title: Opinion 1/12: Request for an opinion submitted by the Commission of the European Communities pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU

text:
               27.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 123/14

         Request for an opinion submitted by the Commission of the European Communities pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU
   (Opinion 1/12)
   2013/C 123/23
   Language of the case: all the official languages

      Applicant

   Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Hermes and H. Krämer, Agents)
   The President of the Court has ordered that Opinion 1/12 be removed from the register.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 29 February 1996 in Case T-547/93: Orlando Lopes v. Court of Justice of the European Communities (Officials - Staff reports - Rejection of candidatures for promotion - Applications for annulment and compensation)

text:
No C 108/8             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       13 . 4 . 96
paragraph of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials          3 , dismisses the application as inadmissible in so far as it
of the European Communities and his complaint, and                         seeks, first, annulment of the memorandum of 30 May
secondly, an order that the Court of Auditors should make                   1991 of the Head of the Portuguese Translation
good the damage which the applicant considers he has                       Division and the memorandum of 31 May 1991 from
suffered as a result first of the disputed decisions and                   the Director of Translation and, secondly,
secondly of the insulting language allegedly used towards                  compensation for the damage allegedly caused by those
him by his immediate superior, the Court of First Instance                 documents;
 ( Third Chamber ), composed of C. P. Briët, President, and
B. Vesterdorf and A. Potocki , Judges ; J. Palacio Gonzalez,          4 . annuls the defendant's decision of 1 6 July 1 993, in so far
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                  as it states that there is no need to give a decision on the
28 February 1 996 in which it :                                            part of complaint Cont. 1 1 /93 -R regarding the
                                                                           applicant's staff report for the period 1991 to 1992 ;
 1 , dismisses the application as inadmissible, in so far as it
     relates to the claim for compensation under the second           5 , dismisses the remainder of the application;
     paragraph of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations;
                                                                      6 . orders the parties to bear their own costs .
2 , dismisses the       remainder     of the application as
     unfounded;                                                       (') OJ No 319 , 26 . 11 . 1993 .
3 , orders the applicant to pay all the costs.
(') OJ No C 316 , 12 . 11 . 1994 .
                                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 29 February 1996
                                                                                in Case T-280/94 : Orlando Lopes v.
                                                                           Court of Justice of the European Communities ( ] )
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                      (Officials — Rejection of candidatures for promotion —
                     of 29 February 1996                             Flexible working hours — Applications for annulment and
in Case T-547/93 : Orlando Lopes v. Court of Justice of                                         compensation)
                the European Communities ( 1 )                                                  ( 96/C 108 / 17 )
(Officials — Staff reports — Rejection of candidatures
for promotion — Applications for annulment and                                         (Language of tbe case: French)
                         compensation)
                          ( 96/C 108/ 16 )                           In Case T-280/94 , Orlando Lopes, an official of the Court
                                                                     of Justice of the European Communities, residing in
                (Language of the case: French)                        Luxembourg, represented by Marc Kleyr, of the
                                                                     Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                     Luxembourg at the latter's Chambers, 17 Rue Louvigny , v .
In Case T-547/93 , Orlando Lopes, an official of the Court
                                                                      Court of Justice of the European Communities ( Agent:
of Justice of the European Communities, residing in
                                                                     Timothy Millett ) — application for annulment of two
Luxembourg, represented initially by Marco Fritsch, and
                                                                     decisions rejecting the applicant's candidatures for
then by Marc Kleyr, both of the Luxembourg Bar, with an
                                                                     promotion and a decision refusing him permission to work
address for service in Luxembourg at the latter's Chambers,
                                                                      flexible hours, and also for compensation for the material
17 Rue Louvigny, v. Court of Justice of the European                 and non-material damage which he considers he has
Communities ( Agent: Timothy Millett ) — application for
                                                                      suffered as a result of the actions of his immediate superiors
annulment of two memoranda concerning the quality of the
                                                                     and the disputed decisions, the Court of First Instance
applicant's work , his staff report for the period 1991 to            ( Third Chamber ), composed of C. P. Briët, acting as
1992 and two decisions rejecting his candidature for
                                                                     President, and C. W. Bellamy and J. Azizi , Judges; H. Jung:
promotion , and for compensation for the material and
                                                                      Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 February 1996 in
non-material damage which he considers he has suffered as a          which it :
result of the actions of his immediate superiors and of the
disputed decisions, the Court of First Instance (Third
Chamber ), composed of C. P. Briët, acting as President,              1 , excludes the document annexed to the defendant's reply
and C. W. Bellamy and J. Azizi , Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,               to the questions asked by the Court from the documents
has given a judgment on 29 February 1996 , in which it:                    before the Court;
                                                                      2 , rejects the defendant's request of 19 January 199S to
1 , excludes Annex I to the reply from the documents                       have a document annexed to the reply in Case T-280/94
     before the Court;                                                     and certain passages relating thereto removed from the
                                                                           documents before the Court;
2 , rejects the application made to the Court on 13 October
     1 994, and excludes the document annexed thereto from            3 , annuls the defendant's decision, communicated to
     the file;                                                             the applicant on 11 February 1994, rejecting his


title: Case T-51/12: Action brought on 8 February 2012 — Scooters India v OHIM — Brandconcern (LAMBRETTA)

text:
               14.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 109/21

         Action brought on 8 February 2012 — Scooters India v OHIM — Brandconcern (LAMBRETTA)
   (Case T-51/12)
   2012/C 109/46
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Scooters India Ltd (Sarojininagar, India) (represented by: B. Brandreth, Barrister)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Brandconcern BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 December 2011 in case R 2312/2010-1, insofar as the applicant’s appeal against the revocation of the mark in respect of its registration for goods in class 12 was dismissed;

               —

               Remit the case back to OHIM with a recommendation by the General Court that it find that the mark has been put to genuine use in relation to goods in class 12, namely ‘scooters, parts and fittings for vehicles and apparatus for locomotion by land’; and

               —

               Order the Defendant to pay the applicant’s costs incurred before the Board of Appeal and the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: The word mark ‘LAMBRETTA’, for goods in classes 3, 12, 14, 18 and 25 — Community trade mark registration No 1495100

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Partially revoked the CTM registration No 1495100

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partially annulled the decision of the Cancellation Division, dismissed the appeal for the remaining goods and dismissed the ancillary appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 50(2) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal incorrectly decided to revoke the CTM for all goods in class 12 despite having held that there was evidence of genuine use of an identifiable sub-category of goods in class 12. Further, it erred in law in not applying the authority in the case of Ansul BV v Ajax Brandbeveiliging (C-40/01) to the effect that use in relation to parts preserves a registration for the goods of which those parts are an integral part.


title: Case T-157/10: Judgment of the General Court of 23 March 2012 — Barilla v OHIM — Brauerei Schlösser (ALIXIR) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of the Community word mark ALIXIR — Earlier national word mark Elixeer — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               5.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 133/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 23 March 2012 — Barilla v OHIM — Brauerei Schlösser (ALIXIR)
   (Case T-157/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for registration of the Community word mark ALIXIR - Earlier national word mark Elixeer - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2012/C 133/45
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Barilla G. e R. Fratelli SpA (Parma, Italy) (represented by: A. Vanzetti, G. Sironi and A. Colmano, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Brauerei Schlösser GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: J. Flick, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 January 2010 (case R 820/2009-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Brauerei Schlösser GmbH and Barilla G. e R. Fratelli SpA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The General Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Barilla G. e R. Fratelli SpA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 148, 5.6.2010.


title: Case C-298/08: Action brought on 3 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/35

         Action brought on 3 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-298/08)
   (2008/C 223/56)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: N. Yerrell and I. Khatzigiannis)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/22/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on minimum conditions for the implementation of Council Regulations (EEC) No 3820/85 and (EEC) No 3821/85 concerning social legislation relating to road transport activities and repealing Council Directive 88/599/EEC, or in any event by not notifying those provisions to the Commission, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The time-limit for transposition of the directive into domestic law expired on 1 April 2007.

