title: Case C-40/00: Action brought on 11 February 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
C 149/16              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      27.5.2000
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         — The Court was wrong to dismiss the claim for damages
                                                                            solely on the ground that the Commission’s conduct could
                                                                            not constitute a wrongful act entailing the liability of
                                                                            the Community because the claims for annulment were
                                                                            dismissed and because the Commission is not obliged by
— Breach of essential procedural requirements and funda-                    Article 3 of Regulation No 17 to take a decision as to
    mental rights: the requirements of the right to a fair                  whether the alleged infringement took place or not. That
    hearing, respect for the rights of the defence and the need             argument is, moreover, unrelated to the dismissal of the
    to observe the audi alteram partem rule, preclude the                   application for interim measures, which of course does not
    prohibition of the production, after the hearing and before             require a decision first to be taken as to whether the alleged
    the judgment, of a document furnished voluntarily by a                  infringement took place as a finding that it is based on
    party for the debate and discussed before the Court. There              ‘substantial’‘well-documented’ evidence, as in the present
    can be no fair hearing if the court fails to consider a                 case, is sufficient, as acknowledged by the Commission
    document provided freely for the purposes of the debate                 whose opinion is corroborated by the document put
    by a party (a fortiori where the party is one of the                    forward ‘in error’ and then withdrawn with the authoris-
    institutions), on the pretext that that document, on reflec-            ation of the Court.
    tion, would be embarrassing for the party producing it.
    The plea alleging that the time taken to deal with the
    complaint and conclude the proceedings was unreasonable
    must (not may) be raised by the Court of its own motion,
    contrary to what the Court of First Instance suggests, as it
    is always what is considered to be a breach of a fundamen-
    tal right whether with regard to the administrative or the
    judicial procedure. In the present case, a period of two
    years must be considered unreasonable for the preliminary
    examination as it far exceeds the period of reflection              Action brought on 11 February 2000 by the Commission
    necessary and a period of five and a half years is equally          of the European Communities against the French Republic
    unreasonable for the proceedings.
                                                                                (Case C-40/00)
— Manifest error regarding the probative force of the evidence                                  (2000/C 149/26)
    produced by the complainant.
                                                                        An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                        Court of Justice of the European Communities on 11 February
— Manifest error in the assessment that there is insufficient           2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
    Community interest and that there is a discretion to refrain        represented by Enrico Traversa, Legal Adviser, and Christophe
    from ordering the cessation of serious infringements on             Giolito, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address
    the pretext of establishing priorities: the Court made an           for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
    error of assessment of fact and law in taking the view              Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
    that the Commission was entitled not to pursue the
    infringements committed by PSA and to choose to deal
    instead with the Volkswagen file. As regards the centre of          The applicant claims that the Court should:
    gravity for the infringement, it cannot be limited to France,
    given that pressure is put on foreign dealers in other
    Member States and that the infringement is committed
    primarily at that level, thus outside France, so that,              — declare that by reintroducing from 1 January 1998 a total
    because of the cross-border nature of the infringement the              prohibition on the right to deduct VAT on gas oil used as
    Commission was best-placed to deal with the file and make               fuel for vehicles on the purchase of which no VAT is
    the investigations pursuant inter alia to Article 5 of the EC           deductible after having introduced a partial right to deduct
    Treaty.                                                                 several times the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
                                                                            obligations under Article 17(2) of the Sixth Council
                                                                            Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmon-
                                                                            ization of the laws of the Member States relating to
                                                                            turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:
— Manifest error as regards interim measures: if the Court                  uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1);
    upholds the above pleas it cannot but uphold the plea
    alleging that there was an error in refusing to order interim
    measures.                                                           — order the French Republic to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 27.5.2000             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 149/17
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
The Commission considers that France exhausted its right to             — Unlawfulness of the Commission’s examination of the
decide on deductible expenditure on 1 July 1982, that is to say             application for access to documents: the Court made
