title: Case C-214/08 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 May 2009 — Philippe Guigard v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Action for damages — Conditions for the Community to incur contractual and non-contractual liability — Articles 313(2)(k), 314 and 317(a) of the Fourth Lomé Convention, as revised by the Mauritius Agreement)

text:
               18.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 167/2

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 May 2009 — Philippe Guigard v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-214/08 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Action for damages - Conditions for the Community to incur contractual and non-contractual liability - Articles 313(2)(k), 314 and 317(a) of the Fourth Lomé Convention, as revised by the Mauritius Agreement)
   2009/C 167/02
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Philippe Guigard (represented by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Bordes and F. Dintilhac, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 11 March 2008 in Case T-301/05 Guigard v Commission, by which the Court of First Instance dismissed the applicant’s action for damages for the loss which he allegedly suffered by reason of the Commission’s conduct with regard to the non-renewal of his contract of employment concluded in the framework of technical co-operation between the Community and the Republic of Niger financed by the European Development Fund — Conditions for the Community to incur non-contractual liability — Infringement of Articles 313(2)(k) and 314 of the Fourth Lomé Convention (OJ 1991 L 229), as revised by the Mauritius Agreement (OJ 1998 L 156, p. 3) — Infringement of the obligation to state reasons and of the rights of the defence.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-301/05 Guigard v Commission inasmuch as it declared Mr Guigard’s action to be admissible;

               2.

               Dismisses Mr Guigard’s action in Case T-301/05;

               3.

               Declares that it is not necessary to rule on the appeal;

               4.

               Orders Mr Guigard to pay the costs incurred by the Commission of the European Communities before the Court of Justice of the European Communities and before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 30.08.2008.


title: Case C-327/11 P: Appeal brought on 24 June 2011 by United States Polo Association against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 13 April 2011 in Case T-228/09: United States Polo Association v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and Textiles CMG, SA

text:
               22.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/16

         Appeal brought on 24 June 2011 by United States Polo Association against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 13 April 2011 in Case T-228/09: United States Polo Association v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and Textiles CMG, SA
   (Case C-327/11 P)
   2011/C 311/25
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: United States Polo Association (represented by: P. Goldenbaum, Rechtsanwältin, T. Melchert, Rechtsanwalt and I. Rohr, Rechtsanwältin)

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

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the Judgement of the General Court of 13 April 2011 in case T-228/09,

               —

               annul the decision of the Board of Appeal R 08861/2008-4,

               —

               order OHIM to pay its own costs and those of the appellant,

               —

               and, should Textiles CMG S.A. intervene in the proceedings, order Textiles CMG S.A. to pay its own costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant submits that the judgment of the General Court is vitiated by misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 8 (1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No. 207/2009) on the Community Trade Mark (1).
   Based on this misinterpretation and misapplication, the General Court wrongly came to the conclusion that the Board of Appeal had been correct in finding that there was a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks U.S. POLO ASSN. (contested application) and POLO-POLO (earlier mark).
   The General Court did not carry out a correct and complete global assessment of the likelihood of confusion and it did not sufficiently take into account or misapplied the principles of the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union in this regard.
   The main arguments of the appellant regarding the deficiencies of the General Court's finding can be summarized as follows:

               1.

               The General Court has misapplied the principles laid down in case 120104 Medion [2005] ECR 1-8551 regarding the possible independent distinctive role of one element in a composite sign although it does not dominate the overall impression.
               The General Court has first — correctly — denied that the word ‘POLO’ was dominant in the younger mark but has then — wrongly — derived an alleged independent distinctive function of the element ‘POLO’ from the fact that the other elements ‘U.S.’ and ‘ASSN.’ were short initials and abbreviations and from an assumed lack of meaning and alleged insufficient level of distinctiveness. This shows a wrong understanding of the requirement of an independent distinctive function of one element in a composite sign.
               The ruling of the Medion case can by no means be construed as establishing a general rule that any element of normal distinctiveness shared by two trademarks is to be regarded as having an independent distinctive role in a composite sign. The General Court has not taken into consideration that according to the Medion case there is a relation of rule and exception, the usual case being that the average consumer perceives a mark as a whole with the possibility that the overall impression may be dominated by one or more components of the composite sign and the exception being that, if an element is not dominant in the overall impression, it can only in exceptional cases beyond the usual case have an independent distinctive role. The General Court has not submitted any reasons for such an exceptional case.

               2.

               The General Court attributed an exclusive and decisive value to the fact that the two opposing signs share the element ‘POLO’ without correctly applying the principles of global assessment of the likelihood of confusion, such as emerges, in particular, from Case C-251/95 SABEL [1997] ECR 1-6191.
               It has not observed the principle that the general public perceives the mark as a whole and does not analyse its various details but — with respect to the earlier mark — has just taken one component and compared it with the younger mark.
               In particular, it failed to take the circumstances of the present case fully into account, by disregarding the differences between the opposing signs, in particular the striking duplication of the element ‘POLO’ in the earlier mark. The single element ‘POLO’ does neither dominate the earlier mark ‘POLO-POLO’ nor does it have an independent distinctive role in the composite sign and the General Court has not even alleged such a function here.
               Further, the earlier mark ‘POLO-POLO’ viewed as a whole does not have any meaning in any Community language. Therefore, no conceptional comparison can be made.

               3.

               The General Court has not taken into consideration the principle that it is only if all the
               other components of the mark are negligible that the assessment of the similarity can be carried out solely on the basis of one element.

               4.

               The General Court's argumentation is contradictory and inconsistent in the following points:
               The General Court on the one hand found that the elements ‘U.S’ and ‘ASSN.’ had no meaning as such. On the other hand, it pointed out that ‘U.S.’ would be perceived by the relevant public as referring to the geographical origin. Further, even if one assumed that some consumers might not understand the abbreviation ‘ASSN.’, consumers would have no reason to overlook or overhear it but — according to the principles laid down in the MATRA TZEN case — would all the more perceive it as a distinctive element.

      (1)  OJ L 78, p. 1


title: Joined Cases C-292/09 and C-293/09: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 January 2010 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Parma (Italy)) — Isabella Calestani (C-292/09), Paolo Lunardi (C-293/09) v Agenzia delle Entrate Ufficio di Parma (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/13

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 January 2010 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Parma (Italy)) — Isabella Calestani (C-292/09), Paolo Lunardi (C-293/09) v Agenzia delle Entrate Ufficio di Parma
   (Joined Cases C-292/09 and C-293/09) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Manifest inadmissibility)
   2010/C 100/20
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Commissione tributaria provinciale di Parma (Italy)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Isabella Calestani (C-292/09), Paolo Lunardi (C-293/09)

      Defendant: Agenzi delle Entrate Ufficio di Parma

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Commissione tributaria provinciale di Parma — Interpretation of Article 13B(c) of Directive 77/388/EEC: Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Exemption of supplies of goods used wholly for an exempted activity or excluded from the right to deduction — National legislation precluding the exemption

      Operative part

   The references for a preliminary ruling submitted by the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Parma (Italy), by decisions of 9 and 17 June 2009, are manifestly inadmissible.