      (1)  OJ L 102, 11.4.2006, p. 35.


27.7.2002              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 180/35
Action brought on 7 June 2002 by Giorgio Lebedef against                         Removal from the register of Case T-113/97 (1)
         Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (2002/C 180/61)
                         (Case T-175/02)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                         (2002/C 180/60)
                                                                          By order of 21 February 2002 the President of the First
                    (Language of the case: French)                        Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                          Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                          T-113/97: Pierre Tomarchio v the Court of Auditors of the
                                                                          European Communities.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 7 June 2002 by Giorgio Lebedef,                   (1) OJ C 199 of 28.6.1997.
residing in Senningerberg (Luxembourg), represented by Gilles
Bounéou, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-2/01 (1)
—     annul decision 9567 of 28 February 2002 of the Director
      General of DG ADMIN not to add the applicant’s name                                         (2002/C 180/62)
      to the list of most deserving officials and not to promote
      him to Grade B 1 in the 2000 promotions procedure;                                     (Language of the case: Dutch)
—     make an order as to costs requiring the European
      Commission to pay them.                                             By order of 29 April 2002 the President of the First Chamber
                                                                          of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                          ordered the removal from the register of Case T-2/01: Vereni-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           ging Nederlandse Cementindustrie (VNC) v Commission of the
                                                                          European Communities.
In the present application, the applicant, an official working            (1) OJ C 95 of 24.3.2001.
for the defendant, challenges the appointing authority’s refusal
to promote him to Grade B 1 during the 2000 promotions
procedure.
In support of his claims, he pleads:
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-3/01 (1)
—     Infringement of Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations and
      of the principle of non-discrimination;                                                     (2002/C 180/63)
—     Breach of the rights of the defence;                                                   (Language of the case: Dutch)
—     Disregard in the present case of the obligation to provide
      reasons;                                                            By order of 29 April 2002 the President of the First Chamber
                                                                          of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
—     Breach of the principle that legitimate expectations must           ordered the removal from the register of Case T-3/01: Eerste
      be protected, and of the duty of the administration to              Nederlandse Cement Industrie (ENCI) NV v Commission of the
      have regard for the wellbeing of officials.                         European Communities.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 95 of 24.3.2001.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 July 2005 in Case C-79/05 Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 — Substances that deplete the ozone layer — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/22

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 14 July 2005
   in Case C-79/05 Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 - Substances that deplete the ozone layer - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2005/C 217/42)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case C-79/05: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: U. Wölker and A. Aresu) v Italian Republic (Agent: I.M. Braguglia, assisted by G. Fiengo) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 17 February 2005 — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann and J. Klučka, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 July 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to take, within the prescribed period, all precautionary measures practicable to prevent and minimise leakages of controlled substances as regards, in particular, the obligation to check annually fixed equipment with a refrigerating fluid charge of more than 3 kg for leakages, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 17(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 93 of 16.04.2005.


title: Case F-68/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 12 December 2013 — Lebedef v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Staff report — 2010 appraisal procedure — Application for annulment of staff report — Application for annulment of number of promotion points awarded)

text:
               8.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/28

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 12 December 2013 — Lebedef v Commission
   (Case F-68/12) (1)

   (Civil service - Officials - Staff report - 2010 appraisal procedure - Application for annulment of staff report - Application for annulment of number of promotion points awarded)
   2014/C 39/51
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Giorgio Lebedef (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayer and G. Berscheid, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of promotion points awarded to the applicant and his staff report for the period from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2010.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Lebedef to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 258, 25.8.2012, p. 28.


title: Case C-155/00: Action brought on 26 April 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
C 176/16               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       24.6.2000
Action brought on 26 April 2000 by the Commission of                    Action brought on 27 April 2000 by the Hellenic Republic
  the European Communities against the Italian Republic                   against the Commission of the European Communities
                          (Case C-155/00)                                                         (Case C-157/00)
                          (2000/C 176/27)
                                                                                (2000/C 176/28)
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 April                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,                     ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
represented by Michel Nolin, of its Legal Service, acting as            Communities on 27 April 2000 by the Hellenic Republic
Agent, assisted by Massimo Moretto, of the Venice Bar, with             represented by Vasilios Kontolaimos, Legal Adviser in the State
an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos            Legal Service, Ioannis-Konstantinos Khalkias, Member of that
Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                            Service, and Khrisoula Tsiavou, Legal Agent of that Service,
                                                                        with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Greek
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             Embassy, 117 Val Sainte-Croix.
— declare that, by adopting Law No 21 of the Region of
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
     Lombardy, which allows contracting authorities to grant
     concessions for works without complying with the rules
     on advertising or to award public works contracts, without         — grant the application;
     having first issued a public invitation to tender, to under-
     takings which have submitted projects, the Italian Republic
                                                                        — annul or, in the alternative, amend Commission Decision
     has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive
                                                                             C(2000) 488 Final/1.3.2000 excluding from Community
     93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination
                                                                             financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member
     of procedures for the award of public works contracts (1),
                                                                             States under the Guarantee Section of the European
     in particular Articles 3 and 7 thereof;
                                                                             Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF),
                                                                             which has been published in the Official Journal of the
— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                               European Communities as Decision No 2000/216/EC (OJ
                                                                             2000 L 67, p. 37), so far as concerns the chapters thereof
                                                                             specifically contested, relating to financial corrections to
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              the detriment of the Hellenic Republic.
Article 32 of the Regional Law allows contracting authorities
(a) to grant concessions for works the value of which is equal
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
to or greater than ECU 5 000 000 without complying with
the rules on advertising and (b) to award public works
contracts the amount of which is equal to or greater than the           — Incorrect interpretation and application of Article 5 of
threshold indicated above without first publishing an invitation             Regulation No 2221/95, in the alternative incorrect assess-
to tender, alternatively by means of a negotiated procedure, in              ment of the facts.
circumstances different from those exceptional cases implicitly
enumerated by the directive. The correctness of such an
                                                                        — Infringement of Article 5(2)(c) of Regulation No 729/70
interpretation is demonstrated by the way in which Article 32
                                                                             and overstepping by the Commission of the limits of its
has been applied by the Municipality of Monza in the context
                                                                             discretion.
of a procedure for the construction of a plant for the disposal
of solid urban waste.
                                                                        — No legal basis for imposing the financial correction at issue
                                                                             and infringement of the principle of legal certainty.
Moreover, even if it were to be held that the Municipality of
Monza had misinterpreted and misapplied Article 32 in the
belief that that article permitted derogations from the normal          — With regard to the undertaking not to replant: misinterpret-
rules on advertising, that in itself shows, according to the                 ation of Article 2(1)(a) of Regulation No 2505/95 and
Commission, that the wording of Article 32 does not satisfy the              Articles 3 and 4(3) of Regulation No 2684/95.
requirements of clarity, unambiguousness and legal certainty
imposed on the Member States by virtue of the settled case-
                                                                        — With regard to the failure to record the date on the
law of the Court with regard to the transposition of directives.
                                                                             certificates: misinterpretation of Article 4 of Regulation No
                                                                             2684/95 — incorrect assessment of the facts.
(1) OJ L 199 of 9 August 1993, p. 54.
                                                                        — With regard to the failure to give advance notice of
                                                                             the date of grubbing-up operations: misinterpretation of
                                                                             Article 5 of Regulation No 2684/95.


