title: Case C-200/11 P: Order of the Court of 22 March 2012 — Italian Republic v European Commission (Appeal — Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure — State aid — Incompatibility with the common market — Commission decision — Action for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Article 1(c) — Alteration of existing aid — Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 — Article 4(1) — Temporary defensive mechanism for shipbuilding)

text:
               30.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/7

         Order of the Court of 22 March 2012 — Italian Republic v European Commission
   (Case C-200/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure - State aid - Incompatibility with the common market - Commission decision - Action for annulment - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Article 1(c) - Alteration of existing aid - Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 - Article 4(1) - Temporary defensive mechanism for shipbuilding)
   2012/C 194/11
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, agent, P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci and C. Urraca Caviedes, agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 February 2011 in Case T-3/09 Italy v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed an application for annulment of Commission Decision 2010/38/EC of 21 October 2008 on State aid C 20/08 (ex N 62/08) which Italy is planning to implement through a modification of scheme N 59/04 concerning a temporary defensive mechanism for shipbuilding (OJ 2010 L 17, p. 50)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               The Italian Republic is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 204, 9.7.2011.


title: Case T-177/01: Action brought on 2 August 2001 by Jego-Quéré & Cie S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
13.10.2001               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 289/33
In support of its application, the application submits:                        evironment in terms of reducing noise and atmospheric
                                                                               pollution;
—      The formal investigation procedure was initiated illegally,       —     the Commission failed to evaluate the investment in
       in so far as the aid granted to the applicant constitutes no            terms of the elimination of hazardous waste;
       more than the application in a particular case of the
       scheme set up by the 1978 Law, as subsequently                    —     the aims of the investment were evaluated in arbitrary
       amended, which had been approved by the Commission.                     fashion and the Community rules governing aid for
       The Commission assessed the aid directly in the light of                protection of the environment were misapplied.
       the provisions of the Treaty, as well as by reference to an
       aid scheme which had already been authorised.                     (1) OJ 2001, C 3, p. 3.
—      Both the initiation of the formal investigation and its
       findings exceeded the proper scope of such investigations;
—      Breach of the principle of legal certainty, the protection        Action brought on 2 August 2001 by Jego-Quéré & Cie
       of legitimate expectations and the rights of the defence.         S.A. against the Commission of the European Communi-
       In particular, it is submitted that the contested decision                                        ties
       (paragraph 3) is based on the Community rules governing
       State aid for the protection of the environment in                                         (Case T-177/01)
       2001 (1), whereas the investigation of the aid to Ferriere
       was conducted wholly by reference to the environmental                                     (2001/C 289/73)
       legislation for 1994. The decision to open the formal
       procedure under Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty and the                               (Language of the case: French)
       invitation to interested parties to submit observations
       were made with reference to the 1994 rules and it was
       on the basis of that legislation the applicant submitted its      An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
       observations. In consequence, Ferriere was unable to              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
       exercise its rights of defence. The applicant contests, inter     European Communities on 2 August 2001 by Jego-Quéré &
       alia, the Commission’s statement that neither the Italian         Cie S.A., established at Lorient (France), represented by Antonio
       authorities nor the applicant produced adequate docu-             Creus Carreras, Begoña Uriarte Valiente and Albert Augustinoy
       mentary evidence of the environmental aims underlying             Guilayn, avocats.
       the grant of the aid in question.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
—      Breach of the principle of sound administration, in so far        —     annul Articles 3(d) and 5 of the Commission Regulation
       as the Commission:                                                      of 14 June 2001 establishing measures for the recovery
                                                                               of the stock of hake in ICES sub-areas III, IV, V, VI and
                                                                               VII and ICES divisions VIII a, b, d, e and associated
       —     decided to open the formal procedure when this was                conditions for the control of activities of fishing vessels
             not permissible;                                                  (OJ 2001 L 159, p. 4);
                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
       —     failed to choose the correct legal basis (whether
             under ECSC or EC law) for evaluating the aid;
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
       —     constantly altered the reasons given for first suppos-
             ing and then confirming that the aid granted was            The applicant’s activities are concentrated on fishing for
             incompatible with the common market;                        whiting, with only incidental by-catches of hake, in the areas
                                                                         in which the contested regulation is applicable.
       —     conducted the investigation on the basis of the 1994
             environmental legislation but, upon the conclusion          In support of its application, the applicant pleads violation of
             of that enquiry, adopted a decision on the basis of         the principles of proportionality and of equality and a failure
             more recent legislation (the 2001 rules).                   to fulfil the obligation to provide a statement of reasons. The
                                                                         applicant claims that the Commission has failed to take its
                                                                         specific situation into account, whereas it has taken into
                                                                         account that of other fishermen making only incidental by-
It is also submitted that:                                               catches of hake, and has laid down exceptions and specific
                                                                         measures in relation to them. Those exceptions and specific
                                                                         measures do not relate to the applicant.
—      the aid was evaluated in arbitrary fashion as regards
       the benefits of the Ferriere investment in the working


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by decision of that court of 24 March 1995 in the case of Saueressig GmbH & Co. v. Forbo-Krommenie BV (Case C-99/95)

text:
No C 137/ 12            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     3 . 6 . 95
2 . Does the term 'hold ' within the meaning of                             ( persons having such an entitlement in any other
     Article 18 ( 1 ) ( a ) of the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC               Member State being precluded from receiving such
     signify that the taxable person must at all times be in a              allowance ) contrary to Articles 48 ( 2 ) and 51 of the EC
     position to present the invoice to the tax authorities ?               Treaty ?
3 . Is the exercise of the right to deduct input tax precluded
     by virtue of Article 18 ( 1 ) ( a ) of the Sixth Directive
     77/388/EEC where the taxable person no longer ' holds'
     an invoice ?
( ) OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p. 1 .                                 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di
                                                                        Genova, Sezione Prima Civile, by order of that court of
                                                                        13 March 1995 in the case of: Nuova Castelli SpA
                                                                                v. Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato
                                                                                ( Case C-92/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 137/24 )
Reference for a preliminary ruling by Juzgado de lo Social
No 2 , Santiago de Compostela, by order of that court of                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
9 March 1995 in the case of Bernardina Martinez Losada                  European Communities by order of the Tribunale di
                                                                        Genova, Sezione Prima Civile ( District Court, Genoa , First
v. Instituto Nacional de Empleo and Instituto Nacional de
                          Seguridad Social                              Civil Section) of 13 March 1995 , which was received at the
                                                                        Court Registry on 24 March 1995 , for a preliminary ruling
                           ( Case C-88/95 )                             on the same questions as in Cases C-47/95 , C-48/95 ,
                             ( 95/C 137/23 )                            C-49/95 , C-50/95 , C-60/95 and C-81 /95 (*).
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  (!) OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 .
European Communities by an order of Juzgado de lo Social
( Social Court ) No 2, Santiago de Compostela, of 9 March
 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on
23 March 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Bernardina Martinez Losada against Instituto Nacional de
Empleo ( National Employment Institute ) and Instituto
Nacional de Seguridad Social (National Social Security
Institute ) on the following questions :                                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der
                                                                        Nederlanden by decision of that court of 24 March 1995 in
                                                                        the case of Saueressig GmbH 8c Co. v. Forbo-Krommenie
 1 . Must Article 67 ( 1 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 ( in                                        BV
     its present version ) be interpreted , as regards the
     particular facts to which it is to be applied , as meaning                                 ( Case C-99/95 )
     that periods of insurance or of employment completed                                         ( 95/C 137/25
     under the legislation of any other Member State must be
     taken into account for the purposes of obtaining the
     unemployment allowance for persons over 52 years of                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     age, provided for by Article 215 ( 3 ) of Real Decreto             European Communities by decision of the Hoge Raad der
     Legislativo ( Royal Legislative Decree ) 1 /1994 of 20 June        Nederlanden ( Supreme Court of the Netherlands ) of
     1994, which approves the consolidated version of the               24 March 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry
     Ley General de la Seguridad Social ( General Law on                on 30 March 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
     Social Security ), to the extent to which the right to a           Saueressig GmbH & Co . v. Forbo-Krommenie BV on the
     retirement pension may be obtained on the basis of such            following questions :
     contributions, subject to age requirements , in a Member
     State other than that of the competent institution ?               1 . Does the procedure of 'preliminary examination of
                                                                            witnesses prior to the institution of proceedings' set out
2 . Can that be the case even though the worker has not                     in Article 214 et seq. of the Netherlands Code of Civil
     paid contributions in Spain or has paid contributions for              Procedure come within the scope of the Brussels
     less than one year, provided that he is entitled to a                  Convention ?
     retirement pension in any Member State ?
                                                                        2 . If the answer to Question 1 is yes : can that procedure
3 . Is the requirement that, for migrant workers to receive                 also constitute a measure within the meaning of
     the unemployment allowance available for persons of                    Article 24 of the Brussels Convention ?
     more than 52 years of age, it must be shown that, subject
     to age requirements, they are entitled to a retirement
     pension payable by the Spanish social security scheme