      (1)  OJ C 233, 26.09.2009.


title: Case T-176/10: Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2011 — Seven v OHIM — Seven For All Mankind (SEVEN FOR ALL MANKIND) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark SEVEN FOR ALL MANKIND — Earlier Community and international figurative marks containing the word element seven — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               19.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 340/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2011 — Seven v OHIM — Seven For All Mankind (SEVEN FOR ALL MANKIND)
   (Case T-176/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark SEVEN FOR ALL MANKIND - Earlier Community and international figurative marks containing the word element ‘seven’ - Relative ground for refusal - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2011/C 340/35
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Seven SpA (Leinì, Italy) (represented by: L. Trevisan, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Seven For All Mankind LLC (Vernon, California, United States) (represented by: A. Gautier-Sauvagnac, lawyer, B. Guimberteau, lawyer, M. Choukroun, lawyer)

      Re:

   ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 January 2010 (Case R 1514/2008-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Seven SpA and Seven For All Mankind LLC.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 28 January 2010 (Case R 1514/2008-2);

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders OHIM to pay the costs incurred by Seven SpA in the proceedings before the General Court and those incurred by Seven SpA for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal;

               4.

               Orders Seven For All Mankind LLC to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.


title: Case C-109/06: Action brought on  23 February 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               6.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/6

         Action brought on 23 February 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-109/06)
   (2006/C 108/08)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: W. Mölls, Agent)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany
   Form of order sought

               —

               A declaration that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions required to implement Council Directive 2003/96/EC (1) of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity, or, in any event, by not communicating these provisions to the Commission, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               An order that the Federal Republic of Germany pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for implementing the Directive expired on 31 December 2003.

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 283, p.51.


title: Case T-3/14: Action brought on 2 January 2014 — Anudal Industrial v Commission

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/50

         Action brought on 2 January 2014 — Anudal Industrial v Commission
   (Case T-3/14)
   2014/C 52/96
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Anudal Industrial, SL (Badalona, Spain) (represented by: J. García Muñoz, J. Jiménez-Blanco and J. Corral García, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul Articles 1 to 6 of the Decision;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the Decision in so far as it orders recovery of the aid; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay all the costs arising from these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The decision contested in the present proceedings is the same as that contested in Case T-515/13 Spain v Commission.
   In support of its action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

               1.

               The contested decision is vitiated by breach of essential procedural requirements and infringement of Articles 20, 21 and 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in that it was adopted following an investigation procedure in which there were substantial irregularities.

               2.

               Error of law: infringement of Articles 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU, inasmuch as the Commission found that the measures covered by the present proceedings constitute State aid, without establishing that they were selective.

               3.

               Error of law: infringement of Articles 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU, inasmuch as the Commission found that the measures covered by the present proceedings constitute State aid, without establishing that they affect Community trade.

               4.

               Error of law: infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU and failure to state reasons, inasmuch as the Commission found that there was State aid and categorised the Economic Interest Groupings and their investors as beneficiaries, in circumstances in which the aid neither confers competitive advantages on those parties nor affects trade between Member States in their respective sectors.

               5.

               Error of law in ordering recovery of the alleged aid in breach of the principles of legal certainty, protection of legitimate expectations and equal treatment, as well as of Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.


title: Case T-652/11: Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2015  — Sabbagh v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Syria — Freezing of funds — Manifest error of assessment — Non-contractual liability)

text:
               13.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2015 — Sabbagh v Council
   (Case T-652/11) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Syria - Freezing of funds - Manifest error of assessment - Non-contractual liability))
   (2015/C 118/30)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Bassam Sabbagh (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: M.-A. Bastin and J.-M. Salva, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and S. Kyriakopoulou, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Firstly, annulment in part of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1151/2011 of 14 November 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2011 L 296, p. 3) and of Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP of 1 December 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/273/CFSP (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 56) and Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and repealing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 (OJ 2012 L 16, p. 1), in so far as the applicant’s name has been included in the lists of persons and entities to which those restrictive measures apply and, secondly, an action for damages seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Rejects as inadmissible the application for annulment of the Council Implementing Regulations later than the adoption of Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and repealing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011;

               2.

               Annuls, in so far as those acts concern Mr Bassam Sabbagh:

                           —

                           Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1151/2011 of 14 November 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011;

                           —

                           Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP of 1 December 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/273/CFSP;

                           —

                           Regulation No 36/2012;

               3.

               Orders the effects of the regulations annulled to be maintained with respect to Mr Sabbagh until the time-limit for an appeal has expired or, if an appeal is brought within that time-limit, until any dismissal of the appeal;

               4.

               Dismisses the claim for compensation;

               5.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Mr Sabbagh;

               6.

               Orders Mr Sabbagh to bear half of his own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 58, 25.2.2012.


title: Case C-529/09: Action brought on 18 December 2009 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               27.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/21

         Action brought on 18 December 2009 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-529/09)
   2010/C 51/34
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and C. Urraca Caviedes, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under the fourth paragraph of Article 288 TFEU, and Articles 2 and 3 of Commission Decision 1999/509/EC of 14 October 1998 concerning aid granted by Spain to companies in the Magefesa group and their successors (OJ 1999 L 198, p. 15), by not adopting the measures necessary to comply with that decision in respect of Industrias Domésticas, S.A. (Indosa)

               —

               Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Kingdom of Spain has failed to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Decision 1999/509/EC in respect of Industrias Domésticas, S.A. (Indosa).


title: Case T-95/04: Actionbrought on 8 March 2004 by Luciano Lavagnoli againstCommission of the European Communities

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/81

         Action brought on 8 March 2004 by Luciano Lavagnoli against Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-95/04)
   (2004/C 106/159)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 8 March 2004 by Luciano Lavagnoli, residing in Berchem (Luxembourg), represented by Gilles Bounéou and Frédéric Frabetti, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the 1999—2001 promotions procedure so far as concerns the applicant;

               —

               in the alternative, annul the applicant's staff report in respect of the period 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2001 and, as a preliminary matter, the preparatory acts preceding that report;

               —

               make an appropriate finding as to the costs, expenditure and fees incurred and order the Commission to pay them.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant is challenging the decision of the appointing authority establishing his staff report for the period 1999—2001.
   In support of his application, the applicant alleges:

               —

               infringement of the general provisions implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations and breach of the principles of non-discrimination and sound administration;

               —

               infringement of the 1974 Framework Agreement signed by Action & Défense, of which the applicant was the secretary general during the reference period, and of Article 24a of the Staff Regulations, and interference with the freedom of association;

               —

               infringement of the agreement protocol signed on 18 May 1998 by the Commission and the unions;

               —

               disregard of the principle prohibiting arbitrary action and requiring reasons to be provided for decisions, and misuse of powers;

               —

               breach of the principle that legitimate expectations are to be protected;

               —

               failure to fulfil the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials.


title: Case T-332/17: Action brought on 29 May 2017 — E-Control v ACER

text:
               31.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/35

         Action brought on 29 May 2017 — E-Control v ACER
   (Case T-332/17)
   (2017/C 249/51)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Energie-Control Austria für die Regulierung der Elektrizitäts- und Erdgaswirtschaft (E-Control) (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: F. Schuhmacher, lawyer)

      Defendant: Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators of 17 March 2017, Case A-001-2017 (consolidated);

               —

               order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging an error in law that the Board of Appeal found that ACER was competent to change the proposal of the transmission system.

                           —

                           The applicant puts forward that the Board of Appeal erred in law when it assumed a competence of ACER to change the proposal of the transmission system operators because Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/1222 (1) does not provide for such competence.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an error in law that the Board of Appeal found that ACER was competent even though it disregarded the applicant’s amendment request.

