title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 October 1999 in Case C-187/98: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Article 119 of the EC Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have been replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC) — Directives 75/117/EEC and 79/7/EEC — Equal pay for men and women — Family and marriage allowances — Old-age pensions — Calculation — Failure to abolish discriminatory conditions retroactively)

text:
C 34/6                   EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           5.2.2000
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                        of 28 October 1999
in Case C-81/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                          of 28 October 1999
the Bundesvergabeamt): Alcatel Austria AG and Others,
Siemens AG Österreich, Sag-Schrack Anlagentechnik AG
  v Bundesministerium für Wissenschaft und Verkehr (1)                     in Case C-187/98: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Hellenic Republic (1)
(Public procurement — Procedure for the award of public
      supply and works contracts — Review procedure)
                                                                           (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                           (2000/C 34/10)                                  Article 119 of the EC Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC
                                                                           Treaty have been replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC) —
                                                                           Directives 75/117/EEC and 79/7/EEC — Equal pay for men
                   (Language of the case: German)                          and women — Family and marriage allowances — Old-age
                                                                           pensions — Calculation — Failure to abolish discriminatory
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                          conditions retroactively)
                    in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-81/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                                         (2000/C 34/11)
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Bundesverga-
beamt (Federal Procurement Office) (Austria) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Alcatel Austria AG and Others, Siemens AG Österreich,                                         (Language of the case: Greek)
Sag-Schrack Anlagentechnik AG and Bundesministerium für
Wissenschaft und Verkehr — on the interpretation of Council
Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordi-
nation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
relating to the application of review procedures to the award                                 in the European Court Reports)
of public supply and public works contracts (OJ 1989 L 395,
p. 33) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: P.J.G. Kap-
teyn (Rapporteur), acting for the President of the Chamber,                In Case C-187/98: Commission of the European Communities
G. Hirsch and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate                    (Agent: D. Gouloussis) v Hellenic Republic (Agents: I. Galani-
General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,            Maragkoudaki and S. Vodina) — Application for a declaration
has given a judgment on 28 October 1999, in which it has                   that, by failing to abolish with retroactive effect, from the date
ruled:                                                                     of entry into force in Greece of Article 119 of the EC Treaty
                                                                           (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have been replaced by
1. The combined provisions of Article 2(1)(a) and (b) and the              Articles 136 EC to 143 EC), Article 3 of Council Directive
    second subparagraph of Article 2(6) of Council Directive               75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the approximation of
    89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the              the laws of the Member States relating to the application of
    laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the        the principle of equal pay for men and women (OJ 1975 L 45,
    application of review procedures to the award of public supply         p. 19), and Article 4(1) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of
    and public works contracts must be interpreted as meaning that         19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the
    the Member States are required to ensure that the contracting          principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of
    authority’s decision prior to the conclusion of the contract as to     social security (OJ 1979 L 6, p. 24), regulations which impose
    the bidder in a tender procedure with which it mill conclude the       on married female workers conditions which are not imposed
    contract is in all cases open to review in a procedure whereby an      on their married male counterparts in respect of the grant to
    applicant may have that decision set aside if the relevant             them as employees of family or marriage allowances which
    conditions are met, notwithstanding the possibility, once the          are taken into account in determining their income for the
    contract has been concluded, of obtaining an award of damages.         purposes of calculating pension rights, the Hellenic Republic
                                                                           has failed to fulfil its obligations under the said provisions of
2. Article 2(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 89/665 cannot be interpreted       Community law — the Court (Sixth Chamber) composed
    to the effect that, even where there is no award decision which        of P.J.G. Kapteyn, President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch and
    may be the subject of an application to have it set aside, the         H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur), Judges, Advocate General:
    bodies in the Member States having power to review public              N. Fennelly, H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Regis-
    procurement procedures may hear applications under the con-            trar has given a judgment on 28 October 1999, in which it:
    ditions laid down in that provision.
                                                                           1. Declares that, by failing to abolish with retroactive effect, from
(1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.                                                      the date of entry into force in Greece of Article 119 of the EC
                                                                               Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have been replaced
                                                                               by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC), Article 3 of Council Directive
 ---pagebreak--- 5.2.2000                   EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                               C 34/7
     75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the approximation of the               goods by road and tolls and charges for the use of certain
     laws of the Member States relating to the application of the             infrastructures (OJ 1993 L 279, p. 32) — the Court (Sixth
     principle of equal pay for men and women, and Article 4(1) of            Chamber), composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), acting as
     Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1987 on the                    President of the Sixth Chamber, G. Hirsch and H. Ragnemalm,
     progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment           Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,
     for men and women in matters of social security, regulations             Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
     which impose conditions on married female workers which are              on 28 October 1999, the operative part of which is as follows:
     not imposed on their married male counterparts in respect of the
     grant to employees of family or marriage allowances, which are           In order to determine whether a motor vehicle or articulated vehicle
     taken into account in determining their income for the purposes          combination is intended exclusively for the carriage of goods by road,
     of calculating pension rights, the Hellenic Republic has failed to       within the meaning of the fourth indent of Article 2 of Council
     fulfil its obligations under the said provisions of Community law.       Directive 93/89/EEC of 25 October 1993 on the application by
                                                                              Member States of taxes on certain vehicles used for the carriage of
2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                             goods by road and tolls and charges for the use of certain
                                                                              infrastructures, reference must be made to the general purpose for
                                                                              which that vehicle is intended, irrespective of the use to which it may
(1) OJ C 258 of 15.8.1998.
                                                                              be put in an individual case.
                                                                              (1) OJ C 234 of 25.7.1998.
                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          of 28 October 1999                                                          of 9 November 1999
in Case C-193/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling made                     in Case C-365/97: Commission of the European Communi-
by the Oberlandesgericht Köln): proceedings challenging                                             ties v Italian Republic (1)
 an administrative fine brought by Alois Pfennigmann (1)
                                                                              (Failure to fulfil obligations — Directives 75/442/EEC and
(Directive 93/89/EEC — Carriage of goods by road — Taxes                                   91/156/EEC — Management of waste)
on vehicles — Charges for the use of certain roads — Heavy
                              goods vehicles)
                                                                                (2000/C 34/13)
                             (2000/C 34/12)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                      (Language of the case: German)
                                                                              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                      in the European Court Reports)                          In Case C-365/97: Commission of the European Communities
                                                                              (Agent: P. Stancanelli assisted by M. Merola) v Italian Republic
In Case C-193/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                 (Agents: Professor U. Leanza, assisted by P. G. Ferri) — Appli-
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Oberlandesgericht                   cation for a declaration that by not applying correctly and in
Köln (Higher Regional Court, Cologne) (Germany) for a                         full, in regard to the San Rocco riverbed, Council Directive
preliminary ruling in the proceedings challenging an adminis-                 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39),
trative fine brought by Alois Pfennigmann and pending before                  the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
that court — on the interpretation of Article 2(1) of the                     EC Treaty and under Articles 4, 5, 7 (first indent) and 10 of
Agreement of 9 February 1994 between the Governments of                       Directive 75/442 or the corresponding provisions, as amended
the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Belgium,                      by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (OJ 1991
the Kingdom of Denmark, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg                         L 78, p. 32) — the Court, composed of G.C. Rodriguez Iglesias,
and the Kingdom of the Netherlands on the levying of                          President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, D.A.O. Edward and
charges for the use of certain roads by heavy goods vehicles                  R. Schintgen, (Presidents of Chambers), P.J.G. Kapteyn,
(Bundesgesetzblatt [Federal Gazette] 1994, Part II, p. 1768) and              J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann and H. Ragnemalm (Rappor-
of the fourth indent of Article 2 of Council Directive                        teur), Judges, Advocate General: J. Mischo, L. Hewlett, Adminis-
93/89/EEC of 25 October 1993 on the application by Member                     trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 November
States of taxes on certain vehicles used for the carriage of                  1999, in which it:


title: Action brought on 15 July 1997 by Hertie Waren- und Kaufhaus GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-211/97)

text:
 C 318/22                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   18 . 10 . 97
 Communities on 15 July 1997 by Georges Berthu, residing                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 at Chelles ( France ), represented by Alexandre Varaut, of
 the Paris Bar, 9 rue Alfred de Vigny, Paris.
                                                                         The pleas in law and main arguments of the applicant,
                                                                         which imported colour television sets from Turkey
 The applicant claims that the Court should censure                      continuously during the period from 1 January 1991 to
 Council Regulation ( EC ) No 1103/97.                                    15 January 1994 and which is also contesting a
                                                                         Commission decision addressed to Germany stating that
                                                                         the remission of import duties is not justified in the case
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     of the applicant, are the same as those in Cases T-187/
                                                                         97 H and T-l 92/97 (2).
 The applicant, a Member of the European Parliament,                     (') See page 18 of this Official Journal .
 directs his action against Council Regulation ( EC )                    ( 2 ) See page 19 of this Official Journal .
 No 1103/97 of 17 June 1997 on certain provisions
 relating to the introduction of the euro, which in
 particular replaces every reference to the ecu in legal
 instruments by a reference to the euro . It follows a
 previous action which the applicant directed against the
 Commission's decision, given on 16 October 1996 ,
 proposing to the Council the text of the above Regulation               Action brought on 15 July 1997 by Hertie Waren- und
 ( Case T-175/96 (*)). That first action was held by the                 Kaufhaus GmbH against the Commission of the European
 Court of First Instance to be manifestly inadmissible. The                                           Communities
 applicant had already stated in his first application that, if                                     Case T-2 11/97
 the Court of First Instance accepted the Commission's
 argument concerning inadmissibility, he would bring                                                 ( 97/C 318/44 )
 another action against the Regulation itself. Accordingly,
the pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
relied on in Case T-175/96 .                                                              (Language of the case: German)
 (') OJ C 9, 11 . 1 . 1997, p. 19 .                                     An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                        Instance of the European Communities on 15 July 1997
                                                                        by Hertie Waren- und Kaufhaus GmbH, Frankfurt am
                                                                        Main, represented by Ehle & Schiller, Rechtsanwalte,
                                                                        Cologne, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                        Chambers of Marc Lucius, 6 rue Michel Welter.
Action brought on 15 July 1997 by Grundig AG against
        the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                           ( Case T-210/97)
                             ( 97/C 318/43 )
                                                                       — annul the decision of the Commission of 19 February
                                                                                1997 ( REM: 18/96 ) refusing the remission of customs
                 (Language of the case: German)                                duties amounting to DM 593 110,16,
                                                                       — order the defendant to pay the costs.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 15 July 1997                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
by Grundig AG, Fiirth ( Federal Republic of Germany ),
represented by Ehle & Schiller, Rechtsanwalte, Cologne,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                       The pleas in law and main arguments of the applicant,
Chambers of Marc Lucius, 6 rue Michel Welter.                          which imported colour television sets from Turkey during
                                                                       the period from 1 September 1992 to 1 March 1994 and
                                                                       which is also contesting a Commission decision addressed
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            to Germany stating that the remission of import duties is
                                                                       not justified in the case of the applicant, are the same as
                                                                       those in Cases T-186/97 (') and T-191/97 ( 2).
— annul the decision of the Commission of 19 February
     1997 ( REM: 17/96 ) refusing the remission of a sum               (') See page 17 of this Official Journal .
     amounting to DM 6 596 210,31 ,                                    ( 2 ) See page 19 of this Official Journal .
— order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case T-299/16: Action brought on 13 June 2016 — Scheffler v. EUIPO — Doc Generici (docfauna)

text:
               16.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/24

         Action brought on 13 June 2016 — Scheffler v. EUIPO — Doc Generici (docfauna)
   (Case T-299/16)
   (2016/C 296/32)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Manfred Scheffler (Leininingen, Germany) (represented by: T. Büttner, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Doc Generici Srl (Milano, Italy)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘docfauna’ — Application for registration No 12 660 056