title: Case C-275/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — GfBk Gesellschaft für Börsenkommunikation mbH v Finanzamt Bayreuth (Taxation — Value added tax — Directive 77/388/EEC — Exemption of the management of special investment funds — Scope)

text:
               27.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 123/3

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — GfBk Gesellschaft für Börsenkommunikation mbH v Finanzamt Bayreuth
   (Case C-275/11) (1)

   (Taxation - Value added tax - Directive 77/388/EEC - Exemption of the management of special investment funds - Scope)
   2013/C 123/04
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: GfBk Gesellschaft für Börsenkommunikation mbH

      Defendant: Finanzamt Bayreuth

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Article 13B(d)(6) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC 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 the management of special investment funds — Scope

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 13B(d)(6) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC 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 must be interpreted as meaning that advisory services concerning investment in transferable securities, provided by a third party to an investment management company which is the manager of a special investment fund, fall within the concept of ‘management of special investment funds’ for the purposes of the exemption laid down in that provision, even if the third party has not acted on the basis of a mandate within the meaning of Article 5g of Council Directive 85/611/EEC of 20 December 1985 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) as amended by Directive 2001/107/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 January 2002.

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.


title: Case T-145/16: Order of the General Court of 3 April 2017 — Corsini Santolaria v EUIPO — Molins Tura (biombo 13)

text:
               6.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/33

         Order of the General Court of 3 April 2017 — Corsini Santolaria v EUIPO — Molins Tura (biombo 13)
   (Case T-145/16) (1)

   (2017/C 178/50)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 222, 20.6.2016.


C 357/26                 EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 22 . 11 . 97
        Removal from the register of Case C-362/96 (')                         Removal from the register of Case C-57/97 (')
                            ( 97/C 357/47)                                                           ( 97/C 357/48 )
By order of 24 September 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-362/96 : Commission                By order of 24 September 1997, the President of the Court
of the European Communities v. Grand Duchy of                          of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Luxembourg.                                                            removal from the register of Case C-57/97: Commission of
                                                                       the European Communities v. French Republic.
(») OJ C 9 , 11 . 1 . 1997.
                                                                       (') OJ C 108 , 5 . 4 . 1997.
                                                      COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              3.   orders the Commission to bear its own costs.
                        of 25 September 1997
                                                                       (■) OJ C 76 , 12 . 3 . 1994 .
in Case T-170/94: Shanghai Bicycle Corporation ( Group )
             v. Council of the European Union (')
(Dumping — State-trading country — Like product —
Individual treatment — Calculation of the dumping
                                margin)
                            ( 97/C 357/49 )
                                                                            ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 18 July 1997
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                       in Case T-44/96: Oleifici Italiani SpA v. Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (')
In Case T-170/94: Shanghai Bicycle Corporation ( Group ),
established in Shanghai (People's Republic of China ),                 (Tendering procedure for the free supply of olive oil to the
represented by Izzet M. Sinan, Barrister, with an address              people of Georgia and Armenia — Damage alleged by the
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt and                successful tenderer as a result of a delay in the collection
Medernach, 8—10 Rue Mathias Hardt, against Council of                  of the olive oil by the carrier designated by the
the European Union ( Agents: Bjarne Hoff-Nielsen, Jorge                Commission — Action for annulment of the Commission 's
Monteiro, Hans-Jürgen Rabe and Georg M. Berrisch ),                    refusal to grant compensation — Action to establish non-
supported by Commission of the European Communities                    contractual liability — Contractual origin of the
( Agents : Eric White and Nicolas Khan ) and The European              Commission 's obligation on which the action to establish
Bicycle Manufacturers' Association ( EBMA ), established               liability is based — Absence of any arbitration clause
in Paris, represented by Jacques H. J. Bourgeois, of the               within the meaning of Article 181 of the EC Treaty —
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at             Clear lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Court of First
the Chambers of Marc Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe —                                                            Instance)
application for annulment of Council Regulation ( EEC )                                              ( 97/C 357/50 )
No 2474/93 of 8 September 1993 imposing a definitive
anti-dumping duty on imports into the Community of
bicycles originating in the People's Republic of China and                               (Language of the case: Italian)
collecting definitively the provisional anti-dumping duty
( OJ L 228 , 9 . 9 . 1993 , p. 1 ) — the Court of First Instance
( Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition ), composed of: R.
                                                                       In Case T-44/96, Oleifici Italiani SpA, established at
García-Valdecasas, President, V. Tiili , J. Azizi, R. M.
                                                                       Ostuni, Italy, represented by Antonio Tizzano and Gian
Moura Ramos and M. Jaeger, Judges; A. Mair,
                                                                       Michele Roberti, both of the " Naples Bar, 36 Place du
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                       Grand Sablon, Brussels, against Commission of the
25 September 1997, in which it:                                        European Communities ( Agents: Eugenio de March and
                                                                       Alberto Dal Farro ) — application under Articles 178 and
1 . dismisses the application;                                         173 of the EC Treaty for compensation for the damage
                                                                       alleged to have been suffered by the applicant as a result
                                                                       of the delay in collection by the carrier designated by the
2 . orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay              Commission of the olive oil made available by the
      those of the defendant and the intervener EBMA;                  applicant under a tendering procedure for the free supply


title: Case T-557/15 P: Appeal brought on 16 September 2015 by Fernando De Esteban Alonso against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 15 July 2015 in Case F-35/15, De Esteban Alonso v Commission

text:
               9.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/44

         Appeal brought on 16 September 2015 by Fernando De Esteban Alonso against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 15 July 2015 in Case F-35/15, De Esteban Alonso v Commission
   (Case T-557/15 P)
   (2015/C 371/45)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Fernando De Esteban Alonso (Saint-Martin-de-Seignanx, France) (represented by: C. Huglo, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside order F-35/15 of 15 July 2015, by which the President of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal dismissed his application;