                           —

                           The applicant puts forward that ACER disregarded its amendment request pursuant to Article 9(12) of Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/1222. According to the applicant, the Board of Appeal erred in law when it concluded that ACER was competent despite the fact that it disregarded its amendment request.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging an error in law that the Board of Appeal found ACER was competent to introduce a bidding zone border pursuant to Article 15 of Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/1222.

                           —

                           The applicant puts forward that the Board of Appeal made a manifest error in law when it reached the conclusion that ACER was competent to change the bidding zone configuration and introduce new bidding zones pursuant to Article 15 of Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/1222. According to the applicant, ACER acted ultra vires and disregarded the legal framework and the competence of the Member States.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging the absence of a proper justification and alleging an error in law that the Board of Appeal found that ACER has shown that structural congestion exists on the German-Austrian border.

                           —

                           The applicant puts forward that its procedural rights have not been observed, because the Board of Appeal has not addressed the arguments brought forward in the appeal but instead relied on a general statement devoid of any specific relation to the case at hand. If the Court should reach the conclusion that the Board of Appeal provided a sufficient justification, so the applicant claims, the Board of Appeal also erred in law when it –without any reference to the legal standard- accepted the conclusion of ACER based on a flawed definition of congestion.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging the absence of a proper justification and alleging an error in law to not consider the request for evidence by the applicant.

                           —

                           The applicant puts forward that the Board of Appeal does not provide any meaningful assessment of the request and thereby violates the obligation to provide a proper justification. According to the applicant, because the Board of Appeal has to reach a reasoned conclusion whether the appeal was well-founded, it had an obligation to request information when necessary to decide the case at hand. It is the applicant’s opinion that the Board of Appeal therefore erred in law when it denied its request for information.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging the absence of a proper justification and alleging an error in law that the Board of Appeal found that the introduction of a bidding zone border was proportionate.

                           —

                           The applicant raises two distinct pleas, the absence of a proper justification as a violation of procedural rights, and an error in law in respect of the legal standard required. According to the applicant, the contested decision disregarded the fundamental principle of proportionality contained in Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 (2) which is also a fundamental principle of the TFEU.

      (1)  Commission regulation (EU) 2015/1222 of 24 July 2015 establishing a guideline on capacity allocation and congestion management (OJ 2015, L 197, p. 24).

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1228/2003 (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 15).


               12.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/40

         Action brought on 17 November 2016 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland
   (Case E-18/16)
   (2017/C 9/10)
   An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 17 November 2016 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Carsten Zatschler and Marlene Lie Hakkebo, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 Rue Belliard, B-1040 Brussels.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

               1.

               Declare that Iceland has failed to adopt the measures necessary to make the Act referred to at point l2zzq of Chapter XV of Annex II to the EEA Agreement (Regulation (EU) No 98/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2013 on the marketing and use of explosives precursors), as adapted by Protocol 1 to the EEA Agreement, part of its internal legal order as required by Article 7 of the EEA Agreement.

               2.

               Order Iceland to bear the costs of these proceedings.

      Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               The application addresses Iceland’s failure to comply, no later than 2 May 2016, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 2 March 2016 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Regulation (EU) No 98/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2013 on the marketing and use of explosives precursors, as referred to at point l2zzq of Chapter XV of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and as adapted to that Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto (‘the Act’).

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.


title: Case T-236/16: Action brought on 10 May 2016 — Biogena Naturprodukte v EUIPO (ZUM wohl)

text:
               4.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/46

         Action brought on 10 May 2016 — Biogena Naturprodukte v EUIPO (ZUM wohl)
   (Case T-236/16)
   (2016/C 243/52)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Biogena Naturprodukte GmbH & Co KG (Salzburg, Austria) (represented by: I. Schiffer, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark including the word elements ‘ZUM wohl’ — Application No 13 666 871

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 February 2016 in Case R 1982/2015-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               declare that the sign applied for under the number 013 666 871 be allowed to proceed to registration as an EU trade mark in respect of all the goods and services in Classes 29, 30, 32 and 43 for which registration is sought in the application of 23 January 2015;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay all the costs which the applicant for the EU trade mark has incurred as a result of the application procedure;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law

               —

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


title: Case C-268/08 P: Order of the Court of 3 March 2009 — Christos Michail v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Staff case — Articles 12a and 24 of the Staff Regulations — Psychological harassment — Duty to provide assistance — Distortion of facts — Errors in the legal assessment of the facts)

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/19

         Order of the Court of 3 March 2009 — Christos Michail v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-268/08 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Staff case - Articles 12a and 24 of the Staff Regulations - Psychological harassment - Duty to provide assistance - Distortion of facts - Errors in the legal assessment of the facts)
   2009/C 113/37
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Christos Michail (represented by: C. Meïdanis, dikigoros)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Berscheid and J. Currall, Agents, E. Bourtzalas and I. Antypas, lawyers)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) delivered on 16 April 2008 in Case T-486/04 Michail v Commission in which the Court dismissed the appellant’s action for annulment of the Commission’s implied decision of 20 March 2004 rejecting the request for assistance made by the appellant pursuant to Article 24 of the Staff Regulations — Infringement of Article 12a of the Staff Regulations — Psychological harassment — Distortion of facts — Errors made in the legal assessment of the facts

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               The appellant is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 30.8.2008.


title: Action brought on 23 May 1997 by Massimo Marzola against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-161/97)

text:
No C 228/22             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 26 . 7. 97
represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an            Action brought on 23 May 1997 by Massimo Marzola
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fidu                 against the Commission of the European Communities
ciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .                                                      ( Case T-161/97)
                                                                                ( 97/C 228/53 )
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the Commission's decision of 8 August 1996                                    (Language of the case: French)
     rejecting the applicant's request that it give
     consideration to the possible application of                      An action against the Commission of the European
     Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,                        Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                       Instance of the European Communities on 23 May 1997
— annul , in so far as may be necessary, the Commission's              by Massimo Marzola, residing in Brussels, represented
     decision adopted on 3 February 1997 expressly                     by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane
     rejecting the applicant's complaint,                              Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                       Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30
— order the defendant to pay all the costs.                            Rue de Cessange .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                 — annul the Commission's decision refusing to transfer
Case T- 16/97 (').
                                                                            to the Community scheme the pension rights acquired
                                                                            by him in the USA between 1 March 1977 and
H OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p. 27.
                                                                            31 August 1985 ,
                                                                       — order the defendant to pay the costs .
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Action brought on 23 May 1997 by Hans Gevaert against
        the Commission of the European Communities
                          ( Case T-160/97 )                            The applicant states that, upon becoming established in
                                                                       March 1986, he requested the transfer to the Community
                            ( 97/C 228/52 )                            scheme of the pension rights acquired by him in a private
                 (Language of the case: French)                        pension scheme in the United States. In the absence of a
                                                                       favourable response, he took numerous steps to secure the
                                                                       transfer of rights acquired by him in an Italian pension
An action against the Commission of the European                       scheme, with a view to procuring the subsequent transfer
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      of those rights to the Community scheme . That course of
Instance of the European Communities on 23 May 1997
                                                                       action, which was acceptable to the Commission, was
by Hans Gevaert, residing at Merelbeke ( Belgium ),                    rejected by the competent Italian administrative
represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an            authorities. On 27 August 1996 the applicant ultimately
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fidu
                                                                       decided to submit a formal request under Article 90 ( 1 ) of
ciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .
                                                                       the Staff Regulations of Officials for the transfer to the
                                                                       Community scheme of the pension rights in issue . That
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            request was rejected by the defendant, on the ground that
                                                                       it had not been submitted within the prescribed period of
— annul the Commission's decision of 26 August 1996                    six months from the date of the applicant's appointment.
     rejecting the applicant's request that it give                    That rejection constitutes the decision which is contested
     consideration to the possible application of                      in the present case .
     Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the Commission 's              The applicant pleads, first, infringement of Article 11 (2 )
                                                                       of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations and breach of the
     decision adopted on 3 February 1997 expressly
                                                                       duty to have regard for the welfare and interests of
     rejecting the applicant's complaint,
                                                                       officials; he maintains that the Commission provided him
                                                                       with incorrect information concerning the possibility of
— order the defendant to pay all the costs .                           having the rights acquired in the United States transferred
                                                                       to the Community pension scheme and the procedure to
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   be followed for the submission of a request to that effect.
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
 Case T- 16/97 (>).                                                    He also maintains that the contested decision is vitiated,
                                                                       contrary to Article 25 of the Staff Regulations, by a total
 H OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
                                                                       absence of any relevant statement of reasons .