on the day it introduced a partial right to deduct VAT on gas               an incomplete and therefore unlawful appraisal of the
oil used as fuel (Law 82-540 of 28 June 1982). Since then                   appellant’s submissions. It considered neither its arguments
France has been outside the scope of Article 17(6) of Directive             concerning ‘forfeiture’ of the right to cite certain grounds
77/388/EEC and the transactions in question are now covered                 nor the argument that the Commission’s renewed refusal
by the general rule contained in Article 17(2). Accordingly the             was based on an incomplete legal appraisal of the grounds
French authorities are no longer empowered to lay down                      for refusal under consideration. Finally, the Court failed
specific conditions limiting the right to deduct under Article              entirely to address the fact that the Commission’s tactic of
17(2).                                                                      citing only one ground for refusal each time frustrates the
                                                                            subjective right to access to documents and gives rise to
                                                                            an unacceptable gap in legal protection.
                                                                        — Invalidity of the authorship rule by reason of breach of a
                                                                            higher-ranking principle of law, in the alternative
                                                                            erroneous interpretation and application in law and breach
                                                                            of the requirement to state reasons:
Appeal brought on 11 February 2000 by Interporc Im-                         — Because of geographical distance, linguistic and other
und Export GmbH against the judgment delivered on                                ‘technical’ problems — such as unfamiliarity with
7 December 1999 by the Court of First Instance of                                the allocation of the relevant responsibilities and
the European Communities (First Chamber, Extended                                procedures in third countries it is hardly ever possible
Composition) in Case T-92/98 brought by Interporc Im-                            for an individual to request access to and inspect
und Export GmbH against Commission of the European                               documents within the time period prescribed. The
                         Communities                                             Commission cannot evade its ‘constitutional’ duty to
                                                                                provide access to documents in its possession, simply
                                                                                by referring an applicant to the author of the docu-
                        (Case C-41/00 P)                                         ments, if the legal and technical requirements for the
                                                                                effective assertion of the right to access to documents
                                                                                are not thereby fulfilled. This is so a fortiori if the
                        (2000/C 149/27)                                          documents at issue are closely connected with the
                                                                                implementation of Community law, as here with the
                                                                                monitoring of a Community quota for the importation
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 7 December                           of Argentinian beef. Contrary to the view of the Court,
1999 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communi-                     the authorship rule breaches a higher-ranking principle
ties (First Chamber, extended composition) in Case T-92/98                       of law, it is incompatible with the requirement for
brought by Interporc Im- und Export GmbH against Com-                            transparency, which is a general principle of law based
mission of the European Communities was brought before the                       on the principle of democracy, and therefore void.
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 11 February
2000 by Interporc Im- und Export GmbH, represented by
Georg M. Berrisch, Rechtsanwalt, Brussels and Hamburg, of
Gaedertz Rechtsanwälte, Avenue de Tervuren 35, B-1040                       — (In the alternative) A genuinely narrow construction
Brussels.                                                                        in the light of the (higher-ranking) requirement for
                                                                                transparency should have led to the interpretation of
                                                                                the authorship rule as a guideline, contrary to its
                                                                                wording. An important criterion for the correct exer-
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                      cise of discretion and the review thereof by the court is
                                                                                the legal and technical practicability of the claim to
                                                                                access to documents vis-à-vis the author. However the
1. Set aside paragraphs 2 and 3 of the operative part of the
                                                                                Court has accepted that in applying the authorship
    judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-92/98,
                                                                                rule the Commission may act of its own motion and
    Interporc Im- und Export GmbH v Commission.
                                                                                has an unlimited discretion in deciding whether to
                                                                                disclose documents produced by third parties.
2. Declare the decision of the Secretary-General of the
    Commission of 23 April 1998 void in its entirety.
3. Order the Commission to pay the costs of the appeal and
    the costs of the case at first instance.