               —

               set aside the decision of the Appointing Authority of 21 November 2014, received on 3 December 2014, rejecting Complaint No R/865/14 brought by the appellant on 5 August 2014;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the sum of EUR 17  242,51, adjusted to the sum of EUR 24  242,51 on the date of the appeal;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the sum of EUR 3  000 in respect of the non-recoverable costs, to be adjusted if necessary, and to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a denial of justice, in that the Civil Service Tribunal (‘the CST’) gave its decision by means of an order, without permitting a fresh exchange of pleadings or a public hearing.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of audi alteram partem and of the rights of defence, in that the CST gave its decision by means of an order, without permitting a fresh exchange of pleadings or a public hearing.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging an error of law, in that the CST added a new condition to the conditions laid down for institutional assistance by Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.


title: Case T-707/14: Action brought on 2 October 2014 — Grundig Multimedia v OHIM (DetergentOptimiser)

text:
               17.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 409/62

         Action brought on 2 October 2014 — Grundig Multimedia v OHIM (DetergentOptimiser)
   (Case T-707/14)
   2014/C 409/83
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Grundig Multimedia AG (Stansstad, Switzerland) (represented by: S. Walter and M. Neuner, lawyers)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 July 2014 given in Case R 172/2014-1;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings, including those incurred before the Office.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘DetergentOptimiser’ for goods in Class 7 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 9 49  559

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejected the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) in conjunction Article 7(2) of Regulation No. 207/2009


title: Case F-130/07: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 16 September 2009 — Vinci v European Central Bank (Staff case — Staff of the ECB — Allegedly unlawful treatment of medical data — Medical visit imposed)

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/73

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 16 September 2009 — Vinci v European Central Bank
   (Case F-130/07) (1)

   (Staff case - Staff of the ECB - Allegedly unlawful treatment of medical data - Medical visit imposed)
   2010/C 24/134
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Vinci (Schöneck, Germany) (represented by: B. Karthaus, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: F. Malfrère and F. Feyerbacher, Agents, assisted by H.-G. Kamann)

      Re:

   Application for a declaration that the registration of documents containing medical data is unlawful and for annulment of the decision of the ECB refusing, firstly, to erase the personal data derived from those documents, and secondly, ordering the applicant to have a medical examination, and an application for compensation for the non-material damage allegedly suffered.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 8, 12.1.2008, p. 32.


title: Case C-14/12 P: Appeal brought on 11 January 2012 by Sheilesh Shah, Akhil Shah against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 10 November 2011 in Case T-313/10: Three-N-Products Private Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               10.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/23

         Appeal brought on 11 January 2012 by Sheilesh Shah, Akhil Shah against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 10 November 2011 in Case T-313/10: Three-N-Products Private Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-14/12 P)
   2012/C 73/39
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Sheilesh Shah, Akhil Shah (represented by: M. Chapple, Barrister)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Three-N-Products Private Ltd.

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court should order that:

               —

               the Judgment be annulled;

               —

               the Decision be affirmed;

               —

               the CTM Application be allowed to proceed to registration.

               —

               the Respondent pays to the Appellants the costs incurred by the Appellants in connection with this Appeal, the hearing before the General Court and the Decision.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Appellants respectfully submit that the General Court erred as a matter of law in the following respects:

               The General Court wrongly decided that there was no likelihood of confusion between the trade mark in suit and the two earlier registered trade marks upon which the Respondent relies (one a word mark of AYUR and the other figurative mark containing the word AYUR), given the weak distinctive character of the earlier marks and the low overall similarity between the signs at issue;

               In particular the General Court wrongly decided that although the letters U and I added respectively in the middle and at the end of the word AYUR, give difference to the trade mark in suit, such difference is ‘not such as to attract the attention of the consumer’;

               Also in particular the General court wrongly decided that there were no significant and substantial visual, phonetic and conceptual differences between the signs at issue.


title: Case F-108/12: Action brought on 28 September 2012 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               8.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 379/34

         Action brought on 28 September 2012 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-108/12)
   2012/C 379/56
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal and S. Orlandi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision concerning the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights into the European Union pension scheme, which decision applies the new GIP relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 9 December 2011 concerning the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights under Article 11(2) and (3) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations into the European Union pension scheme;

               —

               In so far as necessary, annul the decision rejecting his claim of 20 June 2012 made against the decision of 9 December 2011;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Judgment of the Court of 14 December 2011 in Case E-3/11 — Pálmi Sigmarsson v the Central Bank of Iceland (Free movement of capital — Article 43 EEA — National restrictions on capital movements — Jurisdiction — Proportionality — Legal certainty)

text:
               27.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 291/15

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 14 December 2011
   in Case E-3/11
   Pálmi Sigmarsson v the Central Bank of Iceland
   (Free movement of capital — Article 43 EEA — National restrictions on capital movements — Jurisdiction — Proportionality — Legal certainty)
   2012/C 291/06
   In Case E-3/11, Pálmi Sigmarsson v the Central Bank of Iceland — REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavik District Court), concerning the interpretation of Article 43 of the EEA Agreement, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Benedikt Bogason (ad hoc), Judges, gave judgment on 14 December 2011, the operative part of which is as follows:
   A national measure which prevents inbound transfer into Iceland of Icelandic krónur purchased on the offshore market, is compatible with Article 43(2) and (4) of the EEA Agreement in circumstances such as those in the case before the referring court.


title: Case F-88/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 15 December 2015 — Bonazzi v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Promotion exercise 2014 — General implementing provisions for Article 45 of the Staff Regulations — List of officials proposed for promotion by the Directorates-General and the services — Omission of the applicant’s name — Whether the list of officials proposed for promotion may be challenged before the Joint Promotion Committee — Failure to define a position by the Joint Promotion Committee — Consideration of comparative merits made by the appointing authority alone)

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/97

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 15 December 2015 — Bonazzi v Commission
   (Case F-88/15) (1)

   ((Civil service - Officials - Promotion exercise 2014 - General implementing provisions for Article 45 of the Staff Regulations - List of officials proposed for promotion by the Directorates-General and the services - Omission of the applicant’s name - Whether the list of officials proposed for promotion may be challenged before the Joint Promotion Committee - Failure to define a position by the Joint Promotion Committee - Consideration of comparative merits made by the appointing authority alone))
   (2016/C 048/111)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Matteo Bonazzi (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Beradis-Kayser and G. Berscheid, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of the decision not to promote the applicant to the next grade (AD 12) in the European Commission’s promotion exercise 2014 and the claim for damages for the non-material damage allegedly suffered.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Declares that Mr Bonazzi shall bear his own costs and orders him to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 279, 24. 8.2015, p. 61.


title: Case C-441/08: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 November 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Republic of Poland)) — Elektrownia Pątnów II sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Poznaniu (Indirect taxes on the raising of capital — Loans taken up by a capital company before the accession of the Member State to the European Union — Liability to capital duty under national legislation — Conversion of the loans into shares after accession of the Member State to the European Union — Capital duty payable on that transaction increasing the capital — Immediate application of the new rules)

text:
               16.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 11/4

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 November 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Republic of Poland)) — Elektrownia Pątnów II sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Poznaniu
   (Case C-441/08) (1)

   (Indirect taxes on the raising of capital - Loans taken up by a capital company before the accession of the Member State to the European Union - Liability to capital duty under national legislation - Conversion of the loans into shares after accession of the Member State to the European Union - Capital duty payable on that transaction increasing the capital - Immediate application of the new rules)
   2010/C 11/06
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Elektrownia Pątnów II sp. z o.o.