title: Case F-14/06: Action brought on  15 February 2006  — Chevalier Carmana and Others v Court of Justice of the European Communities

text:
               22.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/37

         Action brought on 15 February 2006 — Chevalier Carmana and Others v Court of Justice of the European Communities
   (Case F-14/06)
   (2006/C 96/58)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Giovanna Chevalier Carmana (Paris, France), Alice Coda (Paris, France), Jacqueline Doucet (Paris, France), Françoise Kluss (Ollioules, France) (represented by: G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers)

      Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               declare the action admissible and well founded, including the objection of illegality contained in it;

               —

               consequently, annul the applicants' pension statements for March 2005, so as to result in the application of a weighting for the capital of their country of residence or, at least, of a weighting such as to reflect adequately the differences in the cost of living in the places where the applicants are deemed to incur their expenditure and therefore to give effect to the principle of equivalence;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas and main arguments relied on by the applicants are identical to those relied on in Case F-128/05 Adolf and Others v Commission (1).

      (1)  OJ C 60 of 11.3.2006, p. 56.


title: Case C-460/14: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Johannes Evert Antonius Massar v DAS Nederlandse Rechtsbijstand Verzekeringsmaatschappij NV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Legal expenses insurance — Directive 87/344/EEC — Article 4(1) — Free choice of lawyer for an insured person — Inquiry or proceedings — Definition — Authorisation granted by a public body to an employer for the purpose of terminating an employment contract)

text:
               13.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/13

      Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Johannes Evert Antonius Massar v DAS Nederlandse Rechtsbijstand Verzekeringsmaatschappij NV
      (Case C-460/14) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Legal expenses insurance - Directive 87/344/EEC - Article 4(1) - Free choice of lawyer for an insured person - Inquiry or proceedings - Definition - Authorisation granted by a public body to an employer for the purpose of terminating an employment contract))
      (2016/C 211/14)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Johannes Evert Antonius Massar

         Defendant: DAS Nederlandse Rechtsbijstand Verzekeringsmaatschappij NV

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 4(1)(a) of Council Directive 87/344/EEC of 22 June 1987 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to legal expenses insurance must be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘inquiry’ referred to in that provision includes a procedure at the end of which a public body authorises an employer to dismiss an employee who is covered by legal expenses insurance.

         (1)  OJ C 448, 15.12.2014.


title: Case C-391/01: Action brought on 9 October 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic

text:
8.12.2001              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 348/17
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of
                                                                             biocidal products on the market (1) the Portuguese Repub-
—     declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force                 lic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 34(1)
      within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and                 of that Directive,
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      Council Directive 97/43/Euratom of 30 June 1997 on               —     in the alternative, declare that, by failing to inform
      health protection of individuals against the dangers of                the Commission immediately of such measures, the
      ionising radiation in relation to medical exposure, and                Portuguese Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under
      repealing Directive 84/466/Euratom (1), the Portuguese                 that Directive,
      Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      Articles 14 of that Directive,                                   —     order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
—     in the alternative, declare that, by failing to inform
      the Commission immediately of such measures, the
      Portuguese Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under       Pleas in law and main arguments
      that Directive,
—     order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.                  The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third paragraph
                                                                       of Article 249 and the first paragraph of Article 10 of the EC
                                                                       Treaty requires Member States to adopt the measures necessary
                                                                       to transpose directives addressed to them into their domestic
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        law before the expiry of the period prescribed for doing so.
                                                                       That period expired on 14 May 2000 without the Portuguese
                                                                       Republic having brought into force the necessary provisions
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put           to transpose Directive 98/8/EC into its domestic law.
forward in Case C-389/01.
                                                                       (1) OJ L 123, 24.4.1998, p. 1.
( 1) OJ L 180, 9.7.1997, p. 22.
                                                                       Action brought on 8 October 2001 by the French Repub-
Action brought on 9 October 2001 by the Commission                     lic against the Commission of the European Communities
of the European Communities against the Portuguese
                              Republic                                                          (Case C-393/01)
                         (Case C-391/01)                                                        (2001/C 348/32)
                         (2001/C 348/31)
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                       ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought                  Communities on 8 October 2001 by the French Republic,
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                represented by G. de Bergues and R. Loosli-Surrans, acting as
on 9 October 2001 by the Commission of the European                    agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
Communities, represented by António Caeiros, acting as
Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
of Luis Escobar Guerrero, Wagner Centre.                               The French Republic claims that the Court should:
                                                                       —     annul Commission Decision 2001/577/EC of 25 July
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  2001 setting the date on which dispatch from Portugal
                                                                             of bovine products under the date-based export scheme
—     declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force                 may commence by virtue of Article 22(2) of Decision
      within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and                 2001/376/EC (1),
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the          —     order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 June 2003 in Case C-145/01: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — No proper letter of formal notice — Application inadmissible)

