title: Case C-359/12: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 May 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien — Austria) — Michael Timmel v Aviso Zeta AG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2003/71/EC — Article 14(2)(b) — Regulation (EC) No 809/2004 — Articles 22(2) and 29(1) — Base prospectus — Supplements to the prospectus — Final terms — Time and method of publication of required information — Conditions for publication in electronic form)

text:
               7.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/5

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 May 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien — Austria) — Michael Timmel v Aviso Zeta AG
   (Case C-359/12) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 2003/71/EC - Article 14(2)(b) - Regulation (EC) No 809/2004 - Articles 22(2) and 29(1) - Base prospectus - Supplements to the prospectus - Final terms - Time and method of publication of required information - Conditions for publication in electronic form))
   2014/C 212/05
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Handelsgericht Wien

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Michael Timmel

      Defendant: Aviso Zeta AG

      Intervener: Lore Tinhofer

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Handelsgericht Wien — Interpretation of Article 14(2)(b) of Directive 2003/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 on the prospectus to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading and amending Directive 2001/34/EC (OJ 2003 L 345, p. 64) — Interpretation of Article 22(2) and Article 29(1)(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 809/2004 of 29 April 2004 implementing Directive 2003/71/EC as regards information contained in prospectuses as well as the format, incorporation by reference and publication of such prospectuses and dissemination of advertisements (OJ 2004 L 149, p. 1) — Publication of information not known at the time of approval of the base prospectus — Scope of the obligation make the prospectus available to the public in a printed form — Conditions for publication of the prospectus in an electronic form — Public limited company having included in a prospectus entitled ‘final terms’ information which was not known at the time of approval of the base prospectus — Lack of lawful publication — Access to that prospectus subject to a registration procedure and costs

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 22(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 809/2004 of 29 April 2004 implementing Directive 2003/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards information contained in prospectuses as well as the format, incorporation by reference and publication of such prospectuses and dissemination of advertisements is to be interpreted as meaning that information required under Article 22(1) which, although not known at the time of publication of the base prospectus, nevertheless was known at the time of publication of a supplement to that prospectus must be published in that supplement if the information involves a significant new factor, material mistake or inaccuracy capable of affecting the assessment of the securities, within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 2003/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 on the prospectus to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading, a matter which is for the referring court to determine.

               2.

               The requirements of Article 22 of Regulation No 809/2004 are not satisfied by the publication of a base prospectus not including the information required under Article 22(1), in particular the information referred to in Annex V to the regulation, if that publication is not supplemented by publication of the final terms. In order that the information which must be contained in the base prospectus in accordance with Article 22(1) of Regulation No 809/2004 may be inserted in the final terms, it is necessary for the base prospectus to indicate the information that will be included in those final terms and for that information to comply with the conditions laid down in Article 22(4) of the regulation.

               3.

               Article 29(1)(1) of Regulation No 809/2004 is to be interpreted as meaning that the requirement that a prospectus must be easily accessible on the website on which it is made available to the public is not fulfilled where there is an obligation to register on that website, entailing acceptance of a disclaimer and the obligation to provide an email address, where a charge is made for that electronic access or where consultation of parts of the prospectus free of charge is restricted to two documents per month.

               4.

               Article 14(2)(b) of Directive 2003/71 is to be interpreted as requiring the base prospectus to be made available to the public both at the registered office of the issuer and at the offices of the financial intermediaries.

      (1)  OJ C 366, 24.11.2012.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 March 1999 in Case T-76/98: Claudine Hamptaux v Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Promotion - Consideration of comparative merits)

text:
C 246/28                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      28.8.1999
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch and Wolter,
                                                                          11 Rue Goethe, against Council of the European Union
                         of 25 March 1999                                 (Agents: initially Yves Cretien, Legal Adviser, and Antonio
                                                                          Tanca, then solely Mr Tanca, assisted by Hans-Jürgen Rabe and
                                                                          Georg M. Berrisch), supported by Commission of the European
in Case T-76/98: Claudine Hamptaux v Commission of the                    Communities, (Agent: Nicholas Khan) and Furfural Español
                   European Communities (1)                               SA, established in Alcantarilla (Spain), represented by José
                                                                          Rivas de Andrés, of the Madrid Bar, with an address for service
(Officials — Promotion — Consideration of comparative                     in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arsène Kronshagen, 12
                               merits)                                    Rue Marie Adélaïde — application for taxation of the costs to
                                                                          be paid by the applicant to the intervener Furfural Español SA,
                          (1999/C 246/57)                                 following the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 29
                                                                          January 1998 in Case T-97/95 Sinochem v Council [1998]
                                                                          ECR II-85 — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber),
                    (Language of the case: French)                        composed of J.D. Cooke, President, R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas, P.
                                                                          Lindh, J. Pirrung and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
                                                                          made an order on 22 March 1999, the operative part of which
In Case T-76/98: Claudine Hamptaux, an official of the                    is as follows:
Commission of the European Communities, residing in Brus-
sels, represented by Lucas Vogel, of the Brussels Bar, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Christian            The total amount of costs to be reimbursed by the applicant to the
Kremer, 6 Rue Heinrich Heine, v Commission of the European                intervener Furfural Español SA is fixed at BEF 331 238.
Communities (Agents: Christine Berardis-Kayser and Florence
Duvieusart-Clotuche) — application, first, for annulment of
the decision of the Commission not to promote the applicant               (1) OJ 1995 C 159.
to grade B 2 in the 1997 promotions procedure and, second,
for an order requiring the defendant to pay compensation
amounting to BEF 833 000 — the Court of First Instance
(Fourth Chamber), composed of: R.M. Moura Ramos, President,
and V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 25 March 1999, in
which it:
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
1. Annuls the Commissions’ decision not to promote the applicant
     to grade B 2 in the 1997 promotions procedure;
                                                                                of 29 March 1999
2. Dismisses the claim for damages;
                                                                          in Case T-77/96: Garage Massol v Commission of the
3. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.                                                   European Communities (1)
(1) OJ C 234 of 25.7.1998.                                                (Competition — Action for failure to act brought against
                                                                          the Commission for failure to follow up a complaint —
                                                                          No need to adjudicate — Application for annulment —
                                                                              Application for damages — Manifestly inadmissible)
                                                                                (1999/C 246/59)
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                         of 22 March 1999
                                                                          In Case T-77/96: Garage Massol, established in Fréjairolles
in Case T-97/95 (92): Sinochem National Chemicals                         (France), represented by Jean Louis Portolano, of the Aix en
Import & Export Corporation v Council of the European                     Provence Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                             Union (1)                                    the Chambers of Nathan Roy, 18 Rue des Glacis, against the
                                                                          Commission of the European Communities (Agents: initially,
                        (Taxation of costs)                               Giuliano Marenco and Guy Charrier, subsequently Giuliano
                                                                          Marenco and Loïc Guérin) — application for a declaration that
                                                                          the Commission failed, contrary to the Treaty, to decide on
                          (1999/C 246/58)                                 the compliant lodged by the applicant, pursuant to Article 3(2)
                                                                          of Regulation No 17 of the Council of 6 February 1962, First
                                                                          regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty (OJ,
                   (Language of the case: English)                        English Special Edition 1959-62, p. 87), annulment of an
                                                                          alleged implied rejection by the Commission of that complaint,
In Case T-97/95 (92): Sinochem National Chemicals Import &                annulment of an implied refusal to send to the applicant
Export Corporation, established in Beijing, represented by                certain documents in the file and an application seeking
Jean-François Bellis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for            compensation for damage suffered — the Court of First


title: Case T-307/17: Action brought on 18 May 2017 — adidas v EUIPO — Shoe Branding Europe (Representation of three parallel stripes)

text:
               17.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 231/48