      Respondent: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Poznaniu

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) — Interpretation of Article 4(1)(c), the second indent of Article 5(3) and Article 10 of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412) — Loans taken up by a capital company and subjected to capital duty under national legislation before the Member State’s accession to the European Union — Imposition of capital duty on an increase in capital resulting from the conversion of the loans into shares in the company after the Member State’s accession to the European Union

      Operative part of the judgment

   The second indent of Article 5(3) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, requires that, in determining the amount of capital duty chargeable on an increase in a company’s capital arising from the conversion into shares — following the Republic of Poland’s accession to the European Union — of loans taken up by that company prior to that accession, account be taken of the previous taxation of those loans on the basis of the national law in force at the material time.

      (1)  OJ C 327, 20.12.2008.


title: Case T-344/03: Action brought on 2 October 2003 by SAIWA S.p.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
C 304/32               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                      13.12.2003
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                Pleas in law and main arguments
—     set aside the decision of the First Board of Appeal of
      OHIM of 9 July 2003 in Case R 0576/2002-1;                           Applicant for Com-            Barilla Alimentare S.p.A.
                                                                           munity trade mark:
—     refuse to register as a Community mark No 488.940
      DAVID LLOYD in Class 25, and                                         Community trade mark          Figurative mark including the
                                                                           sought:                       words ‘SELEZIONE ORO’ and
                                                                                ‘BARILLA’ — Application No
—     order the other party or parties to pay the costs.                                                 289.405 for products in Class
                                                                                30 (pasta, flour and preparations
                                                                                made from cereals, bread, pastry
                                                                                and confectionery, yeast, baking-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                          powder, sauces).
                                                                           Proprietor of mark or         The applicant.
The pleas in law and main arguments are those already put                  sign cited in the oppo-
forward in Case T-341/03 El Corte Inglés v OHIM.                           sition proceedings:
                                                                           Mark or sign cited in         Word marks ‘ORO’ (Italian trade
The Community trade mark which is the subject of the dispute               opposition:                   mark No 307376 and inter-
is the mark ‘DAVID LLOYD’ (Application No 488.940, for                                                   national trade mark No 435773)
goods in Classes 3, 5, 25, 28, 36, 41 and 42). The applicant,                                            and ‘ORO SAIWA’ (Italian trade
the marks cited in the opposition proceedings, the proprietor                                            mark No 332.864) for products
and the decisions of the Opposition Division and the Board of                                            in Class 30.
Appeal are identical to those referred to in that case.
                                                                           Decision of the Oppo-         Opposition refused.
                                                                           sition Division:
                                                                           Decision of the Board of      Appeal dismissed.
                                                                           Appeal:
                                                                           Pleas in law:                 Incorrect application of Article
Action brought on 2 October 2003 by SAIWA S.p.A.                                                         8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                                                     94 (likelihood of confusion).
         Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
                         (Case T-344/03)
                         (2003/C 304/59)
                   (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                           Action brought on 30 October 2003 by Frischpack GmbH
                                                                           & Co KG against the Office for Harmonisation in the
                                                                                Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before                                         (Case T-360/03)
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
2 October 2003 by SAIWA S.p.A., represented by Giuseppe
Sena, Paola Tarchini, Jean-Pierre Karsenty and Martine Karsen-                                     (2003/C 304/60)
ty-Ricard, lawyers. Barilla Alimentare S.p.A. was also a party
to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of                  An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
      OHIM of 18 July 2003 in Case R 480/2002-4; order that                Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
      registration be refused in respect of Barilla’s Community            Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
      trade mark application No 289405; order the defendant                30 October 2003 by Frischpack GmbH & Co KG, Mailling
      to pay all the costs.                                                (Germany), represented by P. Bornemann, lawyer.


title: Case T-500/15: Order of the General Court of 28 March 2017 — LG Electronics v EUIPO — Cyrus Wellness Consulting (VIEWTY PRO) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the application for registration — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               6.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/18

         Order of the General Court of 28 March 2017 — LG Electronics v EUIPO — Cyrus Wellness Consulting (VIEWTY PRO)
   (Case T-500/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the application for registration - No need to adjudicate))
   (2017/C 178/23)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Cyrus Wellness Consulting GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: A. Wulff and U. Hildebrandt, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 June 2015 (Case R 1940/2014-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Cyrus Wellness Consulting GmbH and LG Electronics, Inc.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               LG Electronics, Inc., is ordered to bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Cyrus Wellness Consulting GmbH.

      (1)  OJ C 354, 26.10.2015.