title: Case C-28/09: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 December 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Austria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 28 EC and 29 EC — Free movement of goods — Measures having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions on imports and exports — Transport — Directives 96/62/EC and 1999/30/EC — Sectoral traffic prohibition for lorries of over 7,5 tonnes carrying certain goods — Air quality — Protection of health and the environment — Principle of proportionality — Consistency)

text:
               18.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 49/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 December 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-28/09) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Articles 28 EC and 29 EC - Free movement of goods - Measures having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions on imports and exports - Transport - Directives 96/62/EC and 1999/30/EC - Sectoral traffic prohibition for lorries of over 7,5 tonnes carrying certain goods - Air quality - Protection of health and the environment - Principle of proportionality - Consistency)
   2012/C 49/03
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Oliver, A. Alcover San Pedro and B. Schima, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: E. Riedl, G. Eberhard and C. Ranacher, acting as Agents, and L. Schmutzhard and J. Thudium)

      Intervening parties in support of the applicant: Italian Republic (represented initially by I. Bruni and subsequently by G. Palmieri, acting as Agents, and G. De Bellis, avvocato dello Stato), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels, Y. de Vries and M. Noort, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 28 EC and 29 EC — Prohibition against driving lorries with a total weight of more than 7.5 tonnes, loaded with certain goods, on a section of the A12 ‘Inntalautobahn’ motorway — Justification of that prohibition under Article 30 EC and the Community legislation relating to ambient air quality

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by prohibiting lorries of over 7.5 tonnes carrying certain goods from using a section of the A 12 motorway in the Inn valley (Austria), the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 28 EC and 29 EC;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Italian Republic and the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 69, 21.3.2009.


title: Case T-376/13: Judgment of the General Court of 4 June 2015 — Versorgungswerk der Zahnärztekammer Schleswig-Holstein v ECB (Access to documents — Decision 2004/258/EC — Exchange agreement of 15 February 2012 among Greece and the ECB and the Eurosystem national central banks — Annexes A and B — Partial refusal of access — Public interest — Monetary policy of the European Union and a Member State — Financial situation of the ECB and the Eurosystem national central banks — Stability of the financial system in the European Union)

text:
               20.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 236/34

         Judgment of the General Court of 4 June 2015 — Versorgungswerk der Zahnärztekammer Schleswig-Holstein v ECB
   (Case T-376/13) (1)

   ((Access to documents - Decision 2004/258/EC - Exchange agreement of 15 February 2012 among Greece and the ECB and the Eurosystem national central banks - Annexes A and B - Partial refusal of access - Public interest - Monetary policy of the European Union and a Member State - Financial situation of the ECB and the Eurosystem national central banks - Stability of the financial system in the European Union))
   (2015/C 236/45)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Versorgungswerk der Zahnärztekammer Schleswig-Holstein (Kiel, Germany) (represented by: O. Hoepner and D. Unrau, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: A. Sáinz de Vicuña Barroso, S. Lambrinoc and K. Laurinavičius, acting as Agents, and H.-G. Kamann and P. Gey lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision of the ECB of 22 May 2013, partially refusing to grant the applicant access to Annexes A and B to the ‘Exchange Agreement dated 15 February 2012 among the Hellenic Republic and the European Central Bank and the Eurosystem NCBs listed herein’.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Versorgungswerk der Zahnärztekammer Schleswig-Holstein to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.


title: Case C-351/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Lazio (Italy) lodged on 30 July 2007 — CEPAV DUE — Consorzio, ENI per L'Alta Velocità, Consorzio COCIV, Consorzio IRICAV DUE v Office of the President of the Council of Ministers, Ministry of Transport and Others

text:
               20.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Lazio (Italy) lodged on 30 July 2007 — CEPAV DUE — Consorzio, ENI per L'Alta Velocità, Consorzio COCIV, Consorzio IRICAV DUE v Office of the President of the Council of Ministers, Ministry of Transport and Others
   (Case C-351/07)
   (2007/C 247/09)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Lazio
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: CEPAV DUE — Consorzio ENI per l'Alta Velocità, Consorzio COCIV, Consorzio IRICAV DUE

      Defendants: Office of the President of the Council of Ministers, Ministry of Transport and Others
   Question referred
   Does Article 12 of Decree-Law No 7 of 31 January 2007, converted, after amendment, into Article 13 of Law No 40 of 2 April 2007, in so far as it directs that the concessions relating to construction of the high-speed rail links mentioned in it are to be revoked, in such a way that the effects of that revocation extend to the agreements entered into with the general contractors, and in so far as it limits the compensation available to the general contractors under paragraph 8q, conflict with Articles 43 EC, 49 EC and 56 EC and with the Community principles concerning legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations, as indicated in the grounds set out in paragraph 5 [of the order for reference]?


title: Case F-22/05 RENV: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 23 September 2009 — Neophytou v Commission (Civil service — Referral back to the Tribunal after setting aside — Open competition — Not included on the reserve list — Selection board — Appointment)

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/63

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 23 September 2009 — Neophytou v Commission
   (Case F-22/05 RENV) (1)

   (Civil service - Referral back to the Tribunal after setting aside - Open competition - Not included on the reserve list - Selection board - Appointment)
   2009/C 282/118
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Neophytos Neophytou (Itzig, Luxembourg) (represented by: S.A. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and H. Krämer, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision of the selection board for open competition EPSO/A/1/03 for the constitution of a reserve list of assistant administrators (A8) having Cypriot citizenship not to include the applicant’s name on the reserve list of successful candidates — Case T-43/07 P referred back after appeal)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Neophytou to bear half of his own costs relating to the proceedings before the Tribunal and the Court of First Instance;

               3.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay, in addition to all its own costs relating to the proceedings before the Tribunal and the Court of First Instance, half of the costs incurred by Mr Neophytou relating to those proceeding.