         Action brought on 18 May 2017 — adidas v EUIPO — Shoe Branding Europe (Representation of three parallel stripes)
   (Case T-307/17)
   (2017/C 231/61)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: adidas AG (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: I. Fowler and I. Junkar, Solicitors)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Shoe Branding Europe BVBA (Oudenaarde, Belgium)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark (Representation of three parallel stripes) — EU trade mark No 12 442 166

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 March 2017 in Case R 1515/2016-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, if it joins as intervener, to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 52(2) read in conjunction with Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-450/12: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 12 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — HARK GmbH & Co KG Kamin- und Kachelofenbau v Hauptzollamt Duisburg (Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Headings 7307 and 7321 — Stove pipe sets — Notions of ‘parts’ of stoves and ‘tube or pipe fittings’ )

text:
               15.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/13

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 12 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — HARK GmbH & Co KG Kamin- und Kachelofenbau v Hauptzollamt Duisburg
   (Case C-450/12) (1)

   (Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Headings 7307 and 7321 - Stove pipe sets - Notions of ‘parts’ of stoves and ‘tube or pipe fittings’)
   2014/C 45/22
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: HARK GmbH & Co KG Kamin- und Kachelofenbau

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Duisburg

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Interpretation of Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 of 19 September 2008 (OJ 2008 L 291, p. 1) — Interpretation of headings 7307 and 7321 — Classification of stove pipe sets.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 of 19 September 2008, must be interpreted as meaning that a stove pipe set, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which comprises a right-angled tubular elbow component in steel with an external diameter of 154 mm and external dimensions of 495 mm x 595 mm, which is covered in heat-resistant paint and has a closing flap to allow internal cleaning, a chimney connection and an appropriate surround, must be classified under Combined Nomenclature heading 7321 as a part, in steel, of a stove.

      (1)  OJ C 389, 15.12.2012.


title: Case T-435/14: Action brought on 9 June 2014  — Tose’e Ta’avon Bank v Council

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/59

         Action brought on 9 June 2014 — Tose’e Ta’avon Bank v Council
   (Case T-435/14)
   2014/C 253/80
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Tose’e Ta’avon Bank (Teheran, Iran) (represented by: J.-M. Thouvenin, avocat)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Council’s decision to maintain the sanction imposed on the applicant as mentioned in the notice of 15 March 2014;

               —

               declare that Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 is inapplicable to it;

               —

               declare that Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 is inapplicable to it;

               —

               order the Council 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, alleging an error of law, in so far as the reason given for the maintenance of restrictive measures against the applicant is not among those which would allow the defendant to adopt restrictive measures.

               2.

               Second plea, alleging an error of fact constituting a manifest error of assessment, in so far as the applicant is not managed by the Iranian state and does not provide financial support for the Iranian government.

               3.

               Third plea, alleging failure to state reasons.

               4.

               Fourth plea, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality and the right to property.

               5.

               Fifth plea, alleging illegality of Regulation No 267/2012 (1) and Decision 2010/413 (2), pursuant to which the contested decision was taken in so far as, on the one hand, they were taken in violation of the obligation to state reasons laid down in Article 296 TFEU and in breach of Article 215 TFEU and, on the other hand, their relevant provisions on the basis of which the restrictive measures imposed on the applicant were maintained violate the treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1).

      (2)  2010/413/CFSP: Council Decision of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39).


title: Case T-177/15: Action brought on 9 April 2015 — Grandel v OHIM — The Colomer Group Spain (Beautygen)

text:
               15.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 198/41

         Action brought on 9 April 2015 — Grandel v OHIM — The Colomer Group Spain (Beautygen)
   (Case T-177/15)
   (2015/C 198/56)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Dr. Grandel GmbH (Augsburg, Germany) (represented by: U. Dollinger, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: The Colomer Group Spain, SL (Cornellá de Llobregat (Barcelona), Spain)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Beautygen’ — Application No 11 623 105

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 February 2015 in Case R 1430/2014-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case T-166/14: Order of the General Court of 17 June 2015 — PRS Mediterranean v OHIM — Reynolds Presto Products (NEOWEB)

text:
               21.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/61

         Order of the General Court of 17 June 2015 — PRS Mediterranean v OHIM — Reynolds Presto Products (NEOWEB)
   (Case T-166/14) (1)

   (2015/C 311/67)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.


title: Case T-152/09: Action brought on 11 April 2009 — Rintisch v OHIM — Valfeuri Pates Alimentaires (PROTIACTIVE)

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/42

         Action brought on 11 April 2009 — Rintisch v OHIM — Valfeuri Pates Alimentaires (PROTIACTIVE)
   (Case T-152/09)
   2009/C 153/82
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Bernhard Rintisch (Bottrop, Germany) (represented by: A. Dreyer, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Valfeuri Pates Alimentaires SA (Wittenheim, France)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 February 2009 in case R 1661/2007-4; and

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark “PROTIACTIVE”, for goods in classes 5, 29 and 30 — application No 4 843 348

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

      Mark or sign cited: German trade mark registration of the word mark “PROTI” for goods in classes 29 and 32; German trade mark registration of the figurative mark “PROTIPOWER” for goods in classes 5, 29 and 32; German trade mark registration of the word mark “PROTIPLUS” for goods in classes 5, 29 and 32; German trade mark registration of the trade word “PROTITOP” for goods in classes 5, 29, 30 and 32; Community trade mark registration of the word mark “PROTI” for goods in classes 5 and 29

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94 (1) (which became Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 207/2009) as the Board of Appeal failed to assess the opposition on its merits; Infringement of Article 74(2) of Council Regulation 40/94 (which became Article 76(2) of Council Regulation 207/2009) as the Board of Appeal failed to exercise discretion or at least failed to state reasons how it exercised discretion; Misuse of power as the Board of Appeal erred by not taking into account documents and evidence submitted by the applicant.

