applicant

               Mark or sign cited in opposition.

               Community figurative mark IDOM (No 847 236), Spanish figurative marks IDOM (Nos 789 822, 789 823, 1 195 931, 2 052 591, 2 052 592, 2 052 593) and Spanish word mark IDOM (No 217 244) for services in Classes 35, 37 and 42

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Allow the opposition as regards services in Class 35 covered by both marks, and dismiss it as regards services in Classes 37 and 42

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Dismissal of the appeal

               Pleas in law:

               Incorrect interpretation of Article 8(1)(b) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 1 March 2005 in Case T-258/03 Andreas Mausolf v European Police Office (Europol) (Temporary staff — Europol staff — Non-extension of employment contract)

text:
               30.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/24

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 1 March 2005
   in Case T-258/03 Andreas Mausolf v European Police Office (Europol) (1)

   (Temporary staff - Europol staff - Non-extension of employment contract)
   (2005/C 106/55)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   In Case T-258/03: Andreas Mausolf, a former member of the staff of Europol, residing in Leiden (Netherlands), represented by F. Baltussen, P. de Casparis and D.C. Coppens, lawyers, against the European Police Office (Europol), the seat of which is at the Hague (Netherlands) (Agents: D. Heimans and K. Hennessy-Massaro, and, at the hearing, N. Urban) — application for annulment of Europol's decision not to extend the term of the applicant's contract of employment and for compensation for the loss allegedly suffered — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, A.W.H. Meij and I. Pelikánova, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 1 March 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 213 of 6.9.2003.


title: Case C-161/07: Action brought on 23 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria

text:
               23.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 140/9

         Action brought on 23 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-161/07)
   (2007/C 140/16)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by E. Traversa and G. Braun, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Austria
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by requiring, for the registration of companies in the register of commerce on application by nationals of the new Member States of the EU other than Malta and Cyprus, a determination of their self-employed status by the employment market service or the production of a certificate of exemption, in which connection, for determining the self-employed status of members of a partnership or minority shareholders in a limited liability company who perform work for the company that is typically performed in an employment relationship, a determination procedure is to be carried out during which, for a maximum of three months, the self-employed activity may not be pursued, the Republic of Austria has infringed Article 43 EC;

               —

               order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The first paragraph of Article 43 guarantees all nationals of a Member State the right of establishment in another Member State in order to take up and pursue activities there as self-employed persons, and to set up companies and manage undertakings in another Member State. As an expression of the general prohibition of discrimination in Article 12 EC, Article 43 EC prohibits discrimination on grounds of nationality in the field of self-employed persons. The requirement of equal treatment with the nationals of the host State is expressed in the second paragraph of Article 43. Under that provision, freedom of establishment covers the right to take up and pursue activities of any kind as self-employed persons and to set up and manage undertakings, particularly companies, in the territory of any other Member State in accordance with the provisions laid down by the host State for its own nationals.
   For the registration of a company established under Austrian law on application by a citizen of one of the Member States of the European Union which acceded on 1 May 2004 — with the exception of Malta and Cyprus — the courts keeping the registers of companies in Austria require a determination of his self-employed status. The distinction between self-employed and non-self-employed workers depends on the ‘true economic content of the activity’. Under the Austrian legislation, in particular, members of a partnership and members of a limited liability company with a share of less than 25 % of the business who perform work which is typically performed in an employment relationship are regarded as non-self-employed workers. That presumption applies until the regional office of the employment market service determines, on application by the member, that he exercises a significant influence on the management of the business. Proof of self-employed status is to be provided by the applicant. Until the determination of self-employed status by decision, but for a maximum of three months, the persons concerned cannot take up their activities.
   This rule is not compatible with freedom of establishment under Article 43 EC. It impedes self-employed persons from eight new Member States in their freedom to become established in Austria, by making it considerably difficult for them to set up a company, without there being any justification for that. Even if it is the case that the provision in question is only of limited application, the rule does not thereby lose its discriminatory character. Even though nationals of the eight Member States concerned do not always without exception have to make an application, the decisive point is that Austrian citizens and nationals of the other Member States never have to make such an application. Moreover, the transitional provisions in the accession treaties provide for restrictions exclusively in respect of the freedom of movement of workers. For freedom of establishment there are no such possible restrictions. That the ratio legis of the relevant provision is to prevent the transitional provisions for the freedom of movement of workers from being circumvented, rather than to restrict freedom of establishment, does not alter the fact that it amounts to a restriction of freedom of establishment.
   Restrictions of freedom of establishment can, under Article 46 EC, be justified only on grounds of public policy, public security or public health or, in the case of measures that are not overtly discriminatory, on other mandatory grounds in the public interest. As restrictions of a fundamental freedom, such measures must in any event be suitable for achieving the aim pursued and not go beyond what is necessary for that purpose. The Austrian rule in question does not satisfy those requirements for justification.
   There is nothing to indicate that the evasion of the transitional provisions by nationals of the eight Member States concerned feared by the Austrian Government may reach such proportions that the functioning of the Austrian labour market will in fact be fundamentally threatened. In addition, the two criteria of assessment of the type of employment — the kind of work done and influence on the management of the company — are not appropriate for distinguishing between employment and self-employed activities. As regards the need for the restriction, it is not apparent from the Austrian Government's explanation why a subsequent check after registration of the company could not, as a less severe means, also achieve the intended purpose.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 January 2005 in Case T-93/02: Confédération nationale du Crédit Mutuel v Commission of the European Communities (State aid — Measures taken by the French Republic for Crédit Mutuel — Livret bleu — Decision 2003/216/EC — Duty to state reasons — Action for annulment)