      (1)  OJ C 155, 25.6.2005, p. 29.


title: Case C-314/05 P: Appeal brought on  10 August 2005  by Creative Technology Ltd against the judgment delivered on  25 May 2005  by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-352/02 between Creative Technology Ltd and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) being José Vila Ortiz

text:
               26.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/12

         Appeal brought on 10 August 2005 by Creative Technology Ltd against the judgment delivered on 25 May 2005 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-352/02 between Creative Technology Ltd and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) being José Vila Ortiz
   (Case C-314/05 P)
   (2005/C 296/23)
   Language of the case: English
   An appeal against the judgment delivered on 25 May 2005 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-352/02 (1) between Creative Technology Ltd and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) being José Vila Ortiz, was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 10 August 2005 by Creative Technology Ltd, established in Singapore (Singapore), represented by Stephen Jones and Paul Rawlinson, Solicitors.
   The Appellant claims that the Court should:

               i)

               Set aside the judgment

               ii)

               Set aside the Decision of the Board of Appeal

               iii)

               Annul decision of the Opposition Division No 145/2001 be annulled

               iv)

               Allow the Applicant's Trade Mark to proceed to registration

               v)

               Order that the Opponent pays to the Applicant/Appellant the costs incurred by the Applicant/Appellant in connection with this appeal and the appeal before the CFI, the Board of Appeal and the opposition before the Opposition Division.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The Appellant submits that the Community Trade Mark Application for the word PC WORKS is not confusingly similar to the earlier Spanish trade mark for the figurative mark that includes the words W WORK PRO. It is submitted that the Opposition Division, the Fourth Board of Appeal and the Court of First Instance erred in their respective analysis of the global appreciation of the marks in question and in particular the undue weight given to the WORK element present in both marks.
   It is further submitted that the Opposition Division, the Fourth Board of Appeal and the Court of First Instance failed to recognise that the goods in question are not casual purchases but bought by consumers after careful consideration and in particular that they failed to appreciate the proper characteristics of the reasonably well-informed and observant and circumspect member of the relevant public in that such a member of the relevant public in this case would not buy those goods without close examination.
   Accordingly, it was wrong of the Court of First Instance to uphold the decisions of the Opposition Division and the Fourth Board of Appeal and reject the application in its entirety.
   Hence, it is submitted that this appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division, the Fourth Board of Appeal and the Court of First Instance ought to be allowed, and the decisions of the Opposition Division, the Fourth Board of Appeal and the Court of First Instance ought to be annulled in their entirety. The Applicant/Appellant also seeks costs in these appeal proceedings and the proceedings before the Opposition Division, the Fourth Board of Appeal and the Court of First Instance.

      (1)  OJ C182, 23.07.05, p. 35


title: Case T-216/06: Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2011 — Lucite International and Lucite International UK v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for methacrylates — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Fines — Gravity of the infringement — Attenuating circumstances — Non-implementation in practice of the offending agreements or practices)

text:
               22.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/32

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2011 — Lucite International and Lucite International UK v Commission
   (Case T-216/06) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for methacrylates - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Fines - Gravity of the infringement - Attenuating circumstances - Non-implementation in practice of the offending agreements or practices)
   2011/C 311/55
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Lucite International Ltd (Southampton, United Kingdom); and Lucite International UK Ltd (Darwen, United Kingdom) (represented by: R. Thompson QC, S. Rose and A. Chandler, Solicitors)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by V. Bottka, F. Amato and I. Chatzigiannis, and subsequently by V. Bottka, I. Chatzigiannis and F. Arbault, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for a reduction in the fine imposed on the applicants under Article 2(d) of Commission Decision C(2006) 2098 final of 31 May 2006 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.645 — Methacrylates).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Dismisses the Commission’s request for withdrawal of immunity;

               3.

               Orders Lucite International Ltd and Lucite International UK Ltd to bear 90 % of their own costs and to pay 90 % of the costs incurred by the Commission;

               4.

               Orders the Commission to bear 10 % of its own costs and to pay 10 % of the costs incurred by Lucite International and Lucite International UK.

      (1)  OJ C 237, 30.9.2006.


title: Case C-107/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands), lodged on 29 February 2012 — Staat der Nederlanden v Delta NV

text:
               26.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/16

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands), lodged on 29 February 2012 — Staat der Nederlanden v Delta NV
   (Case C-107/12)
   2012/C 151/28
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Staat der Nederlanden

      Respondent: Delta NV

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 345 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that the ‘rules in Member States governing the system of property ownership’ also include the rule in respect of the absolute ban on privatisation which is at issue in the present case, as set out in the Besluit aandelen netbeheerders (Decree on shares in system operators), in conjunction with Article 93 of the Elektriciteitswet 1998 (1998 Law on electricity) and Article 85 of the Gaswet (Law on gas), under which shares in a system operator can be transferred only within the circle of public authorities?

               2.

               If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, does this then have the effect that the rules relating to the free movement of capital are not applicable to the group ban, or at least that a review of the group ban in the light of the rules relating to the free movement of capital is not required?

               3.

               Are the objectives which also form the basis of the Won (Wet onafhankelijk netbeheer) (Law on independent network operation), that is to say, to achieve transparency in the energy market and to prevent distortions of competition by opposing cross-subsidisation in the broad sense (including strategic information exchange), purely economic interests, or can they also be regarded as interests of a non-economic nature, in the sense that in certain circumstances, as compelling reasons in the general interest, they may constitute a justification for a restriction of the free movement of capital?


title: Action brought on 8 October 1996 by Christiane Chvatal and Others against the Court of Justice of the European Communities (Case T-154/96)