text:
C 184/6                   EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                                 2.8.2003
                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                            (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 5 June 2003
                            of 12 June 2003
                                                                              in Case C-145/01: Commission of the European Commu-
                                                                                nities v Italian Republic (1)
in Case C-130/01: Commission of the European Commu-
                                                                              (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — No proper
                      nities v French Republic (1)
                                                                                letter of formal notice — Application inadmissible)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                                                    (2003/C 184/11)
Directive 76/464/EEC — Pollution of the aquatic environ-
ment — Pollution reduction programmes which include                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
      quality objectives for certain dangerous substances)
                                                                              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
                                                                                the European Court Reports)
                             (2003/C 184/10)
                                                                              In Case C-145/01, Commission of the European Communities
                      (Language of the case: French)                          (Agent: A. Aresu) v Italian Republic (Agent: U. Leanzaassisted
                                                                              by D. Del Gaizo): Application for a declaration that, by
                                                                              maintaining in force Article 47(5) and (6) of Law No 428 of
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in     29 December 1990 laying down provisions for compliance
                       the European Court Reports)                            with the obligations arising from Italy's membership of the
                                                                              European Communities (Community Law for 1990) (ordinary
                                                                              supplement to GURI No 10 of 12 January 1991, p. 5), which:
                                                                              —     allow for the non-application of the automatic transfer of
In Case C-130/01, Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                all contracts of employment or employment relationships,
(Agents: G. Valero Jordana and J. Adda) v French Republic
                                                                                from the transferor to the transferee, in respect of under-
(Agents: D. Colas and G. de Bergues): Application for a
                                                                                takings subject to an approved composition procedure
declaration that, by failing to adopt pollution reduction
                                                                                involving the transfer of assets or a special administration
programmes which include quality objectives for the
                                                                                procedure, where those undertakings pursue their activity
99 dangerous substances listed in the annex to the application
                                                                                after the transfer, and
and failing to communicate a summary of those programmes
and the results of their implementation to the Commission, in
                                                                              —     in respect of undertakings declared to be ‘in a situation of
breach of Article 7 of Council Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May
                                                                                economic crisis’, do not provide for the transfer, from the
1976 on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances
                                                                                transferor to the transferee, of employees and debts
discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community
                                                                                arising from a contract of employment or employment
(OJ 1976 L 129, p. 23), the French Republic has failed to fulfil
                                                                                relationship,
its obligations under the EC Treaty, the Court (Sixth Chamber),
composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,
C. Gulmann, V. Skouris (Rapporteur), F. Macken and                            the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
N. Colneric, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass,                   Council Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 June 2003, in which it:                 approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to
                                                                              the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers
                                                                              of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses (OJ 1977
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt pollution reduction                  L 61, p. 26), in particular Articles 3 and 4 thereof, the Court
      programmes which include quality objectives for the                     (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur),
      99 dangerous substances listed in the annex to the application          President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen, C. Gulmann,
      which comply with the requirements of Article 7 of Council              F. Macken and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate
      Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by               General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 5 June
      certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic envir-         2003, in which it:
      onment of the Community, the French Republic has failed to
      fulfil its obligations under that directive;                            1.    Dismisses the application as inadmissible;
                                                                              2.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay
2.    Orders the French Republic to bear the costs.                                 the costs.
(1) OJ C 150, 19.5.2001.                                                      (1) OJ C 173 of 16.06.2001.


title: Notice of an open competition

text:
8.8.2001        EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 222/15
                                                               III
                                                             (Notices)
                                            COURT OF JUSTICE
                                         NOTICE OF AN OPEN COMPETITION
                                                       (2001/C 222/08)
         The Court of Justice of the European Communities will be publishing in the Official Journal of the European
         Communities C 222 A of 8 August 2001 the following notice of open competition:
         Danish edition
         CJ/LA/15 (lawyer-linguists of Danish mother tongue)
         To obtain a copy of this Official Journal please apply to the Personnel Division of the Court of Justice of
         the European Communities, L-2925 Luxembourg.
         Closing date for application: 10 September 2001.


title: Case C-92/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Vergabekontrollsenat (Austria) by order of that tribunal of 17 February 2000 in the case of HI Hospital Ingenieure Krankenhaustechnik PlanungsgesmbH against Magistrat der Stadt Wien — Wiener Krankenanstaltenverbund

text:
C 149/24              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      27.5.2000
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Vergabekon-                  the case of Roquette Frères SA v Directeur-Général de la
trollsenat (Austria) by order of that tribunal of 17 Februa-           Concurrence, de la Consommation et de la Répression des
ry 2000 in the case of HI Hospital Ingenieure Kranken-                 Fraudes on the following questions:
haustechnik PlanungsgesmbH against Magistrat der Stadt
         Wien — Wiener Krankenanstaltenverbund                         (1) Having regard to the fundamental rights recognised by the
                                                                           Community legal order and to Article 8 of the European
                          (Case C-92/00)                                   Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, must
                                                                           the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                           Communities in Hoechst of 21 September 1989 be inter-
                         (2000/C 149/42)                                   preted to mean that the national court, which has the
                                                                           power in national law to order entry into premises and
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     seizures by agents of the Administration in the area of
European Communities by order of the Vergabekontrollsenat                  competition, cannot refuse to grant the authorisation
(Public-Procurement Review Chamber) of 17 February 2000,                   requested when it considers that the information or
received at the Court Registry on 10 March 2000, for a                     evidence put before it and alleged to give rise to a
preliminary ruling in the case of HI Hospital Ingenieure                   suspicion of anti-competitive practices on the part of the
Krankenhaustechnik PlanungsgesmbH v Magistrat der Stadt                    undertakings mentioned in the Commission’s decision to
Wien — Wiener Krankenanstaltenverbund (Public Authority                    investigate are not sufficient to warrant such a measure or
of the City of Vienna — Vienna Associated Hospitals) on the                when, as in the present case, no information or evidence
following questions:                                                       has been put before it?
1. Does Article 2(1)(b) of Directive 89/665/EEC (1) (directive         (2) In the event that the Court of Justice refuses to recognise
    on remedies) require the decision of a contracting authority           that the Commission is required to put before the national
    to cancel the procedure for the award of a contract for                court the evidence or information it has which gives rise
    services to be reviewable in review proceedings leading, if            to a suspicion of anti-competitive practices, having regard
    appropriate, to its being set aside?                                   to the above fundamental rights, is that court none the less
                                                                           empowered to refuse the application for entry to premises
2. If Question 1 is answered affirmatively, is there any                   and seizure of evidence if it considers that the Commission
    provision of Directive 89/665 or of Directive 92/50/EEC (2)            decision does not state sufficient reasons, as in the present
    which precludes a review limited to examination of the                 case, and does not allow it to ascertain in practice whether
    issue whether cancellation of the award procedure was                  the application before it is well-founded, thereby making
    arbitrary or a sham?                                                   it impossible for it to carry out the review required by its
                                                                           national constitutional law?
3. If Question 1 is answered affirmatively, which is the
    relevant moment in time for assessing whether the decision
    of the contracting authority to cancel the award procedure
    is lawful?
(1) OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33.
(2) OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1.
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht
                                                                       Korneuburg (Austria) by order of 21 January 2000 in the
                                                                                case of O’Neill Incorporated v JOMO s.r.o.
                                                                                (Case C-95/00)
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de                                            (2000/C 149/44)
Cassation (French Court of Appeal) by judgment of that
court of 7 March 2000 in the case of Roquette Frères SA
v Directeur-Général de la Concurrence, de la Consomma-                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
tion et de la Répression des Fraudes (Director-General for             European Communities by order of 21 January 2000 from
Competition, Consumer Affairs and the Elimination of                   the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Regional Court, Korneuburg)
                              Fraud)                                   (Austria), which was received at the Court Registry on
                                                                       13 March 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of O’Neill
                                                                       Incorporated v JOMO s.r.o. on the following question:
                          (Case C-94/00)
                                                                       On a proper construction of Article 1 thereof, is Council
                         (2000/C 149/43)                               Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 of 22 December 1994 laying
                                                                       down measures to prohibit the release for free circulation,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 export, re-export or entry for a suspensive procedure of
European Communities by a judgment of the Cour de Cas-                 counterfeit and pirated goods (Official Journal of the European
sation of 7 March 2000, which was received at the Court                Communities L 341 of 30 December 1994), as amended by
Registry on 13 March 2000, for a preliminary ruling in                 Council Regulation (EC) No 241/1999 (1) of 25 January 1999,


title: Order of the Court (Third Chamber) 29 January 2004 in Case C-253/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arrondissementsrechtbank te Rotterdam): S.A. Krüger v Directie van de rechtspersoonlijkheid bezittende Dienst Wegverkeer,

text:
               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/10

      ORDER OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   29 January 2004
   in Case C-253/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arrondissementsrechtbank te Rotterdam): S.A. Krüger v Directie van de rechtspersoonlijkheid bezittende Dienst Wegverkeer, (1)