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 April 2016 in Case R 885/2015-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               annul the decision of the Opposition Division of 6 March 2015 upholding opposition No B 2 354 523.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case T-102/00: Action brought on 25 April 2000 by Vlaams Fonds voor de Sociale Integratie van Personen met een Handicap against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 176/28              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   24.6.2000
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            represented by J. Stuyck, of the Brussels Bar, with an address
                                                                       for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt &
— annul the two decisions of the Commission of 11 June                 Medernach, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt.
    1999 and 2 December 1999 transferring the applicant
    from the ‘Foodstuffs — Legislation and scientific and              The applicant claims that the Court should:
    technical aspects’ unit to the ‘Food production and biotech-
    nology’ unit;                                                      — declare the action admissible and well founded;
— annul the appointment of another official to the ‘Foodstuffs         — annul the Commission Decision of 31 January 2000
    — Legislation and scientific and technical aspects’ unit;               reducing the amount referred to in Decision C (1994)
                                                                            3059 of 25 November 1994 approving the grant of
— order the European Commission to pay compensation for                     assistance through the European Union, European Social
    the material and non-material losses suffered;                          Fund, for an operational programme in Belgium (Flemish
                                                                            Community) under the Community support framework
— order the European Commission to pay the costs.                           covered by Objective No 3;
                                                                       — order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant contests, in particular, the decision transferring       Pleas in law and main arguments
him, as deputy head of Unit III.E.1, to Unit III.E.2 within the
Industry Directorate.                                                  The applicant submits that the contested decision is based on
                                                                       an incorrect rejection of the lump-sum and result oriented
In support of his claims, the applicant maintains that:                financing which the applicant followed in compliance with the
                                                                       letter and spirit of the Community rules.
— the Commission has erred in its assessment of his abilities
    and of the situation existing within the unit;                     Moreover, the contested decision ignores the powers of the
                                                                       Member States to specify the method of financing products
— the Commission has infringed the rights of the defence,              within the Community in compliance with the Community
    since the contested decisions constituted, in reality, disci-      objectives.
    plinary measures;
— the appointment of another official to his former post was
    not in the interests of the service;
— insufficient reasons were given for the contested decisions;
— the Commission has misused its powers.                               Action brought on 25 April 2000 by Giovanni Cubeta
                                                                         against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-104/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 176/50)
Action brought on 25 April 2000 by Vlaams Fonds voor
de Sociale Integratie van Personen met een Handicap                                       (Language of the case: French)
    against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                        (Case T-102/00)                                ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                       European Communities on 25 April 2000 by Giovanni Cubeta,
                                                                       residing at Etterbeek (Belgium), represented by Chantal
                        (2000/C 176/49)                                Moreau, of the Brussels Bar, and Patrick Birden, of the
                                                                       Luxembourg Bar.
                  (Language of the case: Dutch)                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-              — rule that the applicant is entitled to payment of the daily
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                  subsistence allowance and to receive the second part of the
European Communities on 25 April 2000 by Vlaams Fonds                       installation allowance for his daughter upon his being
voor de Sociale Integratie van Personen met een Handicap,                   transferred to Brussels in January 1999.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura Circondariale di Bolzano by order of that court of 8 July 1998 in the case of Roman Angonese v. Cassa di Risparmio di Bolzano SpA (Case C-281/98)

text:
5.9.98                  EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 278/31
The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:                   8 July 1998, which was received at the Court Registry on
                                                                         23 July 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                         Roman Angonese v. Cassa di Risparmio di Bolzano SpA
Ð annul the relevant part of Commission Decision 98/                     on the following question:
     358/EC (1) in so far as it applies negative corrections'
     in respect of supplementary levies for milk
     corresponding to sums the recovery of which is the                  Is it compatible with Article 48(1), (2) and (3) of the EC
     subject of proceedings before the competent national                Treaty and Article 3(1) and Article 7(1) and (4) of Council
     courts.                                                             Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 (1) to make the admission
                                                                         of candidates to a competition organised to fill posts
                                                                         in a company governed by private law conditional on
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      possession of the official certificate attesting to knowledge
                                                                         of local languages issued exclusively by a public authority
                                                                         of a Member State at a single examination centre (namely
Ð Infringement of Articles 2, 3, 5 and 8 of Council                      Bolzano), on completion of a procedure of considerable
     Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 of 21 April 1970 on the                  duration (to be precise, of not less than 30 days, on
     financing of the common agricultural policy (2): the                account of the minimum lapse of time envisaged between
     Commission is entitled to exclude from its decision                 the written test and the oral test)?
     only expenses corresponding to incorrect application,
     and a fortiori non-application, of Community law. The
     sums covered to which the contested decision relates                (1) Official Journal, English Special Edition 1968 II, p. 475.
     are the result neither of irregularities nor of negligence
     within the meaning of Regulation (EEC) No 729/70.
     The corrections made by the Commission relate to
     amounts which have been challenged before the
     French administrative courts. The amounts in question
     will be payable as soon as an enforceable judgment
     has made it possible to recover them. On the other
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungs-
     hand, Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 does not authorise
                                                                         gericht Hannover by order of that court of 13 July 1998
     the Commission to charge those sums to a Member
                                                                         in the case of Tanja Kreil against the Federal Republic of
     State when the latter has been unable to recover them
                                                                                Germany
     from the persons concerned.
                                                                                (Case C-285/98)
Ð The imposition by the Commission of a time limit for                                              (98/C 278/59)
     recovering the amounts demanded is contrary to the
     principle of sound administration as enunciated, in
     particular, in Article 8 of Regulation (EEC) No 729/
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     70.
                                                                         European Communities by order of the Second Chamber
                                                                         of the Verwaltungsgericht Hannover (Administrative
(1) Commission Decision 98/358/EC of 6 May 1998 on the                   Court, Hannover) of 13 July 1998, received at the Court
    clearance of the accounts presented by the Member States in          Registry on 24 July 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the
    respect of the expenditure for 1994 of the Guarantee Section         case of Tanja Kreil against the Federal Republic of
    of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund
                                                                         Germany on the following question:
    (OJ L 163, 6.6.1998, p. 28).
(2) Official Journal, English Special Edition 1970 I, p. 218.
                                                                         Is Council Directive 76/207/EEC (1) Ð in particular with
                                                                         regard to Article 2(2) of that Directive Ð infringed by the
                                                                         third sentence of paragraph 1(2) of the Soldatengesetz
                                                                         (Law on Soldiers) in the version of 15 December 1995
                                                                         (Bundesgesetzblatt I, p. 1737), last amended by the Law
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura                        of 4 December 1997 (Bundesgesetzblatt I, p. 2846),
Circondariale di Bolzano by order of that court of 8 July                and paragraph 3a of the Soldatenlaufbahnverordnung
1998 in the case of Roman Angonese v. Cassa di                           (Regulations on soldiers' Careers) in the version published
                  Risparmio di Bolzano SpA (1)                           on 28 January 1998 (Bundesgesetzblatt I, p. 326), under
                                                                         which women who enlist as volunteers may be appointed
                         (Case C-281/98)                                 only to duties in the medical and military-music services
                           (98/C 278/58)                                 and are excluded in any event from armed service?
                                                                         (1) OJ L 39, 14.2.1976, p. 40.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of
the European Communities by order of the Pretura
Circondariale di Bolzano (District Court, Bolzano) of


title: Case T-157/12: Action brought on 5 April 2012 — IFP Énergies nouvelles v Commission

text:
               23.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/15

         Action brought on 5 April 2012 — IFP Énergies nouvelles v Commission
   (Case T-157/12)
   2012/C 184/27
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: IFP Energies nouvelles (Rueil-Malmaison, France) (represented by: É. Morgan de Rivery and A. Noël-Baron, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul Commission Decision C(2011) 4483 final of 29 June 2011 relating to State aid No NN C 35/2008 (ex NN 11/2008) granted by France to the public body, the Institut Français du Pétrole (French Petroleum Institute; ‘IFP’), in its entirety.