text:
23 . 11 . 96         EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 354/33
Action brought on 2 October 1996 by Union Carbide                  The applicant claims that the Commission manifestly
Corporation against the Commission of the European                 erred :
                         Communities
                                                                   — in failing in its duty to enforce the conditions upon
                      ( Case T-153/96 )
                                                                       which the Decision 94/81 1 /EC was approved and which
                        ( 96/C 354/64 )                                it sought to waive,
                                                                   — in failing in its duty to make a determination in light of
              (Language of the case: English)                          the evidence presented by the applicant that the
                                                                       conditions attached to Decision 94/8 1 1 /EC had not been
                                                                       met, and was therefore precluded from waiving such
An action against the Commission of the European                       conditions,
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 2 October 1996             — in its determination that Montell does not hold a
by Union Carbide Corporation, represented by Brian                     position of dominance within the meaning of Article 2
Hartnett, of the Irish Bar, with an address for service in             ( 3 ) of the Merger Regulation on the worldwide market
Luxembourg at the chambers of Arendt & Medernach,                      for PP technology, and
Postal box 39 ,
                                                                  — in its determination that Montell does not hold a
                                                                       position of dominance within the meaning of Article 2
The applicant claims that the Court should :                           ( 3 ) of the Merger Regulation on the Western European
                                                                       market for PP resin .
— annul, in whole or in part, Commission Decision C/96
    1035 Final — Shell/Montecatini , and                          The applicant further submits that the Commission lacks
                                                                  competence to amend decisions under the Merger
— order the Commission to pay the costs , disbursements            Regulation and that therefore Decision C/96 1035 Final is
                                                                   ultra vires .
    and fees of the applicant pursuant to Article 87 of the
    Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance of the
    European Communities .                                         Finally, the applicant maintains that the Commission
                                                                  Decision is flawed in that it is in breach of essential
                                                                  procedural requirements .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant, an undertaking which operates in a wide
range of markets, including the licensing, via a joint venture
with Shell Oil, of its Unipol PP technology, challenges
Commission Decision C/96 1035 Final . This decision
                                                                  Action brought on 8 October 1996 by Christiane Chvatal
purports to amend Commission Decision 94/81 1 /EC                 and Others against the Court of Justice of the European
declaring the compatibility with the common market of the                                    Communities
transaction giving rise to Montell, a joint venture between
Shell Petroleum NV (' Shell '), a member of the Royal Dutch                               ( Case T-154/96 )
Shell Group, and Montedison Nederland NV                                                    ( 96/C 354/65 )
(' Montedison '), a subsidiary of Montecatini , in the
polyolefins business, including technology and production                           (Language of the case: French)
facilities for polypropylene ('PP') and other organic
chemicals of the polyolefins group ( Case No IV/M.269 ).
Decision 94/81 1 /EC is the subject of an action for an           An action against the Court of Justice of the European
annulment brought by the applicant pursuant to the fourth          Communities was brought before the Court of First
paragraph of Article 173 of the EC Treaty and Article 43 et       Instance of the European Communities on 8 October 1996
seq of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance      by Christiane Chvatal, Jean-Yves Delaval, Jean Demaeght,
of the European Communities ( Case T-322/94 Union                 Giovanna Dragoni, John Hambly, Marc Kemmerling
Carbide v. Commission , OJ No C 380 , 31 . 12 . 1994 ,            Laleure, Kirsten Lammar, Theo Lippert, Antoinette Losch,
p. 17 ).                                                          Angus Mackay, Kaj Østergaard, Maureen Russell , Yvette
                                                                  Schroeder-Goerens, Ulrike Sinter, Aristides Vlachos and
                                                                  Hans Weller, all residing in Luxembourg, represented by
Decision C/96 1035 Final of 24 April 1996 purports to
                                                                  Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel , of
remove the conditions and obligations which the
Commission had attached to Decision 94/81 1 /EC . The
                                                                  the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                  at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson, Sari , 30 Rue de
Commission held that, in the light of the divestiture of the
                                                                  Cessange .
Shell Oil assets relating to the UCC/Shell Oil licensing
business and their acquisition by UCC, the technology
commitment described in paragraph 116 of Decision                 The applicants claim that the Court of First Instance
94/81 1 /EC was no longer necessary and that therefore the        should :
concentration between Shell and Montedison could be
declared compatible with the common market without the            — declare Council Regulation No 2688/95 of
need for any conditions or obligations attached to it.                 17 November 1995 to be unlawful inasmuch as its scope
 ---pagebreak--- No C 354/34            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   23 . 11 . 96
    is confined exclusively to officials of the European               Action brought on 9 October 1996 by Stadt Mainz against
    Communities who are in the service of the European                        the Commission of the European Communities
    Parliament, and, consequently,                                                             Case T-155/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 354/66 )
— annul the decision of the Court of Justice rejecting the
    applicants ' request that their names be entered on the list
    of persons having manifested their interest in being the                         (Language of the case: German)
    subject of a decision terminating their services as a result
    of the accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden,
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities was brought before the Court of First
— order the Court of Justice to pay the costs .                        Instance of the European Communities on 9 October 1996
                                                                       by Stadt Mainz ( City of Mainz ), Federal Republic of
                                                                       Germany, represented by Martin Heidenhain, Bernhard
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    Maassen, Cord-Georg Hasselmann and Horst Satzky,
                                                                       Rechtsanwalte, of Messrs Hengeler Mueller Weitzel Wirtz,
The applicants maintain that the decision rejecting their              Berlin, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
requests and, so far as may be necessary, the decision                 chambers of Jean Hoss, of Messrs Hoss & Prussen, 15 Cote
rejecting their complaints are unlawful inasmuch as they               d'Eich .
apply a regulation which is in itself unlawful, namely
Council Regulation No 2688/95 of 17 November 1995
introducing special measures to terminate the service of               The applicant claims that the Court should:
officials of the European Communities . The applicants
consider that Regulation to be unlawful in that it applies             — annul the decision of the European Commission of
solely to officials of the European Communities who are in                  17 July 1996 concerning the grant of State aid by the
the service of the European Parliament.                                    City of Mainz to the property management company
                                                                           Fort Malakoff Mainz GmbH & Co . KG ( State aid No
They consider that this restriction of the scope of the                    C 64/94, ex NN 2/93 ),
Regulation constitutes an infringement of Article 24 of the
Merger Treaty, Article 210 of the EC Treaty, Article C of the          — order the European Commission to pay the costs .
Union Treaty and Article 1 of the Staff Regulations of
Officials, which lay down the principle of the unity of the
Community civil service . It also contravenes the principle of         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
equal treatment of and non-discrimination between officials
in that its result is to treat officials differently even though
they are in the same situation .                                       The applicant contests the decision of the European
                                                                       Commission of 17 July 1996 declaring that the sale to the
                                                                       property management company Fort Malakoff GmbH &
Secondly, the applicants plead infringement of essential               Co . KG, a subsidiary of Siemens AG/Siemens Nixdorf
procedural requirements, and more specifically failure to              Informationssysteme AG, of a piece of property located in
comply with the procedure laid down in Article 10 of the               the City of Mainz at a price below its market value
Staff Regulations and Article 24 of the Merger Treaty for all          constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 92 ( 1 ) of
amendments of the Staff Regulations, in so far as the                  the EC Treaty amounting to DM 4 904 725 . According to
Commission's proposal, on the basis of which the                       the said decision, the aid is unlawful, since it was granted in
Regulation at issue was adopted, was not submitted to the              breach of Article 93 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty. Furthermore, the
Staff Regulations Committee, or to the European                        aid is not compatible with the common market, because it
Parliament, or to the Court of Justice or to the Court of              does not fulfil the criteria governing the exceptions and
Auditors .                                                             exemptions provided for in Article 92 ( 2 ) and ( 3 ).
Thirdly, they plead breach of the duty to state reasons as laid        The applicant submits that, although the decision of the
down in Article 190 of the EC Treaty and point out that the            European Commission is addressed to the Federal Republic
sole argument put forward to justify the contested                     of Germany, it is of direct concern to the City of Mainz, as
restriction in the recitals in the preamble to the Regulation is       the alleged grantor of the aid, since it will be obliged, if the
incorrect .                                                            decision were upheld, to reclaim the aid allegedly
                                                                       granted .
Lastly, they consider that the Regulation in question is the
result of a deliberate intention to favour one institution to          The applicant further contends that the agreed sale price
the detriment of the others and of the interests of the service,       falls within the price margin applying to comparable
which constitutes a misuse of powers .                                 properties with comparable characteristics situated in
                                                                       comparable locations, as established, moreover, by an
                                                                       independent committee of experts . Consequently, the
                                                                       applicant clearly cannot be said to have granted State aid to
                                                                       Fort Malakoff. The agreements concluded between the


title: Case C-341/17 P: Appeal brought on 6 June 2017 by the Hellenic Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 30 March 2017 in Case T-112/15, Hellenic Republic v European Commission

text:
               31.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/21

         Appeal brought on 6 June 2017 by the Hellenic Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 30 March 2017 in Case T-112/15, Hellenic Republic v European Commission

   (Case C-341/17 P)
   (2017/C 249/33)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Appellant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: G. Kanellopoulos, A. Vasilopoulou and E. Leftheriotou)

      Other party to proceedings: European Commission

      Re:

   The appellant asks the Court to uphold its claims that the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 30 March 2017 in Case Τ-112/15 should be set aside in so far as that judgment dismissed its action, to uphold the action brought on 2 March 2015 by the Hellenic Republic, to annul the decision of the European Commission 2014/950/ΕU of 19 December 2014 in so far as that decision excludes from European Union financing expenditure incurred by the Hellenic Republic in respect of area aid for the claim year 2008 and which corresponds to: (a) 10 % of the whole amount of expenditure incurred for pasture-related aid, (b) 5 % of the whole amount of expenditure incurred for additional coupled aid and (c) 5 % of the whole amount of the expenditure incurred in respect of rural development, and to order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on 6 grounds:

               A.