text:
               19.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/13

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 18 January 2005
   in Case T-93/02: Confédération nationale du Crédit Mutuel v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (State aid - Measures taken by the French Republic for Crédit Mutuel - Livret bleu - Decision 2003/216/EC - Duty to state reasons - Action for annulment)
   (2005/C 69/25)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-93/02: Confédération nationale du Crédit Mutuel, established in Paris (France), represented by A. Carnelutti and J.-P. Gunther, lawyers, supported by French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues and F. Million, with an address for service in Luxembourg), against Commission of the European Communities (Agent: G. Rozet, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — action for annulment of Commission Decision 2003/216/EC of 15 January 2002 on State aid granted by France to Crédit Mutuel (OJ 2003 L 88, p. 39), in the form of excess compensation for collection and management costs of regulated savings under the ‘Livret bleu’ system — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of J. Pirrung, President, V. Tiili, A.W.H. Meij, M. Vilaras and N.J. Forwood, Judges, J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar; has given a judgment on 18 January 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision 2003/216 EC of 15 January 2002 on State aid granted by the French Republic to Crédit Mutuel;

               2.

               Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the applicant's costs;

               3.

               Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 131 of 1.6.2002.


title: Case C-9/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Kehl — Germany) — criminal proceedings against A (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 — Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) — Articles 20 and 21 — Crossing internal borders — Checks within the territory — National legislation authorising checks to establish the identity of persons apprehended within 30 kilometres of the common border with other States parties to the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement — Possibility of checks irrespective of the behaviour of the person concerned or of the existence of specific circumstances — National legislation permitting certain controls on persons on the premises of railway stations)

text:
               21.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/10

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Kehl — Germany) — criminal proceedings against A
   (Case C-9/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 - Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) - Articles 20 and 21 - Crossing internal borders - Checks within the territory - National legislation authorising checks to establish the identity of persons apprehended within 30 kilometres of the common border with other States parties to the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement - Possibility of checks irrespective of the behaviour of the person concerned or of the existence of specific circumstances - National legislation permitting certain controls on persons on the premises of railway stations))
   (2017/C 277/13)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Kehl

      Parties to the main proceedings

   A

      Other party: Staatsanwaltschaft Offenburg

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 67(2) TFEU and Articles 20 and 21 of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code), as amended by Regulation (EU) No 610/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which confers on the police authorities of the Member State in question the power to check the identity of any person, within an area of 30 kilometres from that Member State’s land border with other States parties to the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders, signed at Schengen (Luxembourg) on 19 June 1990, with a view to preventing or terminating unlawful entry into or residence in the territory of that Member State or preventing certain criminal offences which undermine the security of the border, irrespective of the behaviour of the person concerned and of the existence of specific circumstances, unless that legislation lays down the necessary framework for that power ensuring that the practical exercise of it cannot have an effect equivalent to that of border checks, which is for the referring court to verify;

               2.