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging error in law, in that the Commission exceeded the limits on its powers to interpret national law under the legislation governing State aid.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging failure by the Commission to establish the existence of a real economic advantage conferred on the applicant and its private-law subsidiaries.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107 TFEU, in that the reference in the contested decision to the 2008 Commission Notice on guarantees (1) is not in itself sufficient to establish the existence of an economic advantage.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment in the determination of the alleged advantage and the intensity of the presumed State aid.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality, first, in making the creation of an industrial and commercial public body (EPIC) subject to an obligation of prior notification and, second, in imposing overly restrictive conditions.

      (1)  Commission Notice on the application of Articles [107 TFEU] and [108 TFEU] of the EC Treaty to State aid in the form of guarantees (OJ 2008 C 155, p. 10).


title: Action brought on 18 January 1999 by Brugg Rohrsysteme against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-15/99)

text:
C 86/26               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 27.3.1999
Communities on 18 January 1999 by Pfizer Animal                      Ð the regulation infringes the requirements of the
Health, represented by Elisabethann Wright, Ian S.                       precautionary principle as laid down in the
Forrester, Mark D. Powell, Solicitor, and Werner van                     Commission's own Guidelines, in that, whereas that
Lembergen acting on the instructions of Stephan J.                       document calls for a prudent and objectiv risk
Gale-Batten, Solicitor, with an address for service in                   assessment, the circumstances in which the contested
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31                             regulation was adopted were the result of a
Grand-rue.                                                               misrepresentation of scientific evidence, with no
                                                                         neutral assessment of the risk involved;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                     Ð the regulation fails to observe the requirement of
                                                                         proportionality, in that it will disrupt livestock and
                                                                         poultry business in several Member States, and will
1. annul Regulation (EC) No 2821/98 in its entirety or as                also destroy the applicant's virginiamycin business; the
    regards virginiamycin;                                               public interest could have been assured by less drastic
                                                                         measures;
2. take such other or further measures as justice may
    require;                                                         Ð the regulation frustrates the legitimate expectations of
                                                                         all those who believed that the surveys established by
                                                                         EC legislation would actually be conducted and would
                                                                         be treated seriously by the institutions, which were to
3. award the applicant the costs of the present action.                  be guided by them;
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  Ð the statement of the reasons on which the regulation is
                                                                         based is inadequate and defective;
The present application seeks the annulment of Council
                                                                     Ð the regulation is inconsistent with the First Protocol of
Regulation (EC) No 2821/98 of 17 December 1998,
                                                                         the European Convention on Human Rights and
amending, as regards withdrawal of the authorisation of
                                                                         Fundamental Freedoms and with the fundamental
certain antibiotics, Directive 70/524/EEC concerning
                                                                         right to property recognised by Community law.
additives in feedingstuffs (1), by which virginiamycin has
been removed from the list of feedingstuffs approved for
use in the EC. Virginiamycin is an antibiotic of the                 (1) OJ L 351, 29.12.1998, p. 4.
streptogremin family of antibiotics, marketed under the
trade name Stafac'. Minute quantities of virginiamycin
are added to feedingstuffs additives developed for pigs,
poultry and cattle.
The contested regulation bans virginiamycin on the                   Action brought on 18 January 1999 by Brugg Rohr-
supposition that its use in animal husbandry may pose a              systeme against the Commission of the European
potential risk of human resistance to synercid, another                                      Communities
antibiotic of the streptogramin family, which has not been
yet authorised in the European Union. According to the                                      (Case T-15/99)
applicant, the risk is entirely theoretical.                                                (1999/C 86/47)
In support of its application, the applicant submits that:                          (Language of the case: German)
Ð procedural errors vitiated the Commission's exercise of            An action against the Commission of the European
    its discretion, errors consisting primarily in failure to        Communities was brought before the Court of First
    take proper steps to inform itself on complex scientific         Instance of the European Communities on 18 January
    matters and failure to obtain full information on all            1999 by Brugg Rohrsysteme GmbH, whose registered
    aspects of the case;                                             office is in Wunstorf (Germany), represented by Thomas
                                                                     Jestaedt, Hanns-Christian Salger and Martin Sura, of the
                                                                     firm of Boesebeck Droste, Rechtsanwälte, Brussels, with
                                                                     an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Ð the regulation is vitiated by manifest errors of                   Arendt and Medernach, 8Ð10 Rue Matthias Hardt,
    assessment;                                                      Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- 27.3.1999                 EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 86/27
The applicant claims:                                                          The applicant has since the outset of the proceedings
                                                                               acknowledged its participation in an infringement, and
                                                                               brings its action only in respect of details of the
I.   As its main application, that the Court                                   infringement and the amount of the fine. Whilst not
     should:                                                                   denying that there has been an infringement of
                                                                               Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty, it seeks the annulment of
                                                                               the contested decision in so far as it infringes the duty to
1. annul the Commission's decision of 21 October 1998                          state reasons and in so far as retrospective application of
     (C(1998) 3117 final), and its decision of 6 November                      the new guidelines on fines' (2) is unlawful.
     1998 (C(1998) 3415 final and C(1998) 3117
     final/corr);
                                                                               The pleas in law and main arguments are essentially the
                                                                               same as in Case T-9/1999.
2. order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                               (1) See Case T-9/99.
                                                                               (2) Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to
II. I n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e , t h a t t h e C o u r t s h o u l d :        Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 and Article 65(5) of the
                                                                                ECSC Treaty (OJ C 9, 14.1.1998, p. 3).
1. annul Article 1 of the Commission's decision of
     21 October 1998 (C(1998) 3117 final), and of its
     decision of 6 November 1998 (C(1998) 3415 final and
     C(1998) 3117 final/corr) in so far as the applicant is
     accused of participating:
                                                                               Action brought on 18 January 1999 by Lögstör Rör
     (i) in a cartel covering the whole of the common                          (Deutschland) GmbH against the Commission of the
           market                                                                                European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-16/99)
     (ii) in infringements before December 1994, and after
           February 1996                                                                                (1999/C 86/48)
     (iii) in an agreement and the implementation of
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
           concerted measures directed against Powerpipe
           AB.
                                                                               An action against the Commission of the European
2. Reduce the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 3                       Communities was brought before the Court of First
     of the decisions by such amount as the Court                              Instance of the European Communities on 18 January
     considers appropriate.                                                    1999 by Lögstör Rör (Deutschland) GmbH, whose
                                                                               registered office is in Fulda (Germany), represented by
                                                                               Hans-Joachim Hellmann, of the firm of Schilling, Zutt
3. Order the Commission to pay the costs.                                      and Anschütz, Rechtsanwälte, Mannheim (Germany), with
                                                                               an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                               Loesch and Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe.
III. F u r t h e r i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e , t h a t t h e C o u r t
     should:
                                                                               The applicant claims that the Court should:
1. Reduce the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 3
     of the decisions by such amount as the Court
                                                                               1. annul Commission Decision C(1998) 3117 final/corr
     considers appropriate;
                                                                                of 21 October 1998 concerning a proceeding under
                                                                                Article 85 of the EC Treaty (Case IV/35.691/E-4, Fern-
                                                                                wärmetechnik-Kartell), as amended by Commission
2. Order the Commission to pay the costs.                                           Decision C(1998) 3415 final of 6 November 1998, in
                                                                                so far as it concerns the applicant,
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                or, in the alternative, reduce the fine;
The applicant was fined ECU 925 000 by the Commission
for participating in a cartel between manufacturers and
distributors of district heating pipes (1).                                    2. order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Judgment of the Court of 30 September 2003 in Case C-47/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Oberverwaltungsgericht): Albert Anker, Klaas Ras, Albertus Snoek v Bundesrepublik Deutschland () (Freedom of movement for workers — Article 39(4) EC — Employment in the public service — Masters of fishing vessels — Conferment of powers of public authority on board — Posts reserved for nationals of the flag State)