title: Case C-344/99: Action brought on 17 September 1999 by the Italian Republic against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 333/18                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                     20.11.1999
     legislation and to prosecute any offenders, both for 1988              The applicant claims that the Court should:
     and 1990. The authorities did not institute any proceedings
     against those who continued to fish after the prohibition
     was imposed, even though that measure was particularly                 (a) annul the following decisions adopted on 1 July 1999 by
     belated.                                                                   the Commission of the European Communities:
(1) OJ L 24 of 27.1.1983, p. 1.                                                 — Decision 1999/503/EC (notified under document
(2) OJ L 207 of 29.7.1987, p. 1.                                                     number C(1999) 1771) (1), inasmuch as it establishes a
                                                                                population ceiling of 7 402 000 inhabitants for Italy
                                                                                under Objective 2 of the Structural Funds for the
                                                                                period 2000 to 2006;
                                                                                — Decision 1999/504/EC (notified under document
                                                                                number C(1999) 1772) (2), inasmuch as it fixes at
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione                                2 145 million euro (at 1999 prices) the indicative
Tributaria di Primo Grado di Trento, Sezione No 6 by                                 allocation for Italy of the commitment appropriations
order of that court of 13 May 1999 in the case of Tumedei                            for Objective 2 of the Structural Funds for the pe-
SpA against Centro di Servizio delle Imposte Dirette e                               riod 2000 to 2006;
                        Indirette di Trento
                          (Case C-336/99)                                   (b) order the defendant to pay the costs.
                          (1999/C 333/38)
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Commissione Tribu-
taria di Primo Grado di Trento, Sezione No 6 (Tax Court of                  1. Decision 1999/503/EC does not indicate the method used
First Instance, Trento, Sixth Chamber) of 13 May 1999,                          by the Commission to determine the population ceiling. It
received at the Court Registry on 10 September 1999, for a                      is not possible, therefore, to ascertain the logical/legal
preliminary ruling in the case of Tumedei SpA v Centro di                       process which prompted the Commission to determine, in
Servizio delle Imposte Dirette e Indirette di Trento on the                     relation to Italy, the population ceiling of
following question:                                                             7 402 000 inhabitants, or to check that, when determining
                                                                                the population ceilings, the Commission took into account
Is it compatible with Community law, and in particular with                     the matters laid down in Article 4(2)(a), (b) and (c) of
Directive 69/335/EEC (1), to tax over a period of years at the                  Council Regulation No 1260/99 (3).
rate of 0,75% per annum pursuant to Decree-Law
No 394/1992 of 30 September 1992 that part of the net assets                    The alleged total failure to provide reasons renders
consisting solely of a company’s capital disclosed annually by                  Decision 1999/503 null and void, at least as regards the
the balance sheet which has already borne the initial tax on                    contested part thereof, which concerns the determination
contributions of 1%?                                                            of the population ceiling for Italy.
(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412.
                                                                            2. In the alternative, it must be concluded that the criterion
                                                                                which the Commission claims to have adopted in order to
                                                                                determine, in relation to Italy, the population ceiling of
                                                                                7 402 000 inhabitants is unlawful, in that it is ultra vires
                                                                                and based on misuse of powers, erroneous assumptions
                                                                                and distortion of the facts.
Action brought on 17 September 1999 by the Italian
Republic against the Commission of the European Com-                        3. As a result of the unlawful determination in
                              munities                                          Decision 1999/503 of the population ceiling for Italy,
                                                                                Decision 1999/504/EC is also unlawful in so far as the
                                                                                latter decision fixes the indicative allocation for Italy in the
                          (Case C-344/99)                                       sum of 2 145 million euro.
                          (1999/C 333/39)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                   (1) OJ L 194 of 27.7.1999, p. 58.
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                (2) OJ L 194 of 27.7.1999, p. 60.
Communities on 17 September 1999 by the Italian Republic,                   (3) OJ L 161 of 26.6.1999, p. 1.
represented by Umberto Leanza, acting as Agent, assisted by
Ivo M. Braguglia, Avvocato dello Stato, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the Italian Embassy, 5 Rue
Marie-Adélaïde.


title: Case T-264/05: Action brought on 18 July 2005 by The Procter & Gamble Company against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/54

         Action brought on 18 July 2005 by The Procter & Gamble Company against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case T-264/05)
   (2005/C 217/112)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 18 July 2005 by The Procter & Gamble Company, established in Cincinnati, Ohio (USA), represented by G. Kuipers, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 4 May 2005 (Case R 849/2004-1) in so far as it finds that the mark does not satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94;

               —

               order the OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               Community trade mark concerned:

               The three dimensional mark consisting of a square white tablet showing a green four petalled floral design for goods in class 3 (Washing and bleaching preparations and other substances for laundry use; preparations for the washing cleaning and care of dishes; soaps;...) — application No 1 684 059

               Decision of the examiner:

               Refusal of the application

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Dismissal of the appeal

               Pleas in law:

               Violation of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94.


title: Case C-25/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 17 January 2011 — Varzim Sol — Turismo, Jogo e Animação, SA v Fazenda Pública

text:
               2.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 17 January 2011 — Varzim Sol — Turismo, Jogo e Animação, SA v Fazenda Pública
   (Case C-25/11)
   2011/C 103/25
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Varzim Sol — Turismo, Jogo e Animação, SA

      Defendant: Fazenda Pública

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 23 of the CIVA compatible with Article 17(2) and (5) and Article 19 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1) of 17 May 1977?

               2.

               If so, is the establishment of a specific deductible proportion of the value added tax paid by taxable persons carrying out taxable transactions only, albeit by actual use, based on non-taxable subsidies to that sector (‘inputs’), under Article 23, compatible with Article 17(2) and (5) and Article 19 of that Directive?

      (1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC 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).


title: Case T-696/13: Action brought on 30 December 2013 — Meta Group v European Commission

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/44

         Action brought on 30 December 2013 — Meta Group v European Commission
   (Case T-696/13)
   2014/C 52/84
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Meta Group Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: A. Bartolini, V. Colcelli and A. Formica, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare that the reductions made by the European Commission on the subsidies granted to META S.r.l are unlawful;

               —

               And, consequently, order the Commission to pay the applicant the additional amount of EUR 129 153,11, together with default interest;

               —

               Order the administration to compensate the applicant for the consequential loss suffered by it.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   This action is brought against the decisions of the Commission which reduced the grant initially provided for the projects ‘Bcreative’, ‘Take-It-Up’ and ‘Ecolink +’, which grant agreements were concluded between the applicant and the defendant in the context of the ‘Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP) (2007 — 2013)’.
   Several decisions concerning those projects were also contested in Cases T — 471/12, T — 34/13 and T — 35/13, Meta Group v Commission.
   The pleas in law and main arguments set out are identical to those raised in those cases.


title: Case T-545/11: Judgment of the General Court of 8 October 2013 — Stichting Greenpeace Nederland and PAN Europe v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to the first authorisation of the placing on the market of the active substance ‘glyphosate’ — Partial refusal of access — Risk of an adverse effect on the commercial interests of a natural or legal person — Article 4(5) of Regulation No 1049/2001 — Overriding public interest — Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 — Article 6(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006 — Directive 91/414/EEC)

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/54

         Judgment of the General Court of 8 October 2013 — Stichting Greenpeace Nederland and PAN Europe v Commission
   (Case T-545/11) (1)

   (Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to the first authorisation of the placing on the market of the active substance ‘glyphosate’ - Partial refusal of access - Risk of an adverse effect on the commercial interests of a natural or legal person - Article 4(5) of Regulation No 1049/2001 - Overriding public interest - Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Article 6(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006 - Directive 91/414/EEC)
   2013/C 344/95
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Stichting Greenpeace Nederland (Amsterdam, Netherlands) and Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: B. Kloostra and A. van den Biesen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by P. Oliver, P. Ondrůšek and C. ten Dam, and subsequently by P. Oliver, P. Ondrůšek and C. Zadra, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 10 August 2011 refusing access to volume 4 of the Draft Assessment Report issued by the Federal Republic of Germany as rapporteur Member State for the active substance glyphosate under Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the Commission’s decision of 10 August 2011 refusing access to volume 4 of the Draft Assessment Report issued by the Federal Republic of Germany as rapporteur Member State for the active substance glyphosate under Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market inasmuch as it refuses access to the parts of that volume containing information relating to emissions into the environment: the ‘identity’ and quantity of all of the impurities in the active substance notified by each operator, set out in part C.1.2.1 of the first sub-document (pp. 11 to 61), in part C.1.2.1 of the second sub-document (pp. 1 to 6) and in part C.1.2.1 of the third sub-document (pp. 4 and 8 to 13); the impurities present in the various batches and the minimum, median and maximum quantities of each of those impurities, set out, for each operator, in the table included in part C.1.2.2 of the first sub-document (pp. 61 to 84) and in part C.1.2.4 of the third sub-document (p. 7); and the composition of the plant protection products developed by the operators, set out in part C.1.3, entitled ‘Detailed specification of the preparations’, of the first sub-document (pp. 84 to 88) of that volume;

               2.

               Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 355, 3.12.2011.


title: Case C-446/00 P: Appeal brought on 1 December 2000 by P.-J. Cubero-Vermurie against the judgment delivered on 3 October 2000 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-187/98 between P.-J. Cubero-Vermurie and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 45/10                  EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      10.2.2001
     —      The allocation of the reduction of the ecopoints             Appeal brought on 1 December 2000 by P.-J. Cubero-
            over several years carried out in Article 1 of the           Vermurie against the judgment delivered on 3 October
            contested regulation (‘stretching model’) and the            2000 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance
            general introduction of the stretching model by              of the European Communities in Case T-187/98 between
            Article 2(1) of the contested regulation are, in their       P.-J. Cubero-Vermurie and the Commission of the Euro-
            content, in clear contradiction of the primary law                                    pean Communities
            rules in Protocol No 9.
                                                                                (Case C-446/00 P)
            The legal view clearly underlying the contested
            regulation, namely that ‘absolute priority’ is to be
            given to the free movement of goods and the                                              (2001/C 45/20)
            internal market, as opposed to other provisions and
            policies of primary law, is not shared by the Republic
            of Austria. Even the functioning of the internal             An appeal against the judgment delivered on 3 October 2000
            market is to be ensured only in compliance with the          by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
            requirements of environmental protection. It would           European Communities in Case T-187/98 between
            also have been possible to avoid detriment to the            P.-J. Cubero-Vermurie and the Commission of the European
            internal market with the use of measures less                Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
            restrictive of the implementation of Protocol No 9.          European Communities on 1 December 2000 by P.-J. Cubero-
                                                                         Vermurie, represented by E. Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with
                                                                         an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
     —      The reduction in ecopoint quotas carried out by the          L. Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim.
            contested regulation takes account only of a (pure)
            causation principle and fails to take due account
            also of the solidarity principle and the principle of        The appellant claims that the Court should:
            proportionality. Moreover, the use of the traffic
            volume figures in the — arbitrarily chosen — years
            1995 to 1997, in which the 108 % limit was not               (1) declare the appeal admissible and well founded;
            exceeded, for comparison with figures for 1999, so
            as to determine the ‘main perpetrator’ of the                (2) consequently:
            exceeding of that limit, lacks all foundation in
            (primary) law and leads to a disproportionate result.
                                                                               (a)   set aside the contested judgment;
—    (In the alternative) Legal infringements and insufficient
     statement of reasons when applying the calculation                        (b) itself determine the case and, upholding the appel-
     method in accordance with paragraph 3 of Annex 5 to                             lant’s initial claim:
     Protocol No 9 to the 1994 Act of Accession: The system
     underlying the contested regulation is, in view of the
                                                                                —     annul the appointing authority’s decision of
     extraordinary reduction in the number of ecopoints,
                                                                                6 April 1998 not to promote the appellant to
     wrongly based on the exclusion, or failure to take account
                                                                                grade A 5 in the context of the 1998 promotion
     of, ‘illegal’ transit journeys without payment of ecopoints.
                                                                                procedure;
     There is no legal basis for that in Protocol No 9. An
     interpretation of the calculation method laid down in
     paragraph 3 of Annex 5 that corresponds to the declared                         —     annul the decision of 9 October 1998 expressly
     aims of Protocol No 9 can only be one which allows the                                rejecting the complaint against the decision
     damage to the environment and to health arising from                                  annulment of which is sought, that complaint
     ‘illegal’ journeys also to be included in the calculation.                            having been submitted by the appellant on
                                                                                27 April 1998 and registered in the Secretariat-
                                                                                General on 6 May 1998 under number
—    (In the alternative) Infringement of the EC Treaty and/or                             R/436/98;
     Protocol No 9 to the 1994 Act of Accession on account
     of insufficient legal basis.
                                                                                —     order the Commission of the European Com-
                                                                                munities to pay to the appellant compensation
                                                                                for the combined material and non-material
                                                                                damage suffered by him, fixed on an equitable
(1) OJ No L 241, 26.9.2000, p. 18.                                                         basis in the sum of BEF 250 000;
(2) OJ No L 341, 30.12.1994, p. 20.
                                                                                —     order the Commission of the European Com-
                                                                                munities to pay all the costs in any event, both
                                                                                of the first-instance proceedings and of the
                                                                                present appeal.
 ---pagebreak--- 10.2.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 45/11
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
—     Infringement of Community law, in particular Article 33
      of the Statute of the Court of Justice:                            The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
                                                                         advanced in Case C-443/00 (2).
      —     error of law and inconsistency in the grounds of the
            contested judgment, inasmuch as the Court of First
            Instance declared inadmissible the head of claim             (1) OJ L 281 of 23.11.1995, p. 31.
                                                                         (2) See p. 8 of this Official Journal.
            alleging infringement of the third and fourth para-
            graphs of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations;
      —     inconsistency in the grounds of the contested judge-
            ment and error of lax, inasmuch as the contested
            judgment does not accept that the Commission
            committed a manifest error of assessment;
      —     inconsistency in the grounds of the contested judge-
            ment and error of law, inasmuch as the Court of              Action brought on 6 December 2000 by the Commission
            First Instance held that the appellant had not               of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy
            established any manifest error of assessment in the                                     of Luxembourg
            context of the comparison of his merits with those
            of other officials, more particularly Mr G;                                             (Case C-450/00)
      —     error of law and inconsistency in the grounds of the
            contested judgement, inasmuch as the Court of First                                      (2001/C 45/22)
            Instance decided that there had been no breach of
            the principles of equal treatment and fairness in the
                                                                         An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
            present case.
                                                                         brought before the Court of Justice on 6 December 2000 by
                                                                         the Commission of the European Communities, represented
                                                                         by Xavier Lewis, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an
                                                                         address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                                                                         Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
                                                                         Kirchberg.
Action brought on 6 December 2000 by the Commission
                                                                         The Commission of the European Communities claims that
of the European Communities against the French Republic
                                                                         the Court should:
                         (Case C-449/00)                                 (1) declare that, by failing to bring into force within the
                                                                               prescribed time-limit the laws, regulations and adminis-
                          (2001/C 45/21)                                       trative measures, including provisions imposing penalties,
                                                                               which are necessary in order to comply with Directive
An action against the French Republic was brought before the                   95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
Court of Justice on 6 December 2000 by the Commission of                       of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with
the European Communities, represented by Xavier Lewis, of                      regard to the processing of personal data and on the
its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service                free movement of such data (1), the Grand Duchy of
in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its                Luxembourg has failed to comply with its obligations
Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                       under Article 32 of that directive;
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                   (2) order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
the Court should:
(1) declare that, by failing to bring into force within the              Pleas in law and main arguments
      prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative
      measures, including provisions imposing penalties, which
      are necessary in order to comply with Directive 95/46/EC           The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
      of the European Parliament and of the Council of                   advanced in Case C-443/00 (2).
      24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with
      regard to the processing of personal data and on the free
      movement of such data (1), the French Republic has failed          (1) OJ L 281 of 23.11.1995, p. 31.
      to comply with its obligations under Article 32 of that            (2) See p. 8 of this Official Journal.
      directive;
(2) order the French Republic to pay the costs.