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


title: Case C-381/12 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 June 2013 — I Marchi Italiani Srl v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Osra SA (Appeal — Community trade mark — Community mark B. Antonio Basile 1952 — Earlier national mark BASILE — Application for a declaration of invalidity — Limitation in consequence of acquiescence — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 53(2) — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1) of that regulation — Likelihood of confusion)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/49

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 June 2013 — I Marchi Italiani Srl v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Osra SA
   (Case C-381/12 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Community mark B. Antonio Basile 1952 - Earlier national mark BASILE - Application for a declaration of invalidity - Limitation in consequence of acquiescence - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 53(2) - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1) of that regulation - Likelihood of confusion)
   2013/C 225/86
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: I Marchi Italiani Srl (represented by: L. Militerni and G. Militerni, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Bullock, Agent), Osra SA

      Re:

   Appeal lodged against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 June 2012 in Case T-133/09 I Marchi Italiani and Basile v OHIM — Osra (B. Antonio Basile 1952) by which that court dismissed an action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 January 2009 (Case R 502/2008-2), concerning invalidity proceedings between Osra SA and I Marchi Italiani Srl — Misapplication of Article 135 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court — Infringement of the principle of good faith — Limitation in consequence of acquiescence — Prerequisites for the limitation period to run — Likelihood of confusion — Incorrect assessment of the similarity of the marks at issue

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               I Marchi Italiani Srl shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 303, 6.10.2012


title: Case C-519/09: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 April 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Wuppertal — Germany) — Dieter May v AOK Rheinland/Hamburg — Die Gesundheitskasse (Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure — Social policy — Organisation of working time — Directive 2003/88/EC — Scope ratione personae — Annual leave coinciding with sick leave — Compensation payment in respect of sickness — Concept of worker — Employees subject to the regulations concerning annual leave of public servants ( ‘Dienstordnungsangestellte’ ))

text:
               16.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/6

         Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 April 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Wuppertal — Germany) — Dieter May v AOK Rheinland/Hamburg — Die Gesundheitskasse
   (Case C-519/09) (1)

   (Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure - Social policy - Organisation of working time - Directive 2003/88/EC - Scope ratione personae - Annual leave coinciding with sick leave - Compensation payment in respect of sickness - Concept of worker - Employees subject to the regulations concerning annual leave of public servants (‘Dienstordnungsangestellte’))
   2011/C 211/10
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Arbeitsgericht Wuppertal (Germany)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Dieter May

      Defendant: AOK Rheinland/Hamburg — Die Gesundheitskasse

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Arbeitsgericht Wuppertal — Interpretation of Articles 1(3) and 7(1) and (2) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9) — Entitlement to a compensatory payment for annual leave that has not been taken in full because of illness — Scope ratione personae of Directive 2003/88/EC — Employees of social security institutions performing tasks comparable to those of the public service and who are subject to the working-time rules of public servants (‘Dienstordnungsangestellte’).

      Operative part of the order

   Article 7(1) and (2) of Directive 2003/88 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘worker’ includes an employee of a public-law body in the social security sector subject to, in particular as regards their entitlement to paid annual leave, rules applicable to public servants.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 27.3.2010.


title: Case T-127/12: Judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2014 — Free v OHIM — Noble Gaming (FREEVOLUTION TM) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark FREEVOLUTION TM — Earlier national figurative mark free LA LIBERTÉ N’A PAS DE PRIX and earlier national word marks FREE and FREE MOBILE — Relative grounds for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity between the signs — Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               15.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/8

         Judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2014 — Free v OHIM — Noble Gaming (FREEVOLUTION TM)
   (Case T-127/12) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark FREEVOLUTION TM - Earlier national figurative mark free LA LIBERTÉ N’A PAS DE PRIX and earlier national word marks FREE and FREE MOBILE - Relative grounds for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity between the signs - Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2014/C 78/16
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Free SAS (Paris, France) (represented by: Y. Coursin, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: V. Meglar, agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Noble Gaming Ltd (Prague, Czech Republic)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 December 2011 (Case R 2326/2010-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Free SAS and Noble Gaming Ltd.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Free SAS to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 165, 9.6.2012.


title: Case C-100/08: Action brought on 3 March 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               24.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 128/22

         Action brought on 3 March 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-100/08)
   (2008/C 128/40)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillan and R. Troosters, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium
   Form of order sought
   The Commission claims that the Court should,

               1.

               Declare that the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 of the Treaty establishing the European Community by

                           —

                           making the import, keeping and sale of specimens of birds born and bred in captivity that were brought to the market legally in other Member States subject to restrictive conditions that require the market participants concerned to alter the marking of the birds so as to comply with the special Belgian requirements, and failing to recognise the marking recognised in other Member States or the certificates issued for this purpose by the CITES authorities;

                           —

                           denying traders the possibility to receive exemptions from the prohibition to keep indigenous European birds which were brought to the market legally in other Member State.

               2.

               Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Royal Decree of 9 September 1981 on the protection of birds in the Flemish Region and the Royal Decree of 26 October 2001 on measures concerning the import, export and transit of certain species of non-indigenous wild birds contain provisions pursuant to which (1) the import, keeping and sale of specimens of birds born and bred in captivity that were brought to the market legally in other Member States are subject to restrictive conditions, and (2) traders are denied the possibility to receive exemptions from the prohibition to keep indigenous European birds that were brought to the market legally in other Member States.
   The Commission submits that those measures constitute measures having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions and are therefore, as a matter of principle, prohibited under Article 28 EC. First, the conditions created by the Belgian legal provisions have the effect of requiring changes to the manner in which specimens of birds that were brought to the market legally in other Member States are presented and, second, trade is also restricted as a result of the prohibition on traders to keep certain birds that were brought to the market legally in other Member States.
   The Commission does not exclude in general that certain restrictions on trade can be justified in this context under Article 30 EC if they aim to protect rare species with specific characteristics. However, this is not what the Belgian legal provisions aim to do. In addition, the Belgian provisions are neither necessary nor proportionate to, where required, achieve such a legitimate aim.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 September 2004 in Case C-383/02: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Environment — Waste management — Rodano waste disposal site — Directive 75/442/EEC as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC — Articles 4 and 8)

text:
               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/6

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 9 September 2004
   in Case C-383/02: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (1)

   (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Environment - Waste management - Rodano waste disposal site - Directive 75/442/EEC as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC - Articles 4 and 8)
   (2004/C 262/11)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case C-383/02: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: M. Konstantinidis and R. Amorosi) v Italian Republic (Agent: I.M. Braguglia, assisted by M. Fiorilli) — action for failure to fulfil obligations under Article 226 EC brought on 18 October 2002 — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of Chamber, S. von Bahr and R. Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 9 September 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               By failing to adopt the measures necessary to ensure that the waste deposited at the Rodano waste disposal site (Milan) (Italy) is recovered or eliminated without endangering human health and without using processes or methods which could harm the environment, and by failing to adopt the measures necessary to ensure that any holder of waste at that site has it handled by a private or public waste collector or by an undertaking which carries out the operations listed in Annex II A or B to Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156 of 18 March 1991, or recovers or disposes of it himself, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4 and 8 of that directive.

               2.

               The Italian Republic is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 305 of 7.12.2002.


title: Case C-126/13 P: Appeal brought on 15 March 2013 by BSH Bosch and Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 15 January 2013 in Case T-625/11 BSH Bosch and Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               8.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 164/10

         Appeal brought on 15 March 2013 by BSH Bosch and Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 15 January 2013 in Case T-625/11 BSH Bosch and Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-126/13 P)
   2013/C 164/17
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: BSH Bosch and Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH (represented by: S. Biagosch, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims the Court of Justice should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 January 2013 in Case T-625/1, in so far as the General Court found that the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) did not infringe Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) in its decision of 22 September 2011 (Case R 340/2011-1);

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 22 September 2011 (Case R 340/2011-1), in so far as, by that decision, the Board partially rejected the registration of the mark ecoDoor on the basis of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009;
               in the alternative

               —

               refer the case back to the General Court for judgment;

               —

               order OHIM to pay of the costs of both instances.