text:
15.11.2003               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                               C 275/17
1.    Rules such as those of the Vorarlberger Grundverkehrsgesetz            Article 39(4) EC must be construed as allowing a Member State to
      (Vorarlberg Land Transfer Law) of 23 September 1993, as                reserve for its nationals the post of master of vessels flying its flag
      amended, making transactions relating to agricultural and              and engaged in ‘small-scale maritime shipping’ (‘Kleine See-
      forestry plots subject to administrative controls must, where a        schifffahrt’) only if the rights under powers conferred by public law
      transaction is in issue between nationals of States party to the       granted to masters of such vessels are in fact exercised on a regular
      Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992,                 basis and do not represent a very minor part of their activities.
      be assessed in the light of Article 40 of and Annex XII to the
      aforementioned Agreement, which are provisions possessing the
      same legal scope as that of Article 73b of the EC Treaty (now          (1) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.
      Article 56 EC), which is identical in substance.
2.    Article 73b of the Treaty in conjunction with Articles 73c,
      73d, 73f and 73g of the EC Treaty (now Articles 57 EC to 60
      EC) do not preclude the acquisition of agricultural land being
      made subject to the grant of prior authorisation such as that
      established by the VGVG. However, they do preclude such
      authorisation being refused in every case in which the acquirer                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      does not himself farm the land concerned as part of a holding
      and on which he is not resident.
                                                                                (Fourth Chamber)
(1) OJ C 84 of 6.4.2002.
                                                                                of 11 September 2003
                                                                             in Case C-67/02: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Ireland (1)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                             (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 5
                       of 30 September 2003                                  of Directive 79/923/EEC — Quality of shellfish waters —
                                                                                Pollution-reduction programme)
in Case C-47/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Oberverwaltungsgericht):                                                    (2003/C 275/29)
Albert Anker, Klaas Ras, Albertus Snoek v Bundesrepu-
                       blik Deutschland ( (1))
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
(Freedom of movement for workers — Article 39(4) EC —
Employment in the public service — Masters of fishing
vessels — Conferment of powers of public authority on
    board — Posts reserved for nationals of the flag State)                  In Case C-67/02, Commission of the European Communities
                                                                             (Agent: M. Shotter) v Ireland (Agent: D. O’Hagan): Application
                                                                             for a declaration that, by not adopting programmes for all its
                          (2003/C 275/28)
                                                                             designated shellfish waters in accordance with Article 5 of
                                                                             Council Directive 79/923/EEC of 30 October 1979 on the
                    (Language of the case: German)                           quality required of shellfish waters (OJ 1979 L 281, p. 47),
                                                                             Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive,
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmer-
                    in the European Court Reports)                           mans, President of the Chamber, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur)
                                                                             and S. von Bahr, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General;
                                                                             R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 September
In Case C-47/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234                    2003, in which it:
EC by the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Oberverwaltungsgericht
(Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
                                                                             1.     Declares that, by not adopting programmes for all its designated
before that court between Albert Anker, Klaas Ras, Albertus                         shellfish waters in accordance with Article 5 of Council Directive
Snoek and Bundesrepublik Deutschland, represented by the
                                                                                79/923/EEC of 30 October 1979 on the quality required of
Wasser- und Schiffahrtsdirektion Nord, on the interpretation
                                                                                shellfish waters, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations
of Article 39(4) EC, the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez
                                                                                thereunder;
Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur),
R. Schintgen and C.W.A. Timmermans (Presidents of Cham-
bers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann,                    2.     Orders Ireland to pay the costs.
V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha
Rodrigues and A. Rosas, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate
                                                                             (1) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.
General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Regis-
trar, has given a judgment on 30 September 2003, in which it
has ruled:


title: Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 October 2004 in Case C-18/04 P: Grégoire Krikorian and Others v European Parliament, Council of the European Union, Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Non-contractual liability of the Community — Action for damages — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part unfounded)

text:
               22.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/10

      ORDER OF THE COURT

   (Fourth Chamber)
   of 29 October 2004
   in Case C-18/04 P: Grégoire Krikorian and Others v European Parliament, Council of the European Union, Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Appeal - Non-contractual liability of the Community - Action for damages - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part unfounded)
   (2005/C 19/20)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-18/04 P: Grégoire Krikorian, residing in Bouc-Bel-Air (France), Suzanne Krikorian, née Tatoyan, residing in Bouc-Bel-Air (France), Euro-Arménie ASBL, established in Marseille (France), (avocat: P. Krikorian), the other parties to the proceedings being European Parliament (Agents: A. Baas and R. Passos), Council of the European Union, (Agents: S. Kyriakopoulou and G. Marhic), Commission of the European Communities (Agents: C. Ladenburger and F. Dintilhac) – Appeal pursuant to Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, brought on 16 January 2004 – the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric (Rapporteur) and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 29 October 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               The appellants shall bear the costs of the appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 94, 17.4.2004.