title: Case F-71/12: Action brought on 5th July 2012 — BZ v ECB

text:
               20.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/17

         Action brought on 5th July 2012 — BZ v ECB
   (Case F-71/12)
   2012/C 319/31
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: BZ (represented by: N. Lhöest, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Central Bank

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of the decision of the ECB rejecting the Applicant’s request for recognition of the occupational origin of her illness.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the ECB dated 25 April 2012 rejecting the Applicant’s requests submitted on 28 June 2011 and in the following review letters of 24 October 2011 and of 20 February 2012;

               —

               by consequence, give the Appellant the benefit of her requests as stated in her request and review letters, notably a proper investigation is to be conducted and a proper report drafted so as to list all facts related to her working situation that are useful for producing a doctor’s assessment;

               —

               order ECB to communicate to the Appellant all data collected and stored by DG-H on her medical situation and medical procedures, included the data collected so far (included the response to the questionnaire in a non anonymised form as well as the other data collected (e.g. the notes of the interviews organized by DG-H to be provided in a non-anonymous form) as well as future data, which may be collected in the scope of the new procedure. Should this data contain medical information, the data can be sent to her doctor);

               —

               order ECB to pay the appellant the sum of 50 000 euro for the unreasonable delay in the conduct of the procedure;

               —

               order ECB to pay the appellant the sum of 5 000 euro for the legal fees for handling the illegal medical procedures;

               —

               order ECB to pay the appellant the sum of 50 000 euro for the moral damages created by the illegalities and the additional unnecessary burden for the occupational procedure and the disability procedure;

               —

               order ECB to pay the appellant the sum of 25 000 euro for attempt to the appellant’s reputation and good name and the illegal attempt to terminate her contract;

               —

               order ECB to pay the Appellant the difference between her disability allowance and her full salary since January 2009;

               —

               order ECB to pay the Appellant the sum of 100 000 euro for the loss of career perspective;

               —

               order ECB to pay the loss of salary increase on a basis of 7 salary steps increase per year (3.5 %) since 2009;

               —

               order ECB to pay the appellant 100 % reimbursement of medical costs sustained since 2006 in relation to her sickness;

               —

               order ECB to pay the appellant the default interest at a rate of 8 % of the amount awarded;

               —

               order ECB to pay all costs.


title: Case T-357/04: Action brought on 31 August 2004 by Marguerite Chetcuti against Commission of the European Communities

text:
               20.11.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 284/21

         Action brought on 31 August 2004 by Marguerite Chetcuti against Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-357/04)
   (2004/C 284/43)
   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 31 August 2004 by Marguerite Chetcuti, residing in Zejtun (Malta), represented by Marc-Albert Lucas, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare unlawful point III of competition notice COM/P A/04 of 6 April 2004;

               —

               Annul the decision of 22 June 2004 of the competition selection board rejecting her candidature in reliance on that provision;

               —

               Annul the subsequent acts of the competition procedure, which are unlawful as a consequence of the unlawfulness of the competition notice and of the contested decision, in particular:

                           —

                           the list adopted by the selection board of candidates meeting the conditions fixed by the notice of competition,

                           —

                           the Commission decision determining on that basis the number of posts to be filled,

                           —

                           the list of suitable candidates adopted by the selection board on completion of its task, and

                           —

                           the appointment decisions taken by the appointing authority on that basis;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   In support of the form of order sought, the applicant claims that the notice of competition infringes Articles 4, 27 and 29(1)(b) of the Staff Regulations and also the principle of equal treatment in that excludes members of the auxiliary staff from the competition. She also claims that the notice infringes Articles 27 and 29 of the Staff Regulations and is contrary to the interests of the service and the principle of equal treatment on the ground that it requires a period of service as an official, temporary servant or member of the temporary staff and thus excludes local staff, like the applicant.


title: Case T-170/04: Action brought on 18 May 2004 by FederDOC and Others against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               10.7.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/15

         Action brought on 18 May 2004 by FederDOC and Others against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-170/04)
   (2004/C 179/29)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 18 May 2004 by FederDOC – National Confederation of voluntary associations for the protection of designations of origin and typical geographical indications of Italian and other wines, represented by Luciano Spagnuolo Vigorita, Paolo Tanoni and Roberto Gandin, lawyers.
   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 316/2004 of 20 February 2004 (OJ 2004 L 55, p. 16) amending Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 laying down certain rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 as regards the description, designation, presentation and protection of certain wine sector products.

               —

               In the alternative, annul in whole or in part, Article 1(3), (8a), (9a), (9b), (10) and (18) of Regulation No 316/2004 and, consequently, Annex II thereto.

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas and main arguments
   The present action is directed against Commission Regulation (EC) No 316/2004 of 20 February 2004 amending Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 laying down certain rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 as regards the description, designation, presentation and protection of certain wine sector products (1).
   Essentially, the applicants point to the real danger that implementation of the contested regulation could result in a degree of liberalisation, in favour of third-country producers, as regards the use of the following traditional indications which distinguish specific Italian wines known throughout the world: Amarone, Cannellino, Brunello, Est!Est!Est!, Falerno, Governo all'uso toscano, Gutturnio, Lacryma Christi, Lambiccato, Morellino, Recioto, Sciacchetrà, Sciac-trà, Sforzato (or Sfurzat), Torcolato, Vergine, Vino Nobile, Vin santo (or Vino Santo or Vinsanto). That would prejudice the position which has, by dint of their efforts, been achieved by the producers of the Member States in the wine market (producers bound by observance of strict parameters as to quantity and quality) and, above all, would result in unacceptable damage to consumer confidence. Third-country producers would not in fact be required to observe the relevant production parameters and could ultimately place in circulation within the Community products without the oenological and organoloptic qualities which the wines in question must possess.
   Under national legislation all the applicants are legitimately entitled to secure the use of the abovementioned traditional indications or, at any rate, to use them.
   In support of their claims the applicants consider, in particular, that the Commission has exceeded the competences conferred on it and adopted the contested regulation without an adequate statement of reasons and without first obtaining the opinion of the Management Committee for wine established under Regulation No 1493/1999 or seeking the views of the applicants themselves.
   The applicants further consider that certain provisions of the contested regulation contravene important principles undermining the EC Treaty such as those in the sector of agriculture, of competition, consumer protection, equal treatment, proportionality, acquired rights and legal certainty. Specific provisions of Regulation No 1493/1999 (Articles 47, 48 and 49) are then also infringed by the contested regulation which also runs counter to Articles 23(3) and 24(4) of the Marrakesh Trips Agreement of 15 April 1994 (Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights) to which the Community is a party.
   The applicants also claim that the contested regulation contravenes the obligation to provide a statement of the reasons on which it is based.

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 55, p. 16.