               With respect to that part of the judgment under appeal which is concerned with the first plea in law relating to the 10 % financial correction in relation to area aid for pastures (paragraphs 23-106 of the judgment under appeal) three grounds of appeal are relied on.
               The first ground of appeal is based on the misinterpretation and misapplication of the provision of Article 2 of Commission Regulation (ΕC) No 796/2004 of 21 April 2004 on the definition of pasture, on the misinterpretation and misapplication of the provisions of Article 296 TFEU and on the insufficient and erroneous statement of reasons in the judgment under appeal.
               The second ground of appeal is based on the misinterpretation and misapplication of the provisions of Article 296 TFEU, and an insufficient statement of reasons, with respect to the ruling in the judgment under appeal, whereby the claims of the Hellenic Republic in relation to the lawfulness of the statement of reasons in the Commission decision were rejected.
               Further, by means of the third ground of appeal it is claimed that the judgment under appeal infringed the principle of proportionality in conjunction with misinterpretation and misapplication of the provisions of Article 296 TFEU and an insufficient statement of reasons.

               B.

               With respect to that part of the judgment under appeal which concerns the second plea in law of the action in relation to the 5 % financial correction in the sector of additional coupled area aid (paragraphs 107-137 of the judgment under appeal), two grounds of appeal are relied on. The first (the fourth ground of appeal) is based on the misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 31 of Regulation 1290/2005 and of Article 11 of Regulation 885/2006, and the erroneous, insufficient and contradictory statement of reasons in the judgment under appeal, while, by the second of the two, it is claimed that the relevant ruling of the judgment under appeal depends on a misapplication of the principle of proportionality in conjunction with the misinterpretation and misapplication of the provisions of Article 296 TFEU and an insufficient and contradictory statement of reasons.

               C.

               Last, with respect to that part of the judgment under appeal which concerns the third plea in law of the action in relation to the 5 % financial correction in the sector of rural development (paragraphs 138-168 of the judgment under appeal) it is claimed (the sixth ground of appeal) that the judgment under appeal, in so far as the claims of the Hellenic Republic were partly dismissed, is marked by a complete absence of reasons.


title: Case T-107/10: Action brought on 3 March 2010 — Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Cologne v OHIM — Natura Cosméticos (NATURAVIVA)

text:
               22.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/38

         Action brought on 3 March 2010 — Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Cologne v OHIM — Natura Cosméticos (NATURAVIVA)
   (Case T-107/10)
   2010/C 134/66
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Cologne GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: K. Sandberg, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Natura Cosméticos, SA (Itapecerica da Serra, Brazil)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 23 November 2009 in case R 1558/2008-2;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings; and

               —

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

      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 ‘NATURAVIVA’, for goods and services in classes 3, 5 and 44

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

      Mark or sign cited: German trade mark registrations of the mark ‘VIVA’, for goods in class 3; Community trade mark registration of the mark ‘VIVA’, for goods in class 3

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the Community trade mark application in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Upheld the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal wrongly found that there was no likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 December 2003 in Case T-56/99: Marlines SA v Commission of the European Communities (Competition Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) — Price fixing — Proof of participation in a cartel — Duration — Error of assessment of the facts)

text:
C 71/20                 EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                          20.3.2004
                                                        COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 11 December 2003
                      of 11 December 2003
                                                                          in Case T-59/99: Ventouris Group Enterprises SA v
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities (1)
in Case T-56/99: Marlines SA v Commission of the
                   European Communities (1)
                                                                          (Competition Regulation (EEC) No 4056/86 — Investi-
                                                                          gations carried out at company premises other than those of
                                                                          the company to which the investigation decision is addressed
(Competition Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now
                                                                          Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) —
Article 81(1) EC) — Price fixing — Proof of participation in
                                                                          Price-fixing — Proof of infringement Error of assessment
   a cartel — Duration — Error of assessment of the facts)
                                                                          of the facts — Fines — Proportionality — Mitigating
                                                                                circumstances)
                          (2004/C 71/34)
                                                                                (2004/C 71/35)
                    (Language of the case: Greek)                                             (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                          In Case T-59/99, Ventouris Group Enterprises SA, established
                                                                          in Panama (Panama), represented by M. Proestou, M. Velma-
In Case T-56/99, Marlines SA, established in Monrovia (Libe-              chou and E. Kinini, lawyers, with an address for service in
ria), represented by D.G. Papatheofanous, lawyer, with an                 Luxembourg, v Commission of the European Communities
address for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of the                    (Agents: R. Lyal, Triantafyllou and A. Oikonomou): Appli-
European Communities (Agents: Triantafyllou and R. Lyal):                 cation for annulment of Commission Decision 1999/271/EC
Application for annulment of Commission Decision 1999/                    of 9 December 1998 relating to a proceeding pursuant to
271/EC of 9 December 1998 relating to a proceeding pursuant               Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/34.466 Greek Ferries) (OJ 1999
to Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/34.466 Greek Ferries) (OJ              L 109, p. 24), the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber),
1999 L 109, p. 24), the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber),          composed of: P. Lindh, President, R. García-Valdecasas and
composed of: J.D. Cooke, President, R. García-Valdecasas and              J.D. Cooke, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar,
P. Lindh, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar,          has given a judgment on 11 December 2003, in which it:
has given a judgment on 11 December 2003, in which it:
                                                                          1.    Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Ventouris Group
                                                                                Enterprises SA at EUR 252 500;
1.    Dismisses the action;
                                                                          2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;
2.    Orders Marlines SA to bear its own costs and those incurred by
      the Commission, including both parties’ costs in the interlocu-     3.    Orders Ventouris Group Enterprises SA to bear its own costs
      tory proceedings.                                                         and to pay three quarters of the Commission’s costs, including
                                                                                its costs of the interlocutory proceedings, and orders the
                                                                                Commission to bear one quarter of its own costs.
(1) OJ C 136 of 15.5.1999.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 136 of 15.5.1999.


title: Case F-2/15: Action brought on 8 January 2015 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               23.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/25

         Action brought on 8 January 2015 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-2/15)
   (2015/C 096/31)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: A. Véghely, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision refusing the applicant an installation allowance and a daily subsistence allowance and application to order the Commission to pay those allowances with interest.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Commission’s decision of 4 March 2014 insofar as it refuses to grant him the installation allowance and daily subsistence allowance provided for in Article 5(1) and Article 10(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations;

               —

               order the Commission to pay him the installation allowance and daily subsistence allowance on taking up his appointment, together with interest from the dates on which those amounts became payable pursuant to Annex VII to the Staff Regulations; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-177/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Harz Guss Zorge v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate — Action for annulment — Application to amend the form of order sought — No new information — Inadmissibility)

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/54

         Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Harz Guss Zorge v Commission
   (Case T-177/14) (1)

   ((State aid - Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings - Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU - Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate - Action for annulment - Application to amend the form of order sought - No new information - Inadmissibility))
   (2015/C 294/65)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Harz Guss Zorge GmbH (Zorge, Germany) (represented by: H. Höfler, C. Kahle and V. Winkler, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and by C. Renner, lawyer)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: EFTA Surveillance Authority (represented by: initially X. Lewis, M. Schneider and A. Steinarsdóttir, then X. Lewis, M. Schneider, M. Moustakali and C. Perrin, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application to annul in part Commission decision C (2013) 4424 final of 18 December 2013 to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU regarding measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users (State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN)).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.