title: Case C-381/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'Etat (France) lodged on 8 August 2007 — Association Nationale pour la Protection des Eaux et Rivieres — TOS v Ministry of the Environment and Sustainable Development

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/29

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'Etat (France) lodged on 8 August 2007 — Association Nationale pour la Protection des Eaux et Rivieres — TOS v Ministry of the Environment and Sustainable Development
   (Case C-381/07)
   (2007/C 269/50)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Conseil d'Etat
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Association Nationale pour la Protection des Eaux et Rivieres — TOS

      Defendant: Ministry of the Environment and Sustainable Development
   Question referred
   May Article 6 of Directive 2006/11/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 February 2006 on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community (1) be interpreted as allowing the Member States, once programmes to reduce water pollution including environmental quality standards have been adopted under that article, to introduce a declaratory scheme, in respect of facilities regarded as being low-polluting in nature, with a reference to those standards and a right on the part of the administrative authority to object to the commencement of the operations or to impose limits on discharges specific to the facility concerned?

      (1)  OJ L 64 of 4.3.2006, p. 52.


title: Case C-627/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Viseu (Portugal) lodged on 5 December 2016 — João Ventura Ramos v Fundo de Garantia Salarial

text:
               6.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 70/8

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Viseu (Portugal) lodged on 5 December 2016 — João Ventura Ramos v Fundo de Garantia Salarial
   (Case C-627/16)
   (2017/C 070/13)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Viseu

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: João Ventura Ramos

      Defendant: Fundo de Garantia Salarial

      Question referred

               1.

               Is a time-limit applicable to an application for payment of outstanding wage claims by the guarantee institution more favourable to employees, within the meaning of Article 11 of Directive 2008/94/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, when the payment of such claims is only guaranteed where the application for payment is brought before the guarantee institution no later than one year from the day following that on which the contract of employment was terminated or where the time-limit is calculated from the date on which insolvency proceedings are brought, bearing in mind that the guarantee institution only guarantees the payment of the employee’s claims which have fallen due in the six months prior to those proceedings being brought?

               2.

               If an employee has failed to comply with the time-limit for reasons for which he is not responsible, must the laws of the Member States, pursuant to Article 11 of Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008, provide for an additional time-limit for submitting his application, provided that the employee shows that he is not responsible for the failure to comply with the time-limit?

      (1)  OJ 2008, L 283, p. 36.


title: Case T-517/11: Action brought on 29 September 2011 — United States Polo Association v OHIM — Polo/Lauren (Representation of a device of two polo players)

text:
               3.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/22

         Action brought on 29 September 2011 — United States Polo Association v OHIM — Polo/Lauren (Representation of a device of two polo players)
   (Case T-517/11)
   2011/C 355/41
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: United States Polo Association (Kentucky, USA) (represented by: P. Goldenbaum, I. Rohr and T. Melchert, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: The Polo/Lauren Company, LP (New York, USA)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 June 2011 in case R 1107/2010-2;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay its own costs and those of the applicant; and

               —

               Order the other party before the Board of Appeal to pay its own costs, in case it intervenes in the proceedings

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: Community trade mark application of the figurative mark representing a device of two polo players, for goods in class 3 — Community trade mark registration No 5997473

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: French trade mark registration No 1441630 of the figurative mark representing a device of a polo player, for goods and services in classes 3, 9, 14, 16, 18, 24, 25 and 35; Spanish trade mark registration No 878316 of the figurative mark representing a device of a polo player, for goods in class 3; United Kingdom trade mark registration No 2172123 of the figurative mark representing a device of a polo player, for goods in class 3; German trade mark registration No 1070650 of the figurative mark representing a device of a polo player, for goods in class 3; Community trade mark registration No 4236527 of the three-dimensional trade mark representing a bottle device with a polo player, for goods in class 3

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Rules 20(7) and 53(a) of Commission Regulation No 2868/95, and Infringement of Article 80(1) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal notified its decision to the parties of the opposition on 19 July 2011 without taking into account their joint request for a suspension of the proceedings filed on 18 July 2011 and then dismissed the applicant’s request to revoke its decision and to grant the suspension request. Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly found that the registration of the CTM application was precluded by Article 8(1)(b). There is no likelihood of confusion between the opposing marks.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 22 October 1998 in Case C-154/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du Travail, Brussels): Louis Wolfs v. Office National des Pensions (ONP) (Directive 79/7/EEC - Equal treatment - Old-age and retirement pensions - Method of calculation - Pensionable age)