   (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Freedom of movement for persons - Directive 91/439/EEC - Driving licences - Mutual recognition - Compulsory exchange)
   (2004/C 94/19)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   In Case C-253/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Arrondissementsrechtbank te Rotterdam (Netherlands) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between S.A. Krüger and Directie van de rechtspersoonlijkheid bezittende Dienst Wegverkeer, on the interpretation of Article 1(1) and (2) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences (OJ 1991 L 237, p. 1), as amended by Council Directive 96/47/EC of 23 July 1996 (OJ 1996 L 235, p. 1), and of the provisions of the EC Treaty on freedom of movement for persons, the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and N. Colneric, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 29 January 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:
   Article 1(1) and (2) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences, as amended by Council Directive 96/47/EC of 23 July 1996, must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which requires, under certain circumstances, holders of driving licences issued by another Member State who are established in their territory to exchange that licence for a national driving licence on the ground that a driving licence issued by another Member State which does not comply with the provisions on the period of validity which apply in the host Member State cannot be registered in its registry of driving licences.
   It is for the holder of a driving licence issued by a Member State who takes up normal residence in another Member State which has exercised its discretion under Article 1(3) of Directive 91/439 to prove that he fulfils the conditions set out in the legislation of the host Member State on the renewal of driving licences. However, once that has been proven, it is a matter for the authorities of the host Member State to give due effect thereto and authorise the holder to drive a vehicle under his original driving licence.

      (1)  OJ C 289 of 13.10.2001.


               28.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/38

         Removal from the Register of Case T-304/99 (1)

   (2004/C 217/68)

      (Language of the case: Dutch)

   By order of 10 June 2004, the President of the Second Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-304/99, Oliehandel Kuster B.V., supported by the Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 4.3.2000.


title: Case C-508/09: Action brought on 8 December 2009 — European Commission v Italian Republic

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/45

         Action brought on 8 December 2009 — European Commission v Italian Republic
   (Case C-508/09)
   2010/C 24/78
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Zadra and D. Recchia, Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9 of Directive 79/409/EEC (1) in so far as the Region of Sardinia has adopted and applies legislation, relating to the authorisation of derogations from the rules for the protection of wild birds, which does not comply with the conditions laid down in Article 9 of Directive 79/409/EEC;

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission maintains that the legislation adopted by the Region of Sardinia is not in conformity with the provisions laid down in Article 9 of Directive 79/409/EEC.
   According to the Commission, Regional Law No 2 of 13 February 2004, which governs hunting carried out in reliance on a derogation, and Decrees No 3/V of 2004 and No 8/IV of 2006, which were adopted on the basis of that law, fail to comply with the requirements under Article 9 of Directive 79/409 inasmuch as:

               —

               sometimes the opinion of the scientific body is sought but, if negative, ignored and sometimes the opinion of that body is not even sought;

               —

               adequate reasons have not been stated (concerning the needs to be protected by means of hunting in reliance on a derogation; the other options explored; the probable results);

               —

               there is no adequate control mechanism making it possible to check that the conditions governing derogation are complied with and to take action in good time;

               —

               the regional law does not require compliance with the conditions laid down in Article 9(2) of Directive 79/409 and, accordingly, no reference is made to those conditions in the derogation measures.

         Regional Law No 2 of 13 February 2004 was amended by Regional Law No 4 of 11 May 2006. Notwithstanding those amendments, neither Law No 2 of 13 February 2004 nor Decree No 2225/DecA/3 of 30 January 2009, which was adopted pursuant to that law, satisfies the requirements laid down in Article 9 of Directive 79/409, inasmuch as:

               —

               the fact that provision has now been made for consultation of the scientific body does not preclude the adoption of derogation measures without adequate reasons or justification or even the adoption of derogation measures without the opinion of the scientific body;

               —

               Regional Law No 2/2004, as amended, still does not provide that individual derogation measures must refer to the conditions laid down in Article 9(2) of Directive 79/409 (indeed Decree 2223 is also deficient in that respect).

      (1)  Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1).


title: Case T-300/12: Judgment of the General Court of 8 October 2014  — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM — A Colmeia do Minho (FAIRGLOBE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark FAIRGLOBE — Earlier national word marks GLOBO — Relative ground for refusal — No proof of genuine use of the earlier marks — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Rule 22(3) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)

text:
               17.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 409/34

         Judgment of the General Court of 8 October 2014 — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM — A Colmeia do Minho (FAIRGLOBE)
   (Case T-300/12) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark FAIRGLOBE - Earlier national word marks GLOBO - Relative ground for refusal - No proof of genuine use of the earlier marks - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Rule 22(3) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95))
   2014/C 409/48
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: M. Wolter and A. Berger, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: A Colmeia do Minho Ld
      a (Aldeia de Paio Pires, Portugal)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 April 2012 (Case R 1981/2010-2) concerning opposition proceedings between A Colmeia do Minho Ld
      a and Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 2 April 2012 (Case R 1981/2010-2), concerning opposition proceedings between A Colmeia do Minho Ld
                  a and Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG, in that it found that genuine use of the earlier marks had been demonstrated to the requisite legal standard;

               2.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Lidl Stiftung & Co.

      (1)  OJ C 273, 8.9.2012.


title: Case F-8/09: Action brought on 9 July 2009 — Apostolov/Commission

text:
               10.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 244/16

         Action brought on 9 July 2009 — Apostolov/Commission
   (Case F-8/09)
   2009/C 244/26
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Svetoslav Apostolov (Saarwellingen, Germany) (represented by: D. Schneider-Addaeh-Mensah, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Community

      The subject matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of 23 October 2008 which rejects the complaint of the applicant contesting the decision to exclude him from the open competition EPSO/CAST27/4/07.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission dated 23 October 2008;

               —

               oblige the European Commission and their specialized services, mainly the European community Personnel selection Office (EPSO), to count the answers given by the applicant to questions 9, 30 and 32 of the competency test of 14.12.2007 as correct;

               —

               in the alternative, allow the applicant to pass again the competency test;

               —

               order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.


title: Case C-296/14 P: Appeal brought on 13 June 2014 by the Hellenic Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 9 April 2014 in Case T-150/12 Greece v Commission

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/22

         Appeal brought on 13 June 2014 by the Hellenic Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 9 April 2014 in Case T-150/12 Greece v Commission