title: Action brought on 23 September 1998 by Asia Motor France and Others against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-154/98)

text:
C 358/22              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 21.11.98
excludes Italy from the list of Community areas classified           Action brought on 23 September 1998 by Associazione
as being in deficit within the meaning of Regulation (EEC)           Nazionale Bieticoltori, Consorzio Nazionale Bieticoltori
No 1785/81, or the basic regulation for the sugar sector. It         and Associazione Bieticoltori Italiani against Council of
is claimed that in the light of the rationale and the                                     the European Union
objectives of regionalisation, it must be concluded that a                                  (Case T-153/98)
particular area of the Community is to be regarded as in
deficit' if its requirements have to be covered by sugar                                     (98/C 358/40)
imports. The economic data for Italian sugar imports and
exports for recent years, including those for the period                             (Language of the case: Italian)
prior to the adoption of the contested measures, show a
long-standing prevalence of imports over exports. It
                                                                     An action against the Council of the European Union was
follows that, by withholding regionalisation for the 1998/
                                                                     brought before the Court of First Instance on 23 September
99 marketing year for all the beet-growing areas of Italy,
the contested measures are contrary to the objectives                1998 by Associazione Nazionale Bieticoltori, Consorzio
                                                                     Nazionale Bieticoltori and Associazione Bieticoltori
pursued by the basic regulation and are liable to
                                                                     Italiani, represented by Massimo Moretto, Roberto
compromise the proper functioning of the common
market organisation in question.                                     Santoro and Paola Giacovelli, of the Venice, Padua and
                                                                     Bari Bars respectively, with an address for service in
                                                                     Brussels at Studio Legale Moretto, 67 Avenue des
                                                                     Nerviens.
The applicant also alleges breach of the principles of legal
certainty and of the protection of legitimate expectations.          The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance
In its view, there is no doubt that the function of the limit        should:
date of 1 August, the date on which the intervention price
for white sugar must be fixed, as required by Article 3(4)           Ð annul, under Article 173 of the EC Treaty, Article 1 of
of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81, is to allow interested                    Council Regulation (EC) No 1361/98 of 26 June 1998
parties, and primarily beet growers, to ascertain the                     fixing, for the 1998/1999 marketing year, the derived
minimum price that they will be guaranteed for the                        intervention prices for white sugar, the intervention
marketing year for which they are sowing. The applicant                   price for raw sugar, the minimum prices for A and B
also observes that the contested measures, although issued                beet, and the amount of compensation for storage
only at the end of June 1998, have an impact on the 1998/                 costs (OJ 185, 30.6.1998, p. 3), and, so far as
1999 marketing year for which sowing was undertaken in                    necessary, Article 1(2) of Council Regulation (EC)
February or March of the same year and even, for                          No 1360/98 of the same date fixing, for the 1998/
southern areas, in November and December 1997. The                        1999 marketing year, certain sugar prices and the
applicant's position is therefore that it knows the price for             standard quality of beet (OJ L 185, 30.6.1998, p. 1);
the sale of beet covered by supply contracts already
concluded and that that price no longer coincides with the
derived price at a time when it cannot change its                    Ð order the defendant to pay compensation under
production plans. Moreover, the contested regulation is                   Article 178 and the second paragraph of Article 215
also inimical to the related principle of the protection of               of the EC Treaty for all damage caused to the
legitimate expectations as far as beet growers are                        applicant by the contested measures, plus interest and
concerned since they legitimately relied on the thirty-year               an adjustment for monetary depreciation.
basis of the minimum guaranteed price for beet produced
in Italy.                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                     The contentions and principal arguments adduced in
                                                                     support are the same as those put forward in Case T-152/
As regards breach of the principle of non-discrimination,            98 Ponte S. Pietro v. Council'.
also alleged by the applicant, it is contended that, since
the pattern of imports and exports of sugar in certain
countries treated as being in deficit by the contested
measures and in Italy have remained substantially the
same for the marketing years from 1990 to 1997, it is
hard to see why, against that background, Italy is
excluded from the list of deficit areas for the 1998/1999            Action brought on 23 September 1998 by Asia Motor
marketing year.                                                      France and Others against the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-154/98)
                                                                                (98/C 358/41)
The applicant also alleges breach of the duty to state
reasons.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
 ---pagebreak--- 21.11.98             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 358/23
Instance of the European Communities on 23 September                have been reasonable and equitable for a statement of
1998 by the companies known as Asia Motor                           objections to have been sent thirteen years ago to the
France, established at Livange (Luxembourg), JMC                    members of the cartel and to their trade association. The
Automobiles, established at Livange (Luxembourg),                   cartel was already sufficiently established at that time. It
Monin Automobiles, established at Bourg-de-PeÂage                   would have been for the undertakings involved to
(France), and EAS, established at Livange (Luxembourg),             establish in the course of discussions that the so-called
represented by Jean Claude Fourgoux, of the Paris Bar,              voluntary limitation arrangement, in return for compliance
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                    with which they derived advantages including the
Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4 rue BeÂatrix de Bourbon.             exclusion of competition from Japan, did not reflect the
                                                                    exercise by them of any commercial choice but was due to
                                                                    irresistible pressure placed on them by the French State
The applicants claim that the Court should:                         involving a threat of substantial loss for them.
Ð annul unconditionally the Commission's Decision of                The applicants also claim that, with the exception of
    15/16 July 1998;                                                Article 115, the Treaty makes no provision for any
                                                                    category of lawful practices which could include a
                                                                    voluntary limitation scheme such as that in issue, since
Ð take formal note that the applicants reserve the right            France has never requested authorisation to take
    to claim compensation for the damage suffered;                  protective measures in the sphere in question. Nor was it
                                                                    open to the Commission to rely on any French rules in
                                                                    order to exempt the members of the cartel from the
                                                                    application of Community competition law, inasmuch as
Ð order the Commission to pay all the costs.
                                                                    such rules simply did not exist.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 (1) Case T-7/92 Asia Motor France and Others v. Commission
                                                                        [1993] ECR II-671.
                                                                    (2) Case T-387/94 Asia Motor France and Others v. Commission
                                                                        [1996] ECR II-965.
The applicants in the present case, importers of Suzuki,
Daihatsu, Isuzu and Subaru vehicles into France who are
currently in judicial liquidation, contest the rejection by
the Commission of the complaint lodged by them thirteen
years ago concerning a system involving the voluntary
limitation of imports into France of various other makes
of Japanese vehicles. According to the decision in issue,
                                                                    Action brought on 29 September 1998 by RJB Mining plc
quota-sharing arrangements, non-compliance with which
could lead to the imposition of administrative penalties,                against Commission of the European Communities
were exclusively a matter for the French administrative                                    (Case T-156/98)
authorities, pressure was placed on each importer
individually, and the complaint did not concern the                                         (98/C 358/42)
Community and had ceased to be relevant.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
The applicants maintain, first of all, that, by adopting the
contested decision, the defendant disregarded the                   An action against the Commission of the European
judgments delivered by the Court of First Instance on               Communities was brought before the Court of First
29 June 1993 (1) and 18 September 1996 (2) in relation to           Instance of the European Communities on 29 September
the same infringements; those judgments imposed a duty              1998 by RJB Mining plc, represented by Mark Brealey
to re-examine the matter in the light of objective, relevant        and Jonathan Lawrence, with an address for service in
and consistent evidence concerning the question whether             Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt & Medernach,
the French authorities placed irresistible pressure on the          8Ð10 rue Mathias Hardt.
undertakings concerned to adopt the behaviour impugned
in the complaint, so that the conduct of the accredited
importers and metropolitan France fell outside the ambit            The applicant claims that the Court should:
of the competition rules since those undertakings lacked
the requisite margin of autonomy.
                                                                    Ð annul the Commission Decision of 29 July 1998
                                                                         approving the acquisition of control by RAG
According to the applicants, it is extraordinary for the                 Aktiengesellschaft of Saarbergwerke AG and Preussag
defendant institution now to maintain that the fact that                 Anthrazit GmbH on the grounds set out in the
the matter goes back many years is such as to render                     application; and
the complaint no longer relevant, when it was the
Commission itself which, having failed to conduct the
administrative procedure with due diligence, was directly           Ð order the Commission to pay the costs of the action,
responsible for that delay. In the applicants' view, it would            including those of the applicant.