text:
C 397/2              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     19.12.98
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       (Sixth Chamber)                                                      (Sixth Chamber)
                     of 22 October 1998                                                   of 22 October 1998
in Case C-154/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                   in Case C-184/96: Commission of the European
the Tribunal du Travail, Brussels): Louis Wolfs v. Office                         Communities v. French Republic (1)
               National des Pensions (ONP) (1)
                                                                     (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations Ð
(Directive 79/7/EEC Ð Equal treatment Ð Old-age and                                   Article 30 of the EC Treaty)
retirement pensions Ð Method of calculation Ð
                       Pensionable age)                                                       (98/C 397/03)
                        (98/C 397/02)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
         published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                     In Case C-184/96: Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities (Agents: Hendrik van Lier and Jean-Francis
                                                                     Pasquier) v. French Republic (Agents: Catherine de Salins
In Case C-154/96, Reference to the Court under                       and Gauthier Mignot) Ð application for a declaration
Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the Tribunal du Travail,             that, by adopting Decree No 93-999 of 9 August 1993
Brussels, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                relating to preparations with foie gras as a base without
pending before that court between: Louis Wolfs and Office            taking account of the contents of the Commission's
National des Pensions (ONP) Ð application for the                    detailed opinion and reasoned opinion concerning mutual
interpretation of Article 4(1) and Article 7(1)(a) of                recognition, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the                obligations under Article 30 of the Treaty Ð the Court
progressive implementation of the principle of equal                 (Sixth Chamber), composed of: P. J. G. Kapteyn, President
treatment for men and women in matters of social security            of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini, J. L. Murray
(OJ L 6, 10.1.1979, p. 24) Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber),              (Rapporteur), H. Ragnemalm and R. Schintgen, Judges; A.
composed of: P. J. G. Kapteyn, President of the Chamber,             La Pergola, Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy
G. F. Mancini, J. L. Murray, H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur)               Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
and R. Schintgen, Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General;             22 October 1998, in which it:
D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 October 1998, in
which it rules:
                                                                     1. Declares that, by adopting Decree No 93-999 of
                                                                          9 August 1993 relating to preparations with foie gras
                                                                          as a base without including in it a mutual recognition
Article 7(1)(a) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of                          clause for products coming from a Member State and
19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of                     complying with the rules laid down by that State, the
the principle of equal treatment for men and women in                     French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
matters of social security must be interpreted as meaning                 under Article 30 of the Treaty;
that, if national legislation has maintained a different
pensionable age for male and female workers, the Member
State concerned is entitled to calculate the amount of
pension differently depending on the worker's sex.                   2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 197, 6.7.1996.                                              (1) OJ C 210, 20.7.1996.


title: Case C-456/14: Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 September 2015 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha — Spain) — Manuel Orrego Arias v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Ciudad Real (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Directive 2001/40/EC — Mutual recognition of decisions on the expulsion of third country nationals — Article 3(1)(a) — Concept of ‘offence punishable by a penalty involving deprivation of liberty of at least one year’ — Decision on the expulsion of a third country national owing to a criminal conviction — Situation which is not covered by Directive 2001/40 — Manifest lack of jurisdiction)

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/7

         Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 September 2015 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha — Spain) — Manuel Orrego Arias v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Ciudad Real
   (Case C-456/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Directive 2001/40/EC - Mutual recognition of decisions on the expulsion of third country nationals - Article 3(1)(a) - Concept of ‘offence punishable by a penalty involving deprivation of liberty of at least one year’ - Decision on the expulsion of a third country national owing to a criminal conviction - Situation which is not covered by Directive 2001/40 - Manifest lack of jurisdiction))
   (2015/C 398/08)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Manuel Orrego Arias

      Defendant: Subdelegación del Gobierno en Ciudad Real

      Operative part of the order

   The Court of Justice of the European Union manifestly lacks jurisdiction to answer the question referred by the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha (Spain) by decision of 4 September 2014 (Case C-456/14).

      (1)  OJ C 439, 8.12.2014.


title: Case C-116/10: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg (Luxembourg)) — État du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg, Administration de l’enregistrement et des domaines v Pierre Feltgen (in his capacity as administrator in the bankruptcy of Bacino Charter Company SA), Bacino Charter Company SA (Sixth VAT Directive — Exemptions — Article 15(4)(a) and 15(5) — Exemption for the hiring of sea-going vessels — Scope)

text:
               26.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/11

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg (Luxembourg)) — État du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg, Administration de l’enregistrement et des domaines v Pierre Feltgen (in his capacity as administrator in the bankruptcy of Bacino Charter Company SA), Bacino Charter Company SA
   (Case C-116/10) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Exemptions - Article 15(4)(a) and 15(5) - Exemption for the hiring of sea-going vessels - Scope)
   2011/C 63/20
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: État du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg, Administration de l’enregistrement et des domaines

      Respondents: Pierre Feltgen (in his capacity as administrator in the bankruptcy of Bacino Charter Company SA), Bacino Charter Company SA