   (Case C-296/14 P)
   2014/C 253/29
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Appellant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: Ι. Chalkias and Α. Vasilopoulou)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               uphold the appeal, set aside in its entirety the judgment under appeal of the General Court of the European Union, for the reasons more specifically set out, uphold the action brought by the Hellenic Republic, annul the contested decision of the European Commission and order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   By the ground of appeal on which it relies, the Hellenic Republic maintains that EU law has been infringed because the General Court of the European Union misinterpreted and misapplied Article 107(1) and (3)(b) TFEU with regard to the conjunction of the exceptional conditions which characterised the Greek economy at the material time at issue.
   More specifically, by the first part of the ground of appeal, it is submitted that by reason of a misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 107(1) TFEU the General Court of the European Union held that the measures at issue constituted a selective economic advantage for the beneficiaries which was sufficient to threaten to distort competition and trade between Member States given the exceptional conditions which characterised the Greek economy at the material time, while by the second part of the ground of appeal, it is submitted that the General Court of the European Union misinterpreted and misapplied Article 107(3)(b) TFEU because it restricted the regulatory scope of that provision to the terms of the Communication on the TCF [Temporary Community Framework for State aid measures] notwithstanding the conjunction of the exceptional conditions which characterised the Greek economy at the material time.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 May 2003 in Case C-349/97: Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the European Communities (EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — 1993)

text:
21.6.2003                  EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                                C 146/1
                                                                            I
                                                                      (Information)
                                                        COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                                  COURT OF JUSTICE
                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       2.    dismisses the remainder of the applcation;
                                                                                3.    orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
                            (Sixth Chamber)
                              of 8 May 2003                                     (1 ) OJ C 370 of 6.12.1997.
in Case C-349/97: Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the
                      European Communities ( 1)
          (EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — 1993)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                             (2003/C 146/01)                                                             (Sixth Chamber)
                      (Language of the case: Spanish)                                                      of 8 May 2003
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published          In Joined Cases C-328/99 and C-399/00: Italian Republic
                      in the European Court Reports)                            and SIM 2 Multimedia SpA v Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities ( 1)
                                                                                (Action for annulment — Decision 2000/536/EC — State
In Case C-349/97: Kingdom of Spain (Agent: S. Ortiz Vaamon-                                         aid granted to Seleco SpA)
de) v Commission of the European Communites (Agent:
X. Lewis, with M. Carro) — application for the annulment, in
                                                                                (2003/C 146/02)
so far as it concerns the Kingdom of Spain, of Commission
Decision 97/608/EC of 30 July 1997 amending Decision 97/
333/EC on the clearance of the accounts presented by the                                            (Language of the case: Italian)
Member States in respect of the expenditure for 1993 of the
Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 1997 L 245, p. 20) — the Court                                          in the European Court Reports)
(Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of
Chamber, C. Gulmann, V. Skouris, F. Macken and N. Colneric
(Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass,                     In Joined Cases C-328/99 and C-399/00, Italian Republic
Registrar, gave a judgment on 8 May 2003, in which it:                          (Agent: U. Leanza, assisted by O. Fiumara) and SIM 2
                                                                                Multimedia SpA (represented by A. Vianello) v Commission of
1.    annuls Commission Decision 97/608/EC of 30 July 1997                      the European Communities (Agent: G. Rozet, assisted by
      amending Decision 97/333/EC on the clearance of the accounts              A. Abate and E. Cappelli): Application, in Case C-328/99, for
      presented by the Member States in respect of the expenditure              annulment of Commission Decision 2000/536/EC of 2 June
      for 1993 of the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural            1999 concerning State aid granted to Seleco SpA (OJ 2000
      Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) in so far as concerns,                L 227, p. 24) and, in Case C-399/00, for annulment of
      first, the flat-rate correction of 100 % of aid declared concerning       Article 2(1) of that decision, in so far as it requires the Italian
      the company N. R. Sevillano and, second, the flat-rate correction         Republic to take the necessary measures to recover the aid
      of 10 % of the total eligible expenses for the establishment of           granted to Seleco SpA from Seleco Mulimedia Srl with regard
      the oil register;                                                         to the part not recoverable from the latter, the Court (Sixth


title: Case T-19/16: Action brought on 18 January 2016 — Advanced Drainage Systems v OHIM (THE MOST ADVANCED NAME IN WATER MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS)

text:
               14.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/55

         Action brought on 18 January 2016 — Advanced Drainage Systems v OHIM (THE MOST ADVANCED NAME IN WATER MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS)
   (Case T-19/16)
   (2016/C 098/70)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc. (Wilmington, United States) (represented by: C. Sleep, Solicitor)

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

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘THE MOST ADVANCED NAME IN WATER MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS’ — Application for registration No 13 405 188

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 November 2015 in Case R 1501/2015-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               overturn the decision and allow the application to proceed to registration.

               —

               in the alternative, allow this appeal and overturn the Decision and remit the application back to the Examination division;

               —

               grant an award of costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case T-456/16: Action brought on 16 August 2016 — Galletas Gullón v EUIPO — Hug (GULLON DARVIDA)

text:
               17.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/18

         Action brought on 16 August 2016 — Galletas Gullón v EUIPO — Hug (GULLON DARVIDA)
   (Case T-456/16)
   (2016/C 383/25)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Galletas Gullón, SA (Aguilar de Campoo, Spain) (represented by: M. Escudero Pérez, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hug AG (Malters, Switzerland)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘GULLON DARVIDA’ — Application for registration No 11 705 738

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 June 2016 in Case R 773/2015-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO and the other party, should it intervene, to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case T-350/09: Action brought on 4 September 2009 — ICO Satellite v Commission

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/76

         Action brought on 4 September 2009 — ICO Satellite v Commission
   (Case T-350/09)
   2009/C 267/137
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ICO Satellite Ltd (Slough, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Tupper, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               order that Decision No 2009/449/EC of 13 May 2009 on the selection of operators of pan-European Systems providing mobile satellite services (MSS) is void in accordance with the provisions of Articles 230 and 231 EC;

               —

               order that the costs of the present action be paid by the defendant and any other orders it may deem appropriate.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By means of its application, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision No 2009/449/EC of 13 May 2009 on the selection of operators of pan-European Systems providing mobile satellite services (“MSS”) (1).
   It is submitted that the contested decision has the effect of depriving the applicant of property rights legitimately accrued to it under international law. The applicant further claims that the contested decision is unlawful because the Commission has:

               (a)

               discriminated against the applicant by involving a former chairman of the Inmarsat Ventures Limited Council (“Inmarsat”) in the decision-making process, thereby infringing essential procedural requirements and breaching the principle of equal treatment; and

               (b)

               acted unreasonably, by selecting Inmarsat and Solaris Mobile Limited over the applicant when the latter is allegedly in an objectively better position to provide MSS.
               According to the applicant, by adopting the contested decision, the defendant has acted disproportionately and in a way which is discriminatory and contrary to the applicant’s legitimate expectations. The applicant further submits that the contested decision also constitutes a violation of its rights to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions as protected by Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention of Human Rights (“ECHR”), as well as the right to enjoy its civil rights, including property rights and the right to a fair and public hearing, enshrined in Article 6 of the ECHR.