               Article 67(2) TFEU and Articles 20 and 21 of Regulation No 562/2006, as amended by Regulation No 610/2013, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which permits the police authorities of the Member State in question to carry out, on board trains and on the premises of the railways of that Member State, identity or border crossing document checks on any person, and briefly to stop and question any person for that purpose, if those checks are based on knowledge of the situation or border police experience, provided that the exercise of those checks is subject under national law to detailed rules and limitations determining the intensity, frequency and selectivity of the checks, which is for the referring court to verify.

      (1)  OJ C 136, 18.4.2016.


title: Case C-495/16 P: Appeal brought on 15 September 2016 by TeamBank AG Nürnberg against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 20 July 2016 in Case T-745/14: TeamBank v EUIPO — Easy Asset Management (EASY CREDIT)

text:
               13.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/8

         Appeal brought on 15 September 2016 by TeamBank AG Nürnberg against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 20 July 2016 in Case T-745/14: TeamBank v EUIPO — Easy Asset Management (EASY CREDIT)
   (Case C-495/16 P)
   (2017/C 078/11)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: TeamBank AG Nürnberg (represented by: D. Terheggen, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Easy Asset Management AD
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


title: Case T-87/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 21 September 2005 — EDP v Commission (Competition — Concentration — Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 — Decision declaring a concentration incompatible with the common market — Portuguese electricity and gas markets — Acquisition of GDP by EDP and Eni — Directive 2003/55/EC — Liberalisation of gas markets — Commitments)

text:
               12.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/22

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 21 September 2005 — EDP v Commission
   (Case T-87/05) (1)

   (Competition - Concentration - Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 - Decision declaring a concentration incompatible with the common market - Portuguese electricity and gas markets - Acquisition of GDP by EDP and Eni - Directive 2003/55/EC - Liberalisation of gas markets - Commitments)
   (2005/C 281/42)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant(s): EDP — Energias de Portugal SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by C. Botelho Moniz, R. García-Gallardo, A. Weitbrecht and J. Ruiz Calzado, lawyers)

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities (represented by A. Bouquet and M. Schneider, agents)

      Intervener(s) in support of the defendant(s): Gas Natural SDG SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by J. Perez-Bustamante Köster and P. Suárez Fernández, lawyers)
   Application for
   for annulment of Commission Decision C(2004) 4715 final of 9 December 2004 declaring incompatible with the common market the concentration by which EDP — Energias de Portugal SA and Eni Portugal Investment SpA proposed to acquire joint control of Gás de Portugal SGPS SA (Case COMP/M.3440 — EDP/ENI/GDP
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the application;

               2)

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs;

               3)

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs in relation to the intervention.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 2.4.2005.


title: Case T-110/07: Judgment of the General Court of 3 March 2011 — Siemens v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market in gas insulated switchgear projects — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Market sharing — Effects within the common market — Concept of continuous infringement — Duration of the infringement — Limitation period — Fines — Proportionality — Aggravating circumstances — Role of leader — Mitigating circumstances — Cooperation)

text:
               9.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/10

         Judgment of the General Court of 3 March 2011 — Siemens v Commission
   (Case T-110/07) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market in gas insulated switchgear projects - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Market sharing - Effects within the common market - Concept of continuous infringement - Duration of the infringement - Limitation period - Fines - Proportionality - Aggravating circumstances - Role of leader - Mitigating circumstances - Cooperation)
   2011/C 113/19
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Siemens (Berlin and Munich, Germany) (represented: initially by I. Brinker, T. Loest and C. Steinle, and subsequently by I. Brinker and C. Steinle, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by F. Arbault and O. Weber, and subsequently by X. Lewis and R. Sauer, and lastly by R. Sauer and A. Antoniadis, Agents)