title: Case T-323/10: Action brought on 3 August 2010 — Chabou v OHIM — Chalou Kleiderfabrik (CHABOU)

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/42

      Action brought on 3 August 2010 — Chabou v OHIM — Chalou Kleiderfabrik (CHABOU)
      (Case T-323/10)
      ()
      (2010/C 288/81)
      Language in which the application was lodged: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Chickmouza Chabou (Rheine, Germany) (represented by: K.-J. Triebold, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Chalou Kleiderfabrik GmbH (Herschweiler-Pettersheim, Germany)

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 May 2010 in Case R 1165/2009-1 or amend that decision and reject the opposition

         Pleas in law and main arguments

         Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.

         Community trade mark concerned: Word mark CHABOU for goods in class 25.

         Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Chalou Kleiderfabrik GmbH.

         Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark Chalou, registered as a national and international trade mark for goods in class 25.

         Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was upheld.

         Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was dismissed.

         Pleas in law: The contested decision fails to take account of the special circumstances of the present case and, instead, applies the established principles concerning the issues of the similarity of signs and of protected goods and services in the light of the likelihood of confusion in a purely formulaic and mechanical fashion, without sufficient regard to the specific aspects of the case and the requisite global assessment of all the circumstances.


title: Case T-81/12: Action brought on 15 February 2012 — Beco v Commission

text:
               21.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/30

         Action brought on 15 February 2012 — Beco v Commission
   (Case T-81/12)
   2012/C 118/50
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Beco Metallteile-Handels GmbH (Spaichingen, Germany) (represented by: T. Pfeiffer, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission's decision of 13 December 2011 (Az. K(2011) 9112 final);

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs, pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its action, the applicant claims that its application for a refund of anti-dumping duties, which was refused by the Commission's decision of 13 December 2011, was, contrary to the Commission's view, not lodged out of time and was therefore admissible.
   The applicant states in this respect that the application was lodged within the 6-month period, in accordance with Article 11(8) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community. (1) According to the wording of Article 11(8) of Regulation No 384/96, the application for a refund is subject to the condition that the duties determined have been paid by the applicant for a refund. Contrary to the view of the Commission, the 6-month period laid down in Article 11(8) of Regulation No 384/96 cannot expire before the application for a refund is admissible.
   Furthermore, in accordance with the Commission notice concerning the reimbursement of anti-dumping duties of 29 May 2002, (2) applications for refunds can ‘only be submitted in respect of transactions for which anti-dumping duties have been fully paid’ (point 2.1(b)). That notice also states expressly that an importer may apply for a refund only if he ‘can demonstrate that he has paid anti-dumping duties either directly or indirectly for a specific importation’ (point 2.2(a)).
   The applicant further claims that the decision of 13 December 2011 infringes the applicant's legitimate expectation based on the Commission notice of 29 May 2002 as well as the principle of good faith.
   The applicant further submits that the decision of 13 December 2011 infringes the principle of legal certainty.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission notice concerning the reimbursement of anti-dumping duties (2002/C 127/06) of 29 May 2002 (OJ 2002 C 127, p. 10).