      (1)  2009/449/EC: Commission Decision of 13 May 2009 on the selection of operators of pan-European systems providing mobile satellite services (MSS) (notified under document number C(2009) 3746) (OJ 2009 L 149, p. 65)


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 24 January 2002 in Case C-164/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Tauberbischofsheim): Portugaia Construções Lda (Freedom to provide services — Construction undertakings — Directive 96/71/EC — Posting of workers — Minimum wage)

text:
6.4.2002                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                                C 84/3
respect of the expenditure for 1995 of the Guarantee Section               1.    Dismisses the action;
of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund
(OJ 1999 L 61, p. 37), in so far as it concerns the French                 2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
Republic, the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: F. Macken
(Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, N. Colneric, C. Gul-
mann, R. Schintgen and V. Skouris, Judges, Advocate General:               (1) OJ C 174 of 19.6.1999.
S. Alber, Registrar: H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, has
given a judgment on 24 January 2002, in which it has ruled:
1.    Dismisses the application;
2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs;                                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
3     .Orders the Republic of Finland to bear its own costs.
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.                                                                             24 January 2002
                                                                           in Case C-164/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                           from the Amtsgericht Tauberbischofsheim): Portugaia
                                                                                Construções Lda (1)
                                                                           (Freedom to provide services — Construction undertakings
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     — Directive 96/71/EC — Posting of workers — Minimum
                                                                                wage)
                         (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                (2002/C 84/05)
                      of 27 November 2001
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
in Case C-146/99: Italian Republic v Commission of the
                   European Communities (1)                                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Tomatoes — Minimum
                        price for producers)
                                                                           In Case C-164/99: Reference to the Court under Article 234
                          (2002/C 84/04)                                   EC by the Amtsgericht Tauberbischofsheim (Germany) for a
                                                                           preliminary ruling in the infringement proceedings brought
                                                                           before that court against Portugaia Construções Lda, on the
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                        interpretation of Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after
                                                                           amendment, Article 49 EC) and Article 60 of the EC Treaty
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     (now Article 50 EC) and of Directive 96/71/EC of the
                   in the European Court Reports)                          European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996
                                                                           concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the
                                                                           provision of services (OJ 1997 L 18, p. 1), the Court (Fifth
                                                                           Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber,
In Case C-146/99: Italian Republic (Agent: U. Leanza, assisted             D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur) and A. La Pergola, Judges,
by D. Del Gaizo) v Commission of the European Communities                  Advocate General: J. Mischo, Registrar: H.A. Rühl, Principal
(Agent: F.P. Ruggeri Laderchi, assisted by A. Dal Ferro) —                 Administrator, has given a judgment on 24 January 2002, in
application for annulment of Commission Decision                           which it has ruled:
1999/186/EC of 3 February 1999 excluding from Community
financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States                1.    In assessing whether the application by the host Member State
under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural                         to service providers established in another Member State of
Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 1999 L 61, p. 34),                       domestic legislation laying down a minimum wage is compat-
in so far as it disallowed ITL 7 421 939 820 of expenditure                      ible with Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
incurred by the Italian Republic for aid for the processing of                   Article 49 EC) and Article 60 of the EC Treaty (now Article 50
tomatoes — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: F. Mack-                      EC), it is for the national authorities or, as the case may be, the
en, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric, C. Gulmann                            national courts to determine whether, considered objectively,
(Rapporteur), V. Skouris and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges;                       that legislation provides for the protection of posted workers. In
C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for                  that regard, although the declared intention of the legislature
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 27 November 2001, in                      cannot be conclusive, it may nevertheless constitute an indication
which it:                                                                        as to the objective pursued by the legislation.
 ---pagebreak--- C 84/4                   EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            6.4.2002
2.    The fact that, in concluding a collective agreement specific to       1.    Declares that, by providing for a second system of training
      one undertaking, a domestic employer can pay wages lower                    leading to entry to the profession of dentist, which does not
      than the minimum wage laid down in a collective agreement                   comply with Council Directive 78/687/EEC of 25 July 1978
      declared to be generally applicable, whilst an employer estab-              concerning the coordination of provisions laid down by law,
      lished in another Member State cannot do so, constitutes an                 regulation or administrative action in respect of the activities of
      unjustified restriction on the freedom to provide services.                 dental practitioners, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
                                                                                obligations under that directive.
(1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.                                                  2.    Dismisses the remainder of the action.
                                                                            3.    Orders the Italian Republic and the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities to pay their own costs.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (Fifth Chamber)
                       of 29 November 2001
in Case C-202/99: Commission of the European Communi-                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                      ties v Italian Republic (1)
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Directive 78/687/EEC — Maintenance of a second system of
training leading to entry to the profession of dentist —                                          of 29 November 2001
Maintenance of the possibility of dual registration in the
register of doctors and in that of dentists for doctors                     in Case C-221/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
      mentioned in Article 19 of Directive 78/686/EEC)                      the Giudice di Pace di Genova ): Giuseppe Conte v
                                                                                Stefania Rossi (1)
                             (2002/C 84/06)
                                                                            (Architects’ fees — Summary procedure for the recovery of
                     (Language of the case: Italian)                        debts — Opinion of the professional association — Articles 5
                                                                              and 85 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 10 EC and 81 EC))
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                                                     (2002/C 84/07)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
In Case C-202/99: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: E. Traversa and B. Mongin) v Italian Republic (Agent:              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
U. Leanza, assisted by P. G. Ferri) — application for a                                        in the European Court Reports)
declaration that, by maintaining a second system of training
for entry into the dental profession, which is contrary to
Council Directive 78/687/EEC of 25 July 1978 concerning the
coordination of provisions laid down by law, regulation or                  In Case C-221/99: reference to the Court under Article 234
administrative action in respect of the activities of dental                EC from the Giudice di Pace di Genova (Magistrate’s Court,
practitioners (OJ 1978 L 233, p. 10), and by maintaining the                Genoa) (Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
possibility for doctors who practise as dentists to be doubly               pending before that court between Giuseppe Conte and
registered in the registers of medical and dental practitioners,            Stefania Rossi — on the interpretation of Articles 5 and 85 of
the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under             the EC Treaty (now Articles 10 EC and 81 EC) — the Court
that directive — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:                    (Fifth Chamber), composed of: S. von Bahr, President of the
P. Jann, President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward (Rappor-                   Fourth Chamber, acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber,
teur), A. La Pergola, L. Sevón and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges;              D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur) and
P. Léger, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the              C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General;
Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 November 2001, in                     H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given
which it:                                                                   a judgment on 29 November 2001, in which it has ruled:


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 19 September 1995 in Case C-364/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione): Antonio Marinari v. Lloyds Bank plc and Zubaidi Trading Company (Brussels Convention - Article 5 (3) - Place where the harmful event occurred)

text:
No C 299/4            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   11 . 11 . 95
             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                   of 19 September 1995                                                  of 19 September 1995
in Case C-364/93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from           in Case C-48/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Corte Suprema di Cassazione ): Antonio Marinari v.               the Sø- og Handelsretten , Copenhagen ): Ledernes
    Lloyds Bank pic and Zubaidi Trading Company (')                  Hovedorganisation , acting on behalf of Ole Rygaard v.
(Brussels Convention — Article 5 (3) — Place where the               Dansk Arbejdsgiverforening, acting on behalf of Strø Mølle
                  harmful event occurred)                                                      Akustik A/S ( 1 )
                          ( 95/C 299/04 )                            (Interpretation ofArticle 1(1) ofDirective 77/187/EEC —
                                                                      Transfer of an undertaking — Contract between two
                                                                     contractors for the completion of works made with the
                                                                         consent of the awarder of the main building contract)
               (Language of the case: Italian)                                                 ( 95/C 299/05 )
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will he                         (Language of the case: Danish)
        published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
In Case C-364/ 93 : reference to the Court under the Protocol                  published in the European Court Reports)
of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice
of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction
and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial             In Case C-48/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177 of
Matters by the Corte Suprema di Cassazione for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that            the EC Treaty from the So- og Handelsretten ( Maritime and
court between Antonio Marinari , on the one hand , and               Commercial Court ) for a preliminary ruling in the
Lloyd 's Bank pic and Zubaidi Trading Company , on the               proceedings pending before that court between Ledernes
other — on the interpretation of Article 5 ( 3 ) of the              Hovedorganisation, acting on behalf of Ole Rygaard and
Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the              Dansk Arbejdsgiverforening, acting on behalf of Strø Mølle
Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial                     Akustik A/S — on the interpretation of Article 1 ( 1 ) of
Matters ( OJ 1978 L 304, p. 36 ), as amended by the                  Council Directive 77/ 187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on the
Convention of 9 October 1978 on the accession of the                 approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to
                                                                     the safeguarding of employees ' rights in the event of
Kingdom of Denmark, of Ireland , and of the United
                                                                     transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ( OJ 1978
                                                                     ( OJ 1977 L 61 , p. 26 ) — the Court, composed of G. C.
L 304 , p. 1 and — amended text — p. 77 ) and by the
Convention of 25 October 1982 on the accession of the                Rodriguez Iglesias , President, F. A. Schockweiler, P. J. G.
                                                                     Kapteyn and P. Jann ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F.
Hellenic Republic ( OJ 1982 L 388 , p. 1 ) — the Court,
                                                                     Mancini , C. N. Kakouris , J. C. Moitinho de Almeida
composed of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, E. A.
                                                                     ( Rapporteur ), J. L. Murray, G. Hirsch , H. Ragnemalm
Schockweiler, P. J. G. Kapteyn and P. Jann ( Presidents of
Chambers ), G. F. Mancini , C. N. Kakouris, J. C. Moitinho           and L. Sevón, Judges ; G. Cosmas , Advocate-General ;
                                                                     L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
de Almeida ( Rapporteur ), J. -P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch ,
                                                                     judgment on 19 September 1995 , in which it rules :
H. Ragnemalm and L. Sevón , Judges; P. Leger,
Advocate-General ; D. Louterman-Hubeau , Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
 19 September 1995 , in which it rules :                             the taking over, with a view to completing, with the consent
                                                                     of the awarder of the main building cointract, works started
                                                                     by another undertaking, of two apprentices and an
                                                                     employee, together with the materials assigned to those
the term 'place where the harmful event occurred ' in                works, does not constitute a transfer of an undertaking,
Article 5 (3) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on              business or part of a business within the meaning ofArticle 1
Jurisdiction and the Enforcement ofJudgments in Civil and            ( 1 ) of Council Directive 77/ 1 87/EEC of 14 February 1977
Commercial Matters must be interpreted as not referring to           on the approximatioin of the laws of the Member States
the place where the victim claims to have suffered financial         relating to the safeguarding of employees ' rights in the event
loss consequential upon initial damage arising and suffered          of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of
by him in another Contracting State.                                 businesses .
(') OJ No C 238 , 2 . 9 . 1993 .                                     (') OJ No C 90 , 26 . 3 . 1994 .


title: Case T-504/10: Order of the General Court of 10 July 2012 — Prima TV v Commission

text:
               8.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 273/23

         Order of the General Court of 10 July 2012 — Prima TV v Commission
   (Case T-504/10) (1)

   2012/C 273/40
   Language of the case: Italian
   The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 346, 18.12.2010.


title: Case C-452/10 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 June 2012 — BNP Paribas, Banca Nazionale del Lavoro SpA (BNL) v European Commission (Appeals — State aid — Scheme for the realignment of the value of assets for tax purposes — Banking sector — Taxation of capital gains — Substitute tax — Selectivity)

text:
               18.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 250/2

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 June 2012 — BNP Paribas, Banca Nazionale del Lavoro SpA (BNL) v European Commission
   (Case C-452/10 P) (1)

   (Appeals - State aid - Scheme for the realignment of the value of assets for tax purposes - Banking sector - Taxation of capital gains - Substitute tax - Selectivity)
   2012/C 250/03
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellants: BNP Paribas, Banca Nazionale del Lavoro SpA (BNL) (represented by: R. Silvestri, G. Escalar and M. Todino, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci and D. Grespan, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 1 July 2010 in Case T-335/08 BNP Paribas and BNL v Commission, by which that Court dismissed an application for annulment of Commission Decision 2008/711/EC of 11 March 2008 on State aid C 15/07 (ex NN 20/07) implemented by Italy on the tax incentives in favour of certain restructured banks (OJ 2008 L 237, p. 70).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Case T-335/08 BNP Paribas and BNL v Commission [2010] ECR II-3323 to the extent that it infringed Article 107(1) TFEU;

               2.

               Dismisses the action brought by BNP Paribas and Banca Nazionale del Lavoro (BNL);

               3.

               Orders BNP Paribas and Banca Nazionale del Lavoro SpA (BNL) and the European Commission to bear their own costs;

               4.

               Orders BNP Paribas and Banca Nazionale del Lavoro SpA (BNL) to pay the costs incurred before the General Court of the European Union.

      (1)  OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.


title: Case T-567/12: Action brought on 21 December 2012 — Kaatsu International/OHIM (KAATSU)

text:
               2.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/23

         Action brought on 21 December 2012 — Kaatsu International/OHIM (KAATSU)
   (Case T-567/12)
   2013/C 63/46
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Kaatsu International Co. Ltd (Morningside Drive, United States) (represented by: M. Edenborough, QC)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the contested decision of the Board;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay to the Applicant the Applicant’s costs of and occasioned by this appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘KAATSU’ for goods and services in classes 9, 10, 16, 28, 41 and 44 — Community trade mark application No 10 179 547

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejected the CTM application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-500/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) made on 23 September 2011 — Fruition Po Limited v Minister for Sustainable Farming and Food and Animal Health

text:
               17.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 370/17

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) made on 23 September 2011 — Fruition Po Limited v Minister for Sustainable Farming and Food and Animal Health
   (Case C-500/11)
   2011/C 370/28
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Justice Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Fruition Po Limited

      Defendant: Minister for Sustainable Farming and Food and Animal Health

      Questions referred

               1.

               In circumstances where

                           (a)

                           a Member State was considering recognition of a body as a producer organisation under Article 11 of Council Regulation 2200/96 (1);

                           (b)

                           the body had aims and rules of association complying with the requirements of Article 11;

                           (c)

                           producer members of the body received all the services required to be provided to them by a producer organisation under Article 11; and

                           (d)

                           the body had engaged contractors to provide a substantial proportion of such services

                     was Article 11 to be interpreted, consistently with the principle of legal certainty, as requiring the body to have a degree of control over the contractors?

               2.

               If the answer to question 1 is ‘yes’, what degree of control was Article 11 to be interpreted as requiring?

               3.

               In particular, did the body have the degree of control, if any, required by Article 11 in circumstances

                           (a)

                           where the contractors were:

                                       1.