      Re:

   Partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 6762 final of 24 January 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.899 — Gas insulated switchgear) and, in the alternative, a reduction in the amount of fine imposed on the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders Siemens to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 140, 23.6.2007.


title: Case C-42/07: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 September 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Pequena Instância Criminal do Porto (Portugal)) — Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional (CA/LPFP), Bwin International Ltd, formerly Baw International Ltd v Departamento de Jogos da Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 49 EC — Restrictions on the freedom to provide services — Offer of games of chance via the internet)

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/9

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 September 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Pequena Instância Criminal do Porto (Portugal)) — Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional (CA/LPFP), Bwin International Ltd, formerly Baw International Ltd v Departamento de Jogos da Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa
   (Case C-42/07) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 49 EC - Restrictions on the freedom to provide services - Offer of games of chance via the internet)
   2009/C 267/15
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal de Pequena Instância Criminal do Porto

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional (CA/LPFP), Bwin International Ltd, formerly Baw International Ltd

      Defendant: Departamento de Jogos da Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal de Pequena Instância Criminal do Porto — Interpretation of Articles 43 EC, 49 EC and 56 EC — National legislation granting a specific organisation the exclusive rights to operate games of chance and lotteries, and classing as administrative offences the activities of organising, promoting and collecting bets on sporting events, including over the internet — Prohibition of an undertaking which operates betting and lotteries online, and having its registered office in another Member State, from promoting, organising or operating such betting and lotteries over the internet or from awarding the value of the prizes to the winners

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 49 EC does not preclude legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which prohibits operators such as Bwin International Ltd, which are established in other Member States, in which they lawfully provide similar services, from offering games of chance via the internet within the territory of that Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 69, 24.3.2007.


title: Joined Cases C-463/04 and C-464/04: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 December 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) — Federconsumatori, Adiconsum, ADOC, Ercole Pietro Zucca (C-463/04) and Associazione Azionariato Diffuso dell'AEM SpA, Filippo Cuccia, Giacomo Fragapane, Pietro Angelo Puggioni, Annamaria Sanchirico, Sandro Sartorio (C-464/04) v Comune di Milano (Article 56 EC — Free movement of capital — Restrictions — Privatised undertakings — National provision under which the Articles of association of a company limited by shares may confer on the State or a public body holding shares in that company the power to appoint directly one or more directors to the board)

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/2

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 December 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) — Federconsumatori, Adiconsum, ADOC, Ercole Pietro Zucca (C-463/04) and Associazione Azionariato Diffuso dell'AEM SpA, Filippo Cuccia, Giacomo Fragapane, Pietro Angelo Puggioni, Annamaria Sanchirico, Sandro Sartorio (C-464/04) v Comune di Milano
   (Joined Cases C-463/04 and C-464/04) (1)

   (Article 56 EC - Free movement of capital - Restrictions - Privatised undertakings - National provision under which the Articles of association of a company limited by shares may confer on the State or a public body holding shares in that company the power to appoint directly one or more directors to the board)
   (2008/C 22/02)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Federconsumatori, Adiconsum, ADOC, Ercole Pietro Zucca (C-463/04) and Associazione Azionariato Diffuso dell'AEM SpA, Filippo Cuccia, Giacomo Fragapane, Pietro Angelo Puggioni, Annamaria Sanchirico, Sandro Sartorio (C-464/04),

      Defendant: Comune di Milano

      Interested parties: AEM SpA (C-463/04 and C-464/04), Edison SpA (C-463/04)
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia — Interpretation of Article 56 EC — National law allowing public entities to appoint directors or auditors in privatised undertakings — Application by a territorial entity which retains a substantial holding in the privatised undertaking.
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 56 EC must be interpreted as precluding a national provision, such as Article 2449 of the Italian Civil Code, under which the Articles of association of a company limited by shares may confer on the State or a public body with a shareholding in that company the power to appoint directly one or more directors which, on its own or, as in the main proceedings, in conjunction with a provision such as Article 4 of Decree Law No 332 of 31 May 1994, which became, after amendment, Law No 474 of 30 July 1994, as amended by Law No 350 of 24 December 2003, which grants that State or public body the right to participate in the election on the basis of lists of the directors it has not appointed directly, is such as to enable that State or public body to obtain a power of control which is disproportionate to its shareholding in that company.