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale de Police, Nancy, by judgment of that court of 25 April 1995 in the case of Ministère Public against Philippe Baumert and Jean Loup Dirler (Case C-162/95)

text:
22 . 7. 95            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 189/11
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Belgian Raad               conformity of the equipment under the approval procedure
van State by judgment of that court of 7 February 1995 in              is independent from any economic agent offering goods or
        the case of André &Co NV v. Belgian State                      services in the telecommunications sector ?
                         Case C-153/95 )
                           ( 95/C 189/20 )                             H OJ No L 131 , 27 . 5 . 1988 , p . 73 .
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a judgment of the Belgian Raad
van State ( State Council ) of 7 February 1995 , which was
received at the Court Registry on 15 May 1995 , for a
preliminary ruling in the case of André & Co NV v. Belgian             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the House of Lords, by
State on the following questions :                                     order of that court of 25 May 1995 , in the case of Elsbeth
                                                                                Freifrau von Horn against Kevin Cinnamond
1 . Must Article 8 ( 2 ) ( b ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 926/80 of                              ( Case C-163/95 )
     15 April 1980 be interpreted as meaning that                                                ( 95/C 189/22
     application of that Regulation in respect of an export
     operation must be refused where the products to which             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     the new monetary compensatory amount applies were                 European Communities by an order of the House of Lords
     imported less than six months before the export                   of 25 May 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry
     operation ?                                                       on 29 May 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                       Elsbeth Freifrau von Horn against Kevin Cinnamond, on
2 . Must Article 8 ( 2 ) ( b ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 926/80 be      the following questions :
     interpreted as meaning that application of that
     Regulation must also be refused with regard to an                 In a case where :
     export operation in respect of which monetary
     compensatory amounts are due , where the export
     operation was preceded less than six months before by             ( a ) there are pending proceedings in two different
     an import operation for which monetary compensatory                     Contracting States involving the same cause of action
     amounts were received by a person other than the                        and between the same parties;
     person who exported the products ?
                                                                       ( b ) the first such proceedings in time were initiated in
                                                                             Contracting State A before the Brussels Convention
                                                                             and/or any applicable Accession Convention came into
                                                                             force in that State;
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale de                 (c ) the second such proceedings are initiated in
Police, Nancy, by judgment of that court of 25 April 1995 in                 Contracting State B in accordance with Article 2 of the
                                                                             Brussels Convention after the Brussels Convention
the case of Ministère Public against Philippe Baumert and
                       Jean Loup Dirler                                      and/or any applicable Accession Convention has come
                                                                             into force in both State A and State B;
                        ( Case C-162/95 )
                           ( 95/C 189/21 )                                   and having regard to Article 29.1 of the San Sebastian
                                                                             Convention and the corresponding Articles in any other
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       applicable Accession Convention and Article 21 of the
European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunale de                       Brussels Convention ( as amended ):
Police ( Criminal Court), Nancy, of 25 April 1995 , which
was received at the Court Registry on 23 May 1995 , for a                    1 . Does the Brussels Convention ( as amended ) and/or
preliminary ruling in the case of Ministère Public (Public                        any applicable Accession Convention lay down
Prosecutor ) against Philippe Baumert and Jean Loup Dirler                        any, and if so what, rules as to whether the
on the following question:                                                        proceedings in State B may or must be stayed , or
                                                                                jurisdiction declined, on the ground of pending
                                                                                proceedings in State A ?
Does Article 6 of Directive 88/301/EEC of 16 May 1988 on
competition in the markets in telecommunications terminal
                                                                                and in particular,
equipment i 1 ) preclude the application of national rules
which prohibit economic agents from, and penalize them
                                                                             2 . Is the Court second seised required or permitted ,
for, manufacturing, importing, holding for sale, selling,
distributing or advertising terminal equipment without                            for the purpose of deciding whether or not to
furnishing proof, in the form of an approval or another                           decline jurisdiction in respect of, or to stay, the
document regarded as equivalent, that such equipment                              proceedings before it, to conduct any, and, if so,
                                                                                what examination of the basis upon which the
conforms to certain essential requirements relating in
                                                                                Court first seised assumed jurisdiction ?
particular to the safety of users and the proper functioning
of the network, even though there is no guarantee that
the laboratory responsible for monitoring the technical


title: Case T-233/14: Action brought on 14 April 2014  — Intesa Sanpaolo v OHIM (NEXTCARD)

text:
               21.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/21

         Action brought on 14 April 2014 — Intesa Sanpaolo v OHIM (NEXTCARD)
   (Case T-233/14)
   2014/C 235/28
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Intesa Sanpaolo SpA (Turin, Italy) (represented by: P. Pozzi, G. Ghisletti and F. Braga, lawyers)

      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 decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 February 2014 in Case R 1807/2013-5;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark NEXTCARD for goods and services in Classes 9 and 36 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 3 79  931

      Decision of the Examiner: Application refused in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case F-92/06: Action brought on 11 August 2006 — Magdalena Antas v Council of the European Union

text:
               30.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 237/21

         Action brought on 11 August 2006 — Magdalena Antas v Council of the European Union
   (Case F-92/06)
   (2006/C 237/37)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Magdalena Antas (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the Council's decision rejecting the applicant's claim for damages for suffering caused by the successive errors made by the institution;

               —

               fix a time-limit for the parties so as to allow them to agree on the correct level of compensation for the damage suffered by the applicant;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant took up her duties as a member of the auxiliary staff in the General Secretariat of the Council on 1 November 2003 and her contract ended on 31 March 2005. From 1 January 2005, the Council automatically affiliated her to the compulsory Belgian social security scheme for the last three months of her employment. Subsequently, the Council informed the applicant of her affiliation to the abovementioned scheme with retroactive effect, dated back to the day on which she took up her duties. However, according to the applicant, as a result of the lateness of her affiliation, she was unable to meet the conditions for receiving Belgian unemployment benefits, as laid down in the Belgian Royal Decree of 25 November 1991 on the regulation of unemployment (1). She was therefore unable to prove that she had sufficient means to be granted a residence permit that would allow her to remain in Belgium for more than three months, in accordance with Article 7 of Directive 2004/38/EC (2). Furthermore, the lateness of the affiliation deprived her of the right that she would have enjoyed under Annex XII of the Treaty of Accession of Poland to the European Union of access to the Belgian labour market.
   In support of her application, the applicant pleads first of all infringement of Article 70 of the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the European Communities, which lays down the institution's obligation to affiliate auxiliary staff to a compulsory social security scheme and to take responsibility for the employer's contributions required under the legislation in force.
   Next, the applicant claims infringement of Articles 4 and 8 of the Belgian Royal Decree of 5 November 2002 establishing an immediate declaration of employment (3).
   Finally, the applicant relies on infringement of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials.

      (1)  Moniteur belge of 31 December 1991, p. 29888.

      (2)  Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ L 158, p. 77).

      (3)  Moniteur belge of 20 November 2002, p. 51778.