      Grounds of Appeal and main arguments1

   This appeal has been brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 January 2013 in Case T-625/11, by which the General Court rejected the action brought by BSH Bosch and Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 22 September 2011 (Case R 340/2011-1), in which the application for registration of the mark ecoDoor was partially rejected on the basis of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.
   The appellant basis its appeal on the following ground of appeal:
   It claims that Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 has been infringed since the mark ecoDoor — which is not at all descriptive of the goods rejected by OHM, but, at best, only of part of those goods, namely a door — can be regarded as descriptive of the relevant goods only if the relevant part is so important for the goods that it would be automatically associated, in trade, with them. This is the case only where, in the eyes of consumers, the relevant part plays a fundamental role in the goods. This is not the case for a door which forms part of the goods applied for, with the result that registration cannot be precluded on the basis of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.

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


title: Case T-175/12: Judgment of the General Court of 9 March 2015 — Deutsche Börse v Commission (Competition — Concentrations — Financial instruments sector — European derivatives market — Decision declaring that the concentration is incompatible with the internal market — Assessment of the effects of the transaction on competition — Efficiency gains — Commitments)

text:
               26.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/24

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 March 2015 — Deutsche Börse v Commission
   (Case T-175/12) (1)

   ((Competition - Concentrations - Financial instruments sector - European derivatives market - Decision declaring that the concentration is incompatible with the internal market - Assessment of the effects of the transaction on competition - Efficiency gains - Commitments))
   (2015/C 171/28)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Deutsche Börse AG (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: C. Zschocke, J. Beninca and T. Schwarze, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Christoforou, V. Bottka, N. Khan and B. Mongin, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Icap Securities Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: C.T. Riis-Madsen, lawyer, and S. Stephanou, Solicitor)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2012) 440 final of 1 February 2012, declaring a concentration to be incompatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case No COMP/M.6166 — Deutsche Börse/NYSE Euronext).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders Deutsche Börse AG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and by Icap Securities Ltd.

      (1)  OJ C 174, 16.6.2012.


title: Case T-373/03: Action brought on 12 November 2003 by Solo Italia S.r.l. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

text:
C 21/38                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           24.1.2004
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               Action brought on 12 November 2003 by Solo Italia S.r.l.
                                                                          against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
—     declare the internal competition A/270 invalid and void,                                         Market
      or at least declare invalid the decision of the Selection
      Board of 28 July 2003 not to admit the applicant to the
      oral test;                                                                                (Case T-373/03)
—     order the defendant to pay the costs of the applicant
                                                                                (2004/C 21/80)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Pleas in law and main arguments
The challenged Decision in the present case is the non-
admission of the applicant to the oral test of the internal               An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
competition A/270, which offered grade B officials to acquire             Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
grade A.                                                                  European Communities on 12 November 2003 by Solo Italia,
                                                                          established in Ossona (Italy), represented by A. Bensoussan,
                                                                          M.-E. Haas, L. Tellier-Loniewski, lawyers, with an address for
In support of his conclusions, the applicant claims that:                 service in Luxembourg.
—     the content of one of the written tests (A 1) was not
      confined within the limits that were laid down in the
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
      notice of the competition. With regard to this, it is stated
      that instead of making an analysis of a file with respect
      to a particular EU issue and summarizing it, the candidates         —     declare the action to be admissible and, accordingly,
      were also expected to give their own strategic input. The                 annul Decision No R 0208/2003-2 of the Board of
      test required an approach, and the application of different               Appeal of 10 September 2003 and hold that it is for the
      intellectual and writing skills, other than those for which               Office to draw the appropriate conclusions from the
      the candidates were prepared. This deviation constitutes                  operative part of and the grounds for the judgment to be
      a breach of the requirements for the notification of                      adopted;
      competitions as laid down in Article 1, Annex III, of the
      Staff Regulations.
                                                                          —     rule on the costs and order the defendant to bear its own
                                                                                costs and to pay all of the applicant’s costs.
—     One of the working documents handed out for the
      A 1 tests contained contradictions and errors. These
      imperfections constitute a breach of both the principle of
      non-discrimination and the principle of good manage-
      ment and sound administration.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
—     The Spanish version of one of the working documents
      contained additional fundamental errors. This constitutes
      a breach of the principle of non-discrimination between             Applicant for Com-             Solo Italia S.r.l.
      candidates of different nationalities participating in the          munity trade mark:
      test.
                                                                          Community trade mark           Word mark ‘PARMITALIA’ in
—     They have reasons to believe that the mastery of the                sought:                        respect of goods in Class 29
      Italian language within the Selection Board was not                                                (cheeses).
      sufficient to objectively assess the Italian tests, which
      would constitute a breach of the principle of non-                  Proprietor of mark or          Nuova Sala S.r.l.
      discrimination.                                                     sign cited in the oppo-
                                                                          sition proceedings:
—     There has been a lack of non-discriminatory standards
      for the evaluation of the written test and lack of                  Mark or sign cited in          Figurative Community trade mark
      transparency due to the lack of an evaluation memor-                opposition:                    ‘PARMITAL’ for goods in Class 29
      andum, both of which impaired the possibility of judicial                                          (Italian grated cheeses).
      scrutiny and control.
                                                                          Decision of the Oppo-          Refusal of the application for
                                                                          sition Division:               registration.
 ---pagebreak--- 24.1.2004             EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 21/39
Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of the appeal as inad-            Pleas in law and main arguments
Appeal:                       missible as a result of a failure
                              to comply with the time-limit
                              prescribed for lodging appeals.
                                                                          Competition notice CONSEIL/A/270 stated that candidates
                                                                          were required to have a perfect command of one of the
Pleas in law:                 —     infringement of Article 6 of          official languages of the European Communities, a very good
                                    the European Convention on            knowledge of either English or French and an adequate
                                    Human Rights in that notifi-          knowledge of the other of those two languages. However,
                                    cation by fax does not satisfy        candidates choosing French or English as the language of
                                    the requirement for security          which they had a perfect command were required to show
                                    of notification in proceed-           evidence of a very good knowledge of the other of those two
                                    ings.                                 languages and also an adequate knowledge of a third official
                                                                          language. By his first plea, the applicant claims that this
                              —     in the alternative, infringe-         provision discriminates between, on the one hand, anglophone
                                    ment of Rules 55, 61 and 65           and francophone candidates and, on the other, other candi-
                                    of Commission Regulation              dates. In that context, he relies on breach of the principle of
                                    No 2868/95 and of                     equal treatment and also of subparagraph f of the first
                                    Article 59 of Regulation              paragraph of Article 28 of the Staff Regulations. By his second
                                    No 40/94.                             plea, the applicant claims that, at the third written test,
                                                                          candidates were asked to write a brief account of the role of
                                                                          the Secretariat General of the Council, in breach of the
                                                                          competition notice, which provided for an account of the
                                                                          activities of the Council. The third plea refers to the Council’s
                                                                          refusal to grant the applicant access to the corrected copy of
                                                                          his third written test. The applicant pleads infringement of
                                                                          Article 255(1) EC and also breach of the obligation to state
                                                                          reasons and of the principles of good management and good
                                                                          administration.
Action brought on 10 November 2003 by Michel Hen-
       drickx against Council of the European Union
                        (Case T-376/03)
                         (2004/C 21/81)
                                                                          Action brought on 17 November 2003 by ATI Tech-
                   (Language of the case: French)                         nologies Inc. against the Office for Harmonisation in the
                                                                                Internal Market
                                                                                (Case T-377/03)
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 10 November 2003 by Michel Hendrickx,                                               (2004/C 21/82)
residing in Brussels, represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Albert
Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.                                                           (Language of the case: French)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
—     annul the decisions of the Selection Board for competition          Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      CONSEIL/A/270 to award him an eliminatory mark for                  European Communities on 17 November 2003 by ATI
      written test A.3 and not to admit him to the oral tests;            Technologies Inc., established in Thornhill (Canada), represen-
                                                                          ted by Chantal Silvia Moreau, lawyer, with an address for
                                                                          service in Luxembourg.
—     order the Council to pay the applicant symbolic damages
      of one euro for the non-pecuniary harm sustained;
                                                                          Asociación de Técnicos de Informatica — ATI was also a party
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                               to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.