      (1)  OJ C 249, 14.10.2006.


title: Case T-521/10: Action brought on 9 November 2010 — Confortel Gestión v OHIM — Homargrup (CONFORTEL AQUA 4)

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/41

         Action brought on 9 November 2010 — Confortel Gestión v OHIM — Homargrup (CONFORTEL AQUA 4)
   (Case T-521/10)
   ()
   2011/C 30/74
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Confortel Gestión, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: I. Valdelomar Serrano)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Homargrup, SA (Santa Susana, Spain)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 5 August 2010 in Case R 1359/2009-2, and consequently register Community trade mark No 5.276.951 ‘CONFORTEL Aqua 4’ for all of the classes sought, and

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Confortel Gestión, SA.

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘CONFORTEL Aqua 4’ for services in Classes 41, 43 and 44.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Homargrup, SA.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community word mark ‘AQUA’ and Community figurative mark ‘A AQUA HOTEL’ and Spanish word marks ‘AQUAMARINA’ and ‘AQUATEL’, and Spanish figurative mark ‘AQUAMAR’, for services in Class 42.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

      Plea in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) since there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).


title: Case T-31/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of 17 June 2008 — Rossi v OHIM — K & L Ruppert Stiftung (Rossi)

text:
               2.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 197/36

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 17 June 2008 — Rossi v OHIM — K & L Ruppert Stiftung (Rossi)
   (Case T-31/05) (1)

   (2008/C 197/66)

      Language of the case: English

   The President of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 93, 16.4.2005.


title: Order of the Court of Justice (First Chamber) of 22 March 2004 in Case C-455/02 P: Sgaravatti Mediterranea Srl v Commission of the European Communities (Article 24 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 — Principle of non bis in idem — EAGGF — Cancellation of financial assistance — Appeal partly clearly inadmissible and partly clearly unfounded)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/27

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE

   (First Chamber)
   of 22 March 2004
   in Case C-455/02 P: Sgaravatti Mediterranea Srl v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Article 24 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 - Principle of non bis in idem - EAGGF - Cancellation of financial assistance - Appeal partly clearly inadmissible and partly clearly unfounded)
   (2004/C 118/48)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case C-455/02 P: Sgaravatti Mediterranea Srl, established in Capoterra (Italy), (Lawyers: M. Merola and P. Ferrari), appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fifth Chamber) of 26 September 2002, in Case T-199/99 Sgaravatti Mediterranea v Commission [2002] ECR II-3731, seeking annulment of that judgment, the other party to the proceedings being: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: C. Cattabriga, L. Visaggio and M. Moretto) – the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, A. Rosas, S. von Bahr, K. Lenaerts and K. Schiemann, Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 22 March 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               The applicant shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 44 of 22. 2. 2003


title: Case C-555/10: Action brought on 26 November 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/27

         Action brought on 26 November 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-555/10)
   ()
   2011/C 30/45
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Braun and H. Støvlbæk, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Austria

      Form of order sought

               —

               Hold that the Republic of Austria, when implementing the first railway package, failed to comply with its obligations under Article 6(3) of and Annex II to Directive 91/440/EEC in its amended version and Article 4(2) and Article 14(2) of Directive 2001/14/EC;