               2.

               The application seeking that the form of order sought in the present action be amended to cover Commission decision C (2014) 8786 final of 25 November 2014 relating to State Aid SA. 33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users is rejected as inadmissible.

               3.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications for intervention submitted by Flachglas Torgau GmbH and Saint-Gobain Isover G+H AG, by Kronotex GmbH & Co. KG and Kronoply GmbH, by Bayer MaterialScience AG, by Sabic Polyolefine GmbH, by Ineos Manufacturing Deutschland GmbH, Ineos Phenol GmbH and Ineos Vinyls Deutschland GmbH, and by Advansa GmbH, Akzo Nobel Industrial Chemicals GmbH, Aurubis AG, CBW Chemie GmbH, CFB Chemische Fabrik Brunsbüttel GmbH & Co. KG, Clariant Produkte (Deutschland) GmbH, Dralon GmbH, Hahl Filaments GmbH, Messer Produktionsgesellschaft mbH Siegen, Messer Produktionsgesellschaft mbH Salzgitter, Nabaltec AG, Siltronic AG and Wacker Chemie AG.

               4.

               Harz Guss Zorge GmbH shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

               5.

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.


title: ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 11 August 1995 in Case T-104/95 R: Tsimentas Chalkidos AE v. Commission of the European Communities

text:
No C 299/22             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                11 . 11 . 95
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case             ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF
T-69/94 : Georgios Rounis v. Commission of the European                                     FIRST INSTANCE
Communities .
                                                                                of 1 1 August 1 995
                                                                             in Case T-l 04/95 R : Tsimentas Chalkidos AE
(') O | No C 90 , 26 . 3 . 1994 .
                                                                              v. Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                ( 95 /C 299/49 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                      In Case T-l 04/95 R : Tsimentas Chalkidos AE, established
         Removal from the register of Joined Cases                    in Athens ( Greece ), represented by Panagiotis Bernitsas, of
                T-61 /95 R and T-62/95 R (M                           the Athens Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                           ( 95/C 299/48 )                            at the Chambers of Philippe Dupont, 8-10 , Rue Mathias
                                                                      Hardt, v. Commission of the European Communities
             (Language of the case: Portuguese)                       ( Agents : Theofanis Christoforou and Richard Lyal ) —
                                                                      application for suspension of operation of Commission
By order of 13 July 1995 the President of the Court of First          Decision 94/815/EC of 30 November 1994 relating to a
Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal              proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty ( Cases
from the register of Joined Cases T-61 /95 R and T-62/95 R :          IV/33 . 126 and 33.322 — Cement, OJ 1994 L 343 , p. 1 ), in
CIMPOR — Cimentos de Portugal , SA and SECIL —                        so far as it requires the applicant to pay a fine of ECU
                                                                       1 856 000 — the President of the Court of First Instance
Companhia Geral de Cal e Cimento , SA v. Commission of
the European Communities .
                                                                      made an order on 11 August 1995 , the operative part of
                                                                      which is as follows :
(') Q J No C 1 37, 3 . 6 . 1995 .                                      1 . the application for interim measures is dismissed;
                                                                      2.   the costs are reserved.


title: Case T-422/15: Action brought on 28 July 2015 — U-R LAB/OHIM (THE DINING EXPERIENCE)

text:
               5.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/15

         Action brought on 28 July 2015 — U-R LAB/OHIM (THE DINING EXPERIENCE)
   (Case T-422/15)
   (2015/C 328/14)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: U-R LAB (Paris, France) (represented by: G. Barbaut, lawyer)

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

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘THE DINING EXPERIENCE’ — Application for registration No 12 587 697

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 May 2015 in Case R 2541/2014-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul and alter the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Removal from the register of Joined Cases C-388/97 and C-389/97

text:
C 48/22               EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                20.2.1999
Removal from the register of Joined Cases C-388/97 and                  Removal from the register of Case C-409/97 (1)
                          C-389/97 (1)                                                    (1999/C 48/44)
                        (1999/C 48/40)
                                                                  By order of 19 November 1998 the Court of Justice of the
By order of 11 November 1998, the President of the                European Communities (First Chamber) has ordered the
Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered the          removal from the register of Case C-409/97: Commission
removal from the register of Joined Cases C-388/97 and            of the European Communities v. Grand Duchy of
C-389/97 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the             Luxembourg.
Conseil d'EÂtat): Fromagerie Philipona SA and Others v.
French Republic.
                                                                  (1) OJ C 41, 7.2.1998.
(1) OJ C 7, 10.1.1998.
                                                                        Removal from the register of Case C-415/97 (1)
      Removal from the register of Case C-253/98 (1)                                      (1999/C 48/45)
                        (1999/C 48/41)
                                                                  By order of 24 November 1998, the President of the
                                                                  Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
By order of 11 November 1998 the Court of Justice of the          removal from the register of Case C-415/97: Commission
European Communities has ordered the removal from the             of the European Communities v. Italian Republic.
register of Case C-253/98: Commission of the European
Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium.
                                                                  (1) OJ C 41, 7.2.1998.
(1) OJ C 278, 5.9.1998.
                                                                        Removal from the register of Case C-167/98 (1)
      Removal from the register of Case C-397/97 (1)                                      (1999/C 48/46)
                        (1999/C 48/42)
                                                                  By order of 2 December 1998 the Court of Justice of the
By order of 13 November 1998 the Court of Justice of the          European Communities has ordered the removal from the
European Communities has ordered the removal from the             register of Case C-167/98 (request for a preliminary ruling
register of Case C-397/97: Commission of the European             from the Oberster Gerichtshof): Westdeutsche Landesbank
Communities v. Italian Republic.                                  Girozentrale v. Johannes Leon.
(1) OJ C 26, 24.1.1998.                                           (1) OJ C 209, 4.7.1998.
      Removal from the register of Case C-274/94 (1)                   Removal from the register of Case C-305/98 P (1)
                        (1999/C 48/43)                                                    (1999/C 48/47)
By order of 17 November 1998 the Court of Justice of the          By order of 7 December 1998 the Court of Justice of the
European Communities has ordered the removal from the             European Communities has ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-274/94: United Kingdom of Great                register of Case 305/98 P: David T. Keeling v. Office for
Britain and Northern Ireland v. Commission of the                 Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
European Communities.                                             Designs).
(1) OJ C 351, 10.12.1994.                                         (1) OJ C 312, 10.10.1998.