                                       a company 93 % of the shares in which were held by members of the body; and

                                       2.

                                       a company 50 % of the shares in which were held by the first company and whose constitution provided that decisions taken by the company should be taken on the basis of unanimity;

                           (b)

                           neither company was subject to a contractual obligation to comply with the body's instructions to them in relation to the activities in question; but

                           (c)

                           as a consequence of the shareholding structure described above, the body and the contractors operated on the basis of consensus?

               4.

               Is it relevant to the determination of the above questions that:

                           (a)

                           Article 6(2) of Commission Regulation 1432/03 (2), laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation 2200/96 regarding the conditions for recognition of producer organisations, expressly provided at the relevant time that ‘Member States shall determine the conditions’ on which producer organisations could entrust to third parties the performance of its tasks;

                           (b)

                           the Member State referred to in question 1 had at the relevant time failed to determine such conditions?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organization of the market in fruit and vegetables
   OJ L 297, p. 1

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1432/2003 of 11 August 2003 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 regarding the conditions for recognition of producer organisations and preliminary recognition of producer groups
   OJ L 203, p. 18


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 March 2005 in Case C-294/02: Commission of the European Communities v AMI Semiconductor Belgium BVBA and Others (Arbitration clause — Designation of the Court of First Instance — Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice — Parties in liquidation — Capacity to be parties to legal proceedings — Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 — Insolvency proceedings — Recovery of advances — Reimbursement under a clause of the contract — Joint and several liability — Recovery of sums paid but not due)

text:
               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/5

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 17 March 2005
   in Case C-294/02: Commission of the European Communities v AMI Semiconductor Belgium BVBA and Others (1)

   (Arbitration clause - Designation of the Court of First Instance - Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice - Parties in liquidation - Capacity to be parties to legal proceedings - Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 - Insolvency proceedings - Recovery of advances - Reimbursement under a clause of the contract - Joint and several liability - Recovery of sums paid but not due)
   (2005/C 143/03)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-294/02, Commission of the European Communities (Agent: M G. Wilms, assisted by R. Karpenstein) v AMI Semiconductor Belgium BVBA, formerly Alcatel Microelectronics NV, established in Oudenaarde (Belgium), (Rechtsanwälte: M. Hallweger and R. Lutz), A-Consult EDV-Beratungsgesellschaft mbH (in liquidation), established in Vienna (Austria), (Rechtsanwalt: E. Roehlich), Intracom SA Hellenic Telecommunications & Electronic Industry, established in Athens (Greece), (avocats: M. Lienemeyer, U. Zinsmeister and D. Waelbroeck), ISION Sales + Services GmbH & Co. KG (in liquidation), established in Hamburg (Germany), (Rechtsanwälte: H. Fialski and T. Delhey), Euram-Kamino GmbH, established in Hallbergmoos (Germany), (Rechtsanwälte: M. Hallweger and R. Lutz), HSH Nordbank AG, formerly Landesbank Kiel Girozentrale, established in Kiel (Germany), (Rechtsanwälte: B. Treibmann and E. Meincke), and InterTeam GmbH (in liquidation), established in Itzehoe (Germany), (Rechtsanwälte: M. Hallweger and R. Lutz) — application under Article 238 EC brought on 12 August 2002 — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta, K. Lenaerts, S. von Bahr and K. Schiemann (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 17 March 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Dismisses the counterclaim by Intracom SA Hellenic Telecommunications & Electronic Industry;

               3.

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

      (1)  OJ C 289 of 23.11.2002.


title: Case C-544/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Rheinland-Pfalz (Germany) lodged on 24 October 2011 — Helga Petersen, Peter Petersen v Finanzamt Ludwigshafen

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/31

      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Rheinland-Pfalz (Germany) lodged on 24 October 2011 — Helga Petersen, Peter Petersen v Finanzamt Ludwigshafen
      (Case C-544/11)
      (2012/C 25/57)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Finanzgericht Rheinland-Pfalz

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Helga Petersen, Peter Petersen

         Defendant: Finanzamt Ludwigshafen

         Question referred

      Is a legal provision compatible with Article 49 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (in the version of the Nice Treaty signed on 26 February 2001; now Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) if it makes a tax exemption for income of an employee who is taxable in Germany dependent on the employer being established in Germany, but does not provide for such exemption if the employer is established in another EU Member State?


title: Case T-154/05: Action brought on 15 April 2005 by Carmela Lo Giudice against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               25.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/25

         Action brought on 15 April 2005 by Carmela Lo Giudice against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-154/05)
   (2005/C 155/50)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 15 April 2005 by Carmela Lo Giudice, residing in Strambeek Bever (Belgium), represented by Gilles Bounéou and Frédéric Frabetti, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               annul the express decision of 18 January 2005, No 05/399, rejecting her complaint;

               2.

               in so far as is necessary, annul the implied decision rejecting the applicant's request for assistance dated 28 November 2003 and annul the implied decision rejecting the applicant's request for assistance dated 23 December 2003;

               3.

               find that the applicant was subjected to, and experienced, psychological harassment in her job;

               4.

               order the defendant to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 100 000 (one hundred thousand euro) in compensation for non-material damage, subject to any increases or assessments in connection with the psychological harassment, bearing in mind that the applicant's future is totally uncertain and that her health has been badly affected;

               5.

               reserve all legal obligations, including the right to apply for discovery of the witness examinations as described in the IDOC's findings of 7 January 2005;

               6.

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, an official of the Commission, lodged with her superiors two requests for assistance, dated 28 November 2003 and 23 December 2003, in which she claimed to be the victim of psychological harassment within her organisational unit. By her action, she contests the rejection of her requests and of the complaint which she lodged subsequently.
   In support of her action, the applicant maintains that, in the light of the number of tasks which were assigned to her by her superior and of the number of e-mails which he sent to her, it is indisputable that she experienced genuine psychological harassment. The contested decisions therefore infringe Article 12 of the Staff Regulations.
   The rejection of her requests for assistance infringes, in her view, both Article 24 of the Staff Regulations and Mr Kinnock's proposal of 15 October 2003 concerning policy on psychological harassment. The applicant also alleges failure to state reasons for the decision of 18 January 2005, breach of the principle of the prohibition of arbitrary conduct, misuse of powers, breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and of the rule patere legem quam ipse fecisti and breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials.


title: Case T-508/10: Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2013 — Seba Diș Tįcaret ve Naklįyat v OHIM — von Eicken (SEBA TRADITION) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community figurative mark SEBA TRADITION — Earlier national figurative mark JOHANN WILHELM VON EICKEN TRADITION — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               29.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 189/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2013 — Seba Diș Tįcaret ve Naklįyat v OHIM — von Eicken (SEBA TRADITION)
   (Case T-508/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community figurative mark SEBA TRADITION - Earlier national figurative mark JOHANN WILHELM VON EICKEN TRADITION - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 189/33
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Seba Diș Tįcaret ve Naklįyat AȘ (Maltepe, Turkey) (represented by: H. Wilde, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Joh. Wilh. von Eicken GmbH (Lübeck, Germany) (represented by: C. Rohnke and F. Thiering, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 August 2010 (Case R 559/2009-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Joh. Wilh. von Eicken GmbH and Seba Diș Tįcaret ve Naklįyat AȘ.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Seba Diș Tįcaret ve Naklįyat AȘ to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 346, 18.12.2010.