title: Case C-78/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 20 February 2015 — Colena AG v Deiters GmbH

text:
               26.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/16

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 20 February 2015 — Colena AG v Deiters GmbH
   (Case C-78/15)
   (2015/C 171/18)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Colena AG

      Defendant: Deiters GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are coloured non-corrective themed contact lenses consisting of copolymers and water (hydrogel) a ‘cosmetic product’ (‘substance’ and/or ‘mixture’) within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 (1), which is intended, within the meaning of that provision, to be placed in contact with external parts of the human body?

               2.

               Can the scope of Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 be extended to a situation where a product which does not fulfil the conditions of Article 2(1)(a) of the regulation appears to be a cosmetic product according to the predominant purpose for a reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect average consumer, for example owing to the fact that wording such as ‘Cosmetic eye accessories are governed by the EU Cosmetics Directive’ or ‘Colour eye accessories are governed by the EU Cosmetics Directive’ is used on the packaging?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products, OJ 2009 L 342, p. 59.


title: Case T-453/10: Order of the General Court of 6 March 2012 — Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture and Rural Development v Commission (Action for annulment — EAGGF, EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure incurred by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland — Expenditure excluded from European Union financing — Devolved administration — No direct concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/17

         Order of the General Court of 6 March 2012 — Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture and Rural Development v Commission
   (Case T-453/10) (1)

   (Action for annulment - EAGGF, EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure incurred by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - Expenditure excluded from European Union financing - Devolved administration - No direct concern - Inadmissibility)
   2012/C 138/33
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (Belfast, United Kingdom) (represented by: K. Brown, Solicitor, and D. Wyatt QC)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Van den Wyngaert, P. Rossi and G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment in part of Commission Decision 2010/399/EU of 15 July 2010 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2010 L 184, p. 6)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               The Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture and Rural Development is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.


title: Case C-216/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha (Spain) lodged on 18 April 2016 — Energías Eólicas de Cuenca S.A. v Comisión Superior de Hacienda de la Comunidad Autónoma de Castilla de la Mancha

text:
               4.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/18

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha (Spain) lodged on 18 April 2016 — Energías Eólicas de Cuenca S.A. v Comisión Superior de Hacienda de la Comunidad Autónoma de Castilla de la Mancha
   (Case C-216/16)
   (2016/C 243/19)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha, Sala Contencioso-Administrativo, Sección Segunda

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Energías Eólicas de Cuenca S.A.

      Defendant: Comisión Superior de Hacienda de la Comunidad Autónoma de Castilla de la Mancha

      Questions referred

               1.

               As the ‘support systems’ defined in Article 2(k) of Directive 2009/28/EC, including fiscal stimuli consisting of tax reductions, exemptions and refunds, are envisaged as a means of attaining the renewable energy consumption objectives provided for in the aforementioned Directive 2009/28/EC, are those stimuli or measures to be regarded as mandatory and binding on the Member States, having direct effect in so far as they may be invoked and relied on by the individuals concerned in all kinds of public, judicial and administrative proceedings?

               2.

               Since the list of ‘support systems’ mentioned in the previous question includes fiscal stimulus measures consisting of, ‘but … not restricted to’, tax reductions, exemptions and refunds, are those stimuli to be regarded as specifically including non-taxation, that is to say, the prohibition of any kind of specific and one-off levy, in addition to the general taxes levied on the economic activity and production of electricity, imposed on energy from renewable sources? The following question is also asked in this paragraph: [Similarly], is the general prohibition stated above also considered to include the prohibition of concurrence, double taxation or overlapping of multiple general or one-off taxes charged at different stages of the activity of generating renewable energy, affecting the same chargeable event taxed by the levy on wind power under consideration?

               3.

               If the answer to the previous question is in the negative and it is acknowledged that energy from renewable sources is taxable, for the purposes of the provisions of Article 1(2) of Directive 2008/118/EC, is the term ‘specific purposes’ to be interpreted as meaning that its objective must be exclusive and, furthermore, that the tax on renewable energy must, as regards its structure, be genuinely non-fiscal, and not merely budgetary or revenue-collecting in nature?

               4.

               In accordance with the provisions of Article 4 of Directive 2003/96/EC, which, when referring to the levels of taxation which Member States are to apply to the energy products and electricity takes as its reference the minimum levels prescribed by the Directive, which are understood to be the total of all direct and indirect taxes applied to those products at the time of release for consumption, should that total be understood as excluding from the level of taxation required by the Directive those national taxes which, as regards their structure and specific purposes, are not genuinely non-fiscal, as interpreted according to the reply to the previous question?

               5.

               Is the term ‘charge’ used in Article 13(1)(e) of Directive 2009/28/EC an autonomous concept of European law which is to be interpreted more broadly, as comprehensive and also synonymous with the concept of tax in general?

               6.