               —

               Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission is of the opinion that the required independence of the operator of railway infrastructure in Austria has not been properly implemented in national law.
   Admittedly the organisation in a common holding of an undertaking which is to carry out essential functions in relation to the operation of railway infrastructure and an undertaking which provides rail transport services, as it exists in Austria, is in principle permissible. It must however be ensured that the undertakings are ascertainably economically independent of each other.
   The parent company may in particular not exercise any control over the subsidiary which carries out essential railway infrastructure functions. That is not guaranteed in Austria. The independence of the infrastructure operator is not supervised by any independent agency and there is no effective means of redress for competitors where a particular undertaking receives advantages.
   There are also insufficient legislative or contractual rules governing the relationship between the holding company and its subsidiary which carries out essential railway infrastructure functions.
   According to the Commission, the manifold entanglements of staff between parent and subsidiary undertakings, for example dual roles in the respective company boards, give rise to doubts as to economic independence. Management personnel of one undertaking should be precluded for several years from taking up management positions in the other undertaking. Moreover, appointments of managers to the body entrusted with essential functions should be made only subject to supervision by an independent agency.
   In addition, there should be a physical and personal separation of respective computer systems, in order to ensure the required independence of the undertaking entrusted with essential functions of railway infrastructure operations.


title: Case T-336/07: Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2012 — Telefónica and Telefónica de España v Commission (Competition — Abuse of a dominant position — Spanish markets for access to broadband internet — Decision declaring an infringement of Article 82 EC — Price-fixing — Margin squeeze — Definition of the markets — Dominant position — Abuse — Calculation of the margin squeeze — Effects of the abuse — Competence of the Commission — Rights of the defence — Subsidiarity — Proportionality — Legal certainty — Sincere cooperation — Principle of sound administration — Fines)

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/13

         Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2012 — Telefónica and Telefónica de España v Commission
   (Case T-336/07) (1)

   (Competition - Abuse of a dominant position - Spanish markets for access to broadband internet - Decision declaring an infringement of Article 82 EC - Price-fixing - Margin squeeze - Definition of the markets - Dominant position - Abuse - Calculation of the margin squeeze - Effects of the abuse - Competence of the Commission - Rights of the defence - Subsidiarity - Proportionality - Legal certainty - Sincere cooperation - Principle of sound administration - Fines)
   2012/C 138/21
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Telefónica, SA (Madrid, Spain); and Telefónica de España, SA (Madrid) (represented by: F. González Díaz and S. Sorinas Jimeno, then F. González Díaz, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, É. Gippini Fournier and K. Mojzesowicz, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: France Telecom España, SA (Pozuelo de Alarcon, Spain) (represented by: S. Martínez Lage, H. Brokelmann and M. Ganino, lawyers); Asociación de Usuarios de Servicios Bancarios (Ausbanc Consumo) (Madrid) (represented by: L. Pineda Salido and I. Cámara Rubio, lawyers); and European Competitive Telecommunications Association (Wokingham, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Di Stefano and A. Salerno, lawyers)

      Re:

   Annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 3196 final, of 4 July 2007, relating to proceedings under Article 82 [EC] (Case COMP/38.784 — Wanadoo España v Telefónica), and, in the alternative, annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Telefónica, SA and Telefónica de España, SA to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, France Telecom España, SA, the Asociación de Usuarios de Servicios Bancarios (Ausbanc Consumo) and the European Competitive Telecommunications Association, in accordance with the forms of order sought by the latter.

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.


title: Case T-377/12: Action brought on 22 August 2012 — Spa Monopole v OHIM

text:
               27.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/27

      Action brought on 22 August 2012 — Spa Monopole v OHIM
      (Case T-377/12)
      (2012/C 331/52)
      Language in which the application was lodged: French

         Parties

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

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Olivar Del Desierto, SL (Almería, Spain)

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 June 2012 in Case R 135/2011-4;

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

         Applicant for a Community trade mark: Olivar Del Desierto, SL.

         Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark comprising the word element ‘OLEOSPA’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 35 and 39 — registration application No 7 268 832.

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

         Mark or sign cited in opposition: Benelux word marks ‘SPA’ for goods in Classes 3 and 32

         Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld.

         Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal upheld and opposition rejected.

         Pleas in law:

                  —

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

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.