               If the answer to the previous question is in the affirmative, the question we raise is the following: May the charges, referred to in the aforementioned Article 13(1)(e), payable by consumers, include only those levies or taxes which are designed to compensate, where appropriate, for the damage caused by the impact [of energy products and electricity] on the environment and seek to make good, using the revenue generated, the damage linked to that adverse impact or effect, but not those taxes or benefits which, applying to non-polluting energy, fulfil a primarily budgetary or tax-collecting purpose?


title: Case C-153/12: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 21 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna — Bulgaria) — Sani Treyd EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane I upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite (Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure — VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 62, 63, 65, 73 and 80 — Establishment of a building right by natural persons who are neither taxable persons nor persons liable for payment in favour of a company in exchange for the construction of immovable property by that company for those natural persons — Barter contract — VAT on supplies relating to the construction of the immovable property — Chargeable event — When chargeable — Payment on account of the entire consideration — Payment on account — Basis of assessment in the event of consideration in the form of goods or services)

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/16

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 21 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna — Bulgaria) — Sani Treyd EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane I upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite
   (Case C-153/12) (1)

   (Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 62, 63, 65, 73 and 80 - Establishment of a building right by natural persons who are neither taxable persons nor persons liable for payment in favour of a company in exchange for the construction of immovable property by that company for those natural persons - Barter contract - VAT on supplies relating to the construction of the immovable property - Chargeable event - When chargeable - Payment on account of the entire consideration - Payment on account - Basis of assessment in the event of consideration in the form of goods or services)
   2013/C 156/26
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sani Treyd EOOD

      Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane I upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Administrativen sad — Varna — Interpretation of Articles 62(1), 63, 73 and 80 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — National legislation providing that any supply of goods or services the consideration of which in whole or in part consists of goods or services is considered to represent two related supplies of goods or services — Legislation fixing the date of the chargeable event for VAT for related exchange transactions as being the date of the chargeable event in respect of the first supply effected even though the consideration for that supply has not yet been provided — Natural persons who acquired a building right in favour of a company with a view to construction of a residential building in consideration for the obligation on the part of the company to construct the building using its own resources and to hand over to those who had acquired the building right 25 % of the ownership of the total built area within 12 months of issue of the building permit — Determination of the basis of assessment — Applicability of the concept of chargeable event to exempted transactions even if they are carried out by a person who has the status neither of a taxable person nor of a person liable for payment

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Articles 63 and 65 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those of the case in the main proceedings, where a building right is established in favour of a company with a view to the construction of a building of which it is to own 75 % of the total built area, in consideration for the construction of the remaining 25 %, which that company undertakes to deliver in a fully completed state to the persons who established that building right, they do not preclude the value added tax on the supply of the construction services from becoming chargeable from the moment the building right is established, that is to say before those services are supplied, in so far as, when that right was established, all the relevant elements of that future supply of services are already known and therefore, in particular, the services at issue are designated in detail, and the value of that right may be expressed in financial terms, which it is for the referring court to ascertain. The fact that the establishment of that building right is an exempted transaction carried out by persons who are not deemed taxable persons or persons liable for payment within the meaning of that directive has no effect in this respect.

               2.

               In circumstances such as those of the case in the main proceedings, in which the transaction is not carried out by linked parties for the purposes of Article 80(1) of Directive 2006/112, which it is nevertheless for the referring court to ascertain, Articles 73 and 80 of that directive must be interpreted as meaning that they preclude a national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which, where the consideration for a supply of goods or services is entirely in the form of goods or services, the basis of assessment for the supply is, in any event, to be the open market value of the goods or services supplied.

      (1)  OJ C 165, 9.6.2012.


title: Case T-371/15: Action brought on 9 July 2015 — Preferisco Foods v OHIM — Piccardo & Savore' (PREFERISCO)

text:
               21.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/53

         Action brought on 9 July 2015 — Preferisco Foods v OHIM — Piccardo & Savore' (PREFERISCO)
   (Case T-371/15)
   (2015/C 311/57)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Preferisco Foods Ltd (Vancouver, Canada) (represented by: G. Macias Bonilla, P. López Ronda, G. Marín Raigal, E. Armero, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Piccardo & Savore' Srl (Chiusavecchia, Italy)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘PREFERISCO’ — Community trade mark No 10 974 616

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 April 2015 in Case R 2598/2013-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               partially annul the contested decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the OHIM dated 15 April 2015, in Case R-2598/2013-2, in particular regarding the rejection of the CTM application No 10974616 ‘PREFERISCO’ for the goods applied for in classes 29 and 30;

               —

               order that costs of the proceedings be borne by the Defendant, including the costs those incurred in the proceedings before the Opposition Division and the Second Board of Appeal of the OHIM.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 20 March 1997 in Case C-57/95: French Republic, supported by the Kingdom of Spain v. Commission of the European Communities (Commission communication - Internal market - Pension funds)

text:
No C 142/4             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     10 . 5 . 97
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                        aid incompatible with the common market and
                       of 20 March 1997                                     ordering recovery, even where such recovery is
                                                                            excluded by national law because the gain no longer
in Case C-24/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                    exists, in the absence of bad faith on the part of the
the Bundesverwaltungsgericht ): Land Rheinland-Pfalz v.                     recipient of the aid.
Alcan Deutschland GmbH, in the presence of the
    Oberbundesanwalt beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht (')
                                                                       H OJ No C 74 , 25 . 3 . 1995 .
(State aid — Recovery — Application of national law —
                              Limits)
                          197IC 142/07)
                (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 20 March 1997
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
           published in the European Court Reports)                    in Case C-57/95 : French Republic, supported by the
                                                                       Kingdom of Spain v. Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities ( ] )
In Case C-24/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                       (Commission       communication       — Internal market —
of the EC Treaty from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht
( Federal Administrative Court) for a preliminary ruling in                                       Pension funds)
the proceedings pending before that court between Land                                            ( 97/C 142/08 )
Rheinland-Pfalz and Alcan Deutschland GmbH, in the
presence of the Oberbundesanwalt beim Bundesverwal
tungsgericht, on the interpretation of Articles 92 and 93 ( 3 )
of the EC Treaty with regard to the obligation of national                              (Language of the case: French)
authorities to recover unlawful State aid where national
rules protecting the recipient of aid give rise to difficulties
— the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias,
President, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida and J. L. Murray,                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Presidents of Chambers, P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann,                            published in the European Court Reports)
D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann
( Rapporteur ), H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet, Judges;
F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl, Principal                  In Case C-57/95 : French Republic (Agents : Edwige
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on              Belliard and Claude Chavance ), supported by the
20 March 1997, in which it has ruled:                                  Kingdom of Spain ( Agents: Alberto Jose Navarro
                                                                       Gonzalez and Rosario Silva de Lapuerta ) v. Commission
                                                                       of the European Communities ( Agent: Dimitrios
 1 . Community law requires the competent authority to                 Gouloussis ) — application for annulment of Commission
      revoke a decision granting unlawful aid, in accordance           Communication 94/C 360/08 on an internal market for
      with a final decision of the Commission declaring the            pension funds ( OJ No C 360, 17. 12 . 1994, p. 7 ) — the
      aid incompatible with the common market and                      Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President,
      ordering recovery, even if the authority has allowed             J. C. Moitinho de Almeida , J. L. Murray and L. Sevón
      the time-limit laid down for that purpose under                  ( Presidents of Chambers ), C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G.
      national law in the interest of legal certainty to elapse.       Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ), C. Gulmann, G. Hirsch, P. Jann ,
                                                                       H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet, Judges; G. Tesauro,
                                                                       Advocate-General ; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
2 . Community law requires the competent authority to -                Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 March 1997, in
      revoke a decision granting unlawful aid, in accordance           which it :
      with a final decision of the Commission declaring the
      aid incompatible with the common market and
      ordering recovery, even if the competent authority is
                                                                       1.   annuls the Commission Communication on an internal
      responsible for the illegality of the aid decision to such
      a degree that revocation appears to be a breach of                    market for pension funds (94/C 360/08);
      good faith towards the recipient, where the latter
      could not have had a legitimate expectation that the
      aid was lawful because the procedure laid down in                2 . orders the Commission to pay the costs.
      Article 93 of the Treaty had not been followed.
                                                                       (') OJ No C 101 , 22 . 4 . 1995 .
3 . Community law requires the competent authority to
      revoke a decision granting unlawful aid, in accordance
      with a final decision of the Commission declaring the


title: Case F-6/09: Action brought on 2 February 2009 — Fares v Commission

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/54

         Action brought on 2 February 2009 — Fares v Commission
   (Case F-6/09)
   (2009/C 69/121)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Soukaïna Fares (Berchem-Sainte-Agathe, Belgium) (represented by: L. Vogel, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Application for annulment of the decision to classify the applicant in function group III, grade 8.
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims the Tribunal should:

               —

               Annul the decision adopted by the Authority Authorised to Conclude Contracts on 17 October, by which it rejected the complaint brought by the applicant on 21 June 2008 seeking annulment of the decision classifying the applicant in function group III, at grade 8, and applying for entitlement for classification at grade 9, with effect on the same date;

               —

               So far as necessary, also annul the original decision, by which the applicant was classified in function group III, at grade 8;

               —

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


title: Case T-250/12: Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2015 — Corporación Empresarial de Materiales de Construcción v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Sodium chlorate market in the EEA — Amending decision reducing the determined duration of participation in the cartel — Calculation of the amount of the fine — Whether time-barred — Article 25 of Regulation No 1/2003)

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/28

         Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2015 — Corporación Empresarial de Materiales de Construcción v Commission
   (Case T-250/12) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Sodium chlorate market in the EEA - Amending decision reducing the determined duration of participation in the cartel - Calculation of the amount of the fine - Whether time-barred - Article 25 of Regulation No 1/2003))
   (2015/C 398/38)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Corporación Empresarial de Materiales de Construcción, SA, formerly Uralita, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: K. Struckmann, lawyer, and G. Forwood, Barrister)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by N. von Lingen, R. Sauer and J. Bourke, and subsequently by M. Sauer and J. Norris-Usher, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Article 1(2) and of Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2012) 1965 final of 27 March 2012 amending Decision C(2008) 2626 final of 11 June 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.695 — Sodium Chlorate).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Corporación Empresarial de Materiales de Construcción, SA, to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.


title: Case T-563/13: Action brought on 24 October 2013 — Belgium v Commission

text:
               14.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 367/38

         Action brought on 24 October 2013 — Belgium v Commission
   (Case T-563/13)
   2013/C 367/68
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: J.-C. Halleux and M. Jacobs, acting as Agents, assisted by F. Tuytschaever and M. Varga, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare the present application for annulment admissible and well-founded, and accordingly annul the contested decision in so far as it concerns the expenditure incurred by the Kingdom of Belgium amounting to € 4 108 237,42, or in any event to limit the amount to be reduced from the financing to € 1 268 963,04;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant seeks the partial annulment of Commission Implementing Decision 2013/433/EU of 13 August 2013 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), (1) in so far as it concerns the expenditure incurred by the Kingdom of Belgium.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging breach of the duty to state reasons and the principle of legal certainty, due to the contested implementing decision not sufficiently allowing the applicant to know the breach of which it is accused.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging breach of Articles 122, 125b(1), and 125d of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 (2) and of Articles 25, 28(1), 29 and 33 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007, (3) due to the Commission determining that Greenbow cvba was wrongfully recognised as a producer organisation.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality due to the Commission not having limited the financial correction to the expenditure relating to the Greenbow members that could not be autonomously recognised as producer organisations.

      (1)  OJ 2013 L 219, p. 49.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (OJ 2007 L 299, p. 1).

      (3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules of Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (OJ 2007 L 350, p. 1).


title: Case T-656/13: Judgment of the General Court of 7 October 2015 — The Smiley Company v OHIM (Shape of a smiley with heart-shaped eyes) (Community trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark — Shape of a smiley with heart-shaped eyes — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/38

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 October 2015 — The Smiley Company v OHIM (Shape of a smiley with heart-shaped eyes)
   (Case T-656/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark - Shape of a smiley with heart-shaped eyes - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 398/48)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: The Smiley Company SPRL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Freitag and C. Albrecht, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 October 2013 (Case R 997/2013-4) concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a three-dimensional sign comprising the shape of a smiley with heart-shaped eyes.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders The Smiley Company SPRL to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 61, 1.3.2014.


title: Case T-85/05 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 23 May 2005: Dimos Ano Liosion and Others v Commission (Interim measures — Cohesion Fund — Co-financing decision — Project for hygienic infill of domestic waste — Admissibility — Prima facie case — Urgency — None)

text:
               15.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 257/12

         Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 23 May 2005: Dimos Ano Liosion and Others v Commission
   (Case T-85/05 R)
   (Interim measures - Cohesion Fund - Co-financing decision - Project for hygienic infill of domestic waste - Admissibility - Prima facie case - Urgency - None)
   (2005/C 257/23)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties:

      Applicants: Dimos Ano Liosion and Others (Greece) (represented by: G. Kalavros, lawyer).

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and L. Flynn, acting as Agents).
   Application for:
   Suspension of operation of Commission Decision E(2004) 5522 of 21 December 2004 concerning the grant of assistance by the Cohesion Fund for the construction of Phase 1 of the second landfill site for waste (XYTA) in Western Attica, at Skalistiri in the Deme of Phylis, Attica (Greece)
   Operative part of the order:

               1)

               The application is dismissed.

               2)

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-114/13: Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2015 — Cerafogli v ECB (Appeals — ECB Staff — Complaint of discrimination and psychological harassment — Decision of the ECB to close the administrative inquiry initiated following the complaint — Refusal of access to evidence during the administrative procedure — Rejection of a request for an order to produce evidence during the judicial proceedings — Right to effective judicial protection — Error of law)

text:
               23.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 389/28

         Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2015 — Cerafogli v ECB
   (Case T-114/13) (1)

   ((Appeals - ECB Staff - Complaint of discrimination and psychological harassment - Decision of the ECB to close the administrative inquiry initiated following the complaint - Refusal of access to evidence during the administrative procedure - Rejection of a request for an order to produce evidence during the judicial proceedings - Right to effective judicial protection - Error of law))
   (2015/C 389/29)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Maria Concetta Cerafogli (Rome, Italy) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: F. Feyerbacher, B. Ehlers, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 12 December 2012 in Cerafogli v ECB (F-43/10, ECR, EU:F:2012:184), seeking the annulment of that judgment.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 12 December 2012 in Cerafogli v ECB (F-43/10);

               2.

               Refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;

               3.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 114, 20.4.2013.


title: Case T-299/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 March 2009 — Shanghai Excell M&E Enterprise and Shanghai Adeptech Precision v Council (Dumping — Imports of certain electronic weighing scales originating in China — Market economy status — Article 2(7)(a) and (c), Article 2(10), and Article 11(9) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96)

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/30

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 March 2009 — Shanghai Excell M&E Enterprise and Shanghai Adeptech Precision v Council
   (Case T-299/05) (1)

   (Dumping - Imports of certain electronic weighing scales originating in China - Market economy status - Article 2(7)(a) and (c), Article 2(10), and Article 11(9) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96)
   2009/C 113/61
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Shanghai Excell M&E Enterprise Co. Ltd (Shanghai, China) and Shanghai Adeptech Precision Co. Ltd (Huaxin Town, China) (represented by: R. MacLean, Solicitor, and E. Gybels, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, acting as Agent, assisted by G. Berrisch, lawyer)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented initially by: K. Talabér-Ritz and E. Righini, and subsequently by H. van Vliet and K. Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of Articles 1 and 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 692/2005 of 28 April 2005 amending Regulation (EC) No 2605/2000 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain electronic weighing scales (REWS) originating, inter alia, in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2005 L 112, p. 1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Shanghai Excell M&E Enterprise Co. Ltd and Shanghai Adeptech Precision Co. Ltd to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council;

               3.

               Orders the Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 257, 15.10.2005.


title: Case C-428/17 P: Appeal brought on 15 July 2017 by Meta Group Srl against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 May 2017 in Case T-744/14 Meta Group v Commission

text:
               4.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 293/25

         Appeal brought on 15 July 2017 by Meta Group Srl against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 May 2017 in Case T-744/14 Meta Group v Commission
   (Case C-428/17 P)
   (2017/C 293/30)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Meta Group Srl (represented by: A. Formica, avvocato)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Forms of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside and/or vary the judgment of 4 May 2017, Meta Group v Commission, T-744/14, as being vitiated by error and legally unfounded;

               —

               find that the Commission has failed to fulfil its financial obligations arising from grant contracts concluded in the framework of the CIP programme and the Fifth and Sixth European Union Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development, totalling EUR 566 377,63, in respect of contributions due but unpaid, and also declare illegal the offsetting made in respect of the applicant’s claims;

               —

               consequently, order the Commission to pay the appellant that sum of EUR 566 377,63, together with default interest and reflecting monetary revaluation;

               —

               furthermore, order the Commission to pay compensation for damage caused to the applicant, in the amount of EUR 815 000 in total, or more should the Court deem it appropriate at the conclusion of the present proceedings, and also in respect of the serious loss resulting from the unlawfulness of the abovementioned offsetting.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

               I.

                  Misapplication and/or erroneous application of Articles 1134 and 1135 of the Belgian Civil Code in respect of the binding nature and execution in good faith of contracts. Misapplication and/or erroneous application of Articles 1156, 1157 and 1161 of the Belgian Civil Code in respect of the interpretation of contracts. Misapplication and/or erroneous application of the principles of EU law in respect of the binding nature of contracts, good faith in the performance and interpretation of contracts, legal certainty.

               By rejecting the third plea in law, the contested judgment infringed the rules of the Belgian Civil Code and EU law as regards the binding nature of the contracts, in that it failed to recognise the mutually binding nature of the clause set out on page 47 of the Amendment to the Ecolink+ contract and disregarded the fact that the reference contained therein to a methodology annexed to the contract was not referring to the methodology proposed by Meta and sent to the Commission on 21.12.2009.

               II.

                  Misapplication and/or erroneous application of Article II.19 of the Guide to Financial Issues relating to Indirect Actions of the Sixth Framework Programmes (‘the FP6 Guide’). Misapplication and/or erroneous application of Article 179 TFEU in relation to Community programmes. Misapplication and/or erroneous application of Articles 1134, 1135, 1156, 1157 and 1161 of the Belgian Civil Code. Infringement of the principle of non-contradiction.

               By rejecting the fourth and fifth pleas in law, the contested judgment infringed the principle of non-contradiction, the criteria of the FP6 Guide and the rules of the Belgian Civil Code as regards good faith in the performance of contracts, in that, despite describing the provisions set out in the FP6 Guide as non-binding, it applied them rigidly and unfailingly in the instant case before the court, specifically with regard to the relative costs of in-house consultants.

               III.

                  Infringement of the principles of EU procedural law relating to the right of defence and the right to have a case heard in its entirety. Infringement of Article 64 of the Rules of Procedure. Absolute lack of reasoning on a fundamental issue of the dispute.

               By rejecting the first two pleas in law, the contested judgment infringed the EU law principles of the right to have a case heard in its entirety and the right of defence, as well as Article 64 of the Rules of Procedure, in that it failed to consider the legal arguments set out by the appellant in its observations in the document entitled ‘Annex E.4’, lodged by the Commission only at the hearing, uncritically accepting what was argued by the other party and failing to give sufficient reasons for its own decision.

               IV.

                  Misapplication and/or erroneous application of the FP6 Guide and the provisions of the Seventh Framework Programme. Manifest error in the understanding of a decisive element of the instant case.

               Furthermore, by rejecting the first two pleas in law, the contested judgment infringed the FP6 Guide and distorted the facts material to the proceedings, calculating erroneously and in a misleading manner the working time under the Bridge contract (in respect of which accounts were drawn up), that is to say, on the basis of the assumption shown here that a contracted service provider would have worked for eight consecutive hours every day of the month purely carrying out activities relating to the aforementioned contract.

               V.

                  Misapplication and/or erroneous application of Articles 1134, 1135, 1156, 1157 and 1161 of the Belgian Civil Code. Infringement of the European law principle of protection of legitimate expectations in that it applies to a private party engaged in contractual relations with a public body.

               By rejecting the sixth plea in law, the judgment infringed the provisions of the Belgian Civil Code concerning the binding nature of contracts and the principle of good faith in the performance of contracts, in that it failed to recognise that the Commission’s conduct, in particular the drawing up of the Amendment, caused the appellant to have legitimate expectations that the methodology proposed by it would be accepted.


title: Case T-177/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 4 July 2006 — easyJet Airline v Commission (Competition — Concentrations — Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 — Decision declaring a concentration compatible with the common market — Action brought by a third party — Admissibility — Air transport market — Commitments)

text:
               2.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/29

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 4 July 2006 — easyJet Airline v Commission
   (Case T-177/04) (1)

   (Competition - Concentrations - Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 - Decision declaring a concentration compatible with the common market - Action brought by a third party - Admissibility - Air transport market - Commitments)
   (2006/C 212/51)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: easyJet Airline Co. Ltd (Luton, United Kingdom) (represented by: initially by J. Cook, J. Parker and S. Dolan, Solicitors, and subsequently by M. Werner and M. Waha, avocats, L. Mills, Solicitor, M. de Lasala Lobera and R. Malhotra, avocats)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Oliver, A. Bouquet and A. Whelan, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, Agent)
   Re:
   Annulment of the Commission Decision of 11 February 2004 declaring compatible with the common market the concentration between Air France and KLM (Case No COMP/M.3280 — Air France/KLM) (OJ 2004 C 60, p. 5), whereby Air France was to acquire full control of KML
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Commission.

               3.

               Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 201, 7.8.2004.