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg — Interpretation of Article 15(4)(a) and 15(5) 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 for hire operations of sea-going vessels — Exemption subject to the condition that such vessels be assigned to navigation on the high seas and provide transport of travellers or the pursuit of commercial, industrial or fishing activities, for reward

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 15(5) 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, as amended by Council Directive 91/680/EEC of 16 December 1991, must be interpreted as meaning that the exemption from value added tax provided for by that provision does not apply to services consisting of making a vessel available, for reward, with a crew, to natural persons for purposes of leisure travel on the high seas.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.


title: Case T-645/13: Judgment of the General Court of 15 March 2016 — Nezi v OHIM — Etam (E) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark E — Earlier Community figurative mark E — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Reputation — Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               2.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/33

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 March 2016 — Nezi v OHIM — Etam (E)
   (Case T-645/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark E - Earlier Community figurative mark E - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Reputation - Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 156/43)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Evcharis Nezi (Mykonos, Greece) (represented by: A. Salkitzoglou, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Etam SAS (Clichy, France) (represented by: G. Barbaut and A. Champanhet, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 October 2013 (Case R 329/2013-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Etam SAS and Mrs Evcharis Nezi.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Dismisses the cross-claim;

               3.

               Orders Mrs Evcharis Nezi and Etam SAS to each bear half of the costs of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), and to each pay their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 61, 1.3.2014.


title: Case C-286/10: Action brought on 9 June 2010 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/27

         Action brought on 9 June 2010 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-286/10)
   ()
   2010/C 221/43
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Guerra e Andrade and M. van Beek, Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2005/47/EC (1) of 18 July 2005 on the Agreement between the Community of European Railways (CER) and the European Transport Workers’ Federation (ETF) on certain aspects of the working conditions of mobile workers engaged in interoperable cross-border services in the railway sector and, in any event, by failing to communicate such measures to the Commission, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5 of the Directive.

               —

               Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period prescribed for transposing the directive expired on 26 July 2008.

      (1)  OJ 2005 L 195, p. 15.


title: Case C-563/14 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 April 2016 — Dansk Automat Brancheforening v European Commission, Kingdom of Denmark, Betfair Group plc, Betfair International Ltd, European Gaming and Betting Association (EGBA) (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Action for annulment — Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU — Right to bring an action — Locus standi — Natural or legal persons — State aid — Decision declaring an aid scheme compatible with the internal market — Act of individual concern to the appellant — Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures)

text:
               1.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/3

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 April 2016 — Dansk Automat Brancheforening v European Commission, Kingdom of Denmark, Betfair Group plc, Betfair International Ltd, European Gaming and Betting Association (EGBA)
   (Case C-563/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Action for annulment - Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU - Right to bring an action - Locus standi - Natural or legal persons - State aid - Decision declaring an aid scheme compatible with the internal market - Act of individual concern to the appellant - Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures))
   (2016/C 279/03)
   Language of the case: Danish

      Parties

      Appellant: Dansk Automat Brancheforening (represented by: K. Dyekjær, T. Høg and J. Flodgaard, advokater)

      Other parties to the proceedings:

   European Commission (represented by: L. Grønfeldt and M. P.-J. Loewenthal, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: C. Thorning, acting as Agent and R. Holdgaard, advokat), Betfair Group plc, Betfair International Ltd (represented by: A. Pliego Selie, O. Brouwer and M. Groothuismink, advocaten), European Gaming and Betting Association (EGBA) (represented by: J. Heithecker, C.-D. Ehlermann and J. Ylinen, Rechtsanwälte)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Dansk Automat Brancheforening is ordered to pay the costs.

               3.

               The Kingdom of Denmark is ordered to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 46, 9.2.2015.


title: Case C-340/10: Action brought on 29 June 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Cyprus

text:
               11.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/30

         Action brought on 29 June 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Cyprus
   (Case C-340/10)
   ()
   2010/C 246/51
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: Georgios Zavvos and Donatella Recchia)

      Defendant: Republic of Cyprus

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by not having included the area of Paralimni Lake in the national list of proposed sites of Community importance, the Republic of Cyprus has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora;

               —

               declare that, by tolerating activities which place the ecological characteristics of Paralimni Lake at serious risk and by not having taken the protective measures necessary to safeguard the population of Natrix natrix cypriaca, the species which constitutes the ecological interest of Paralimni Lake and Xiliatos Dam, the Republic of Cyprus has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora as interpreted by the Court in Cases C-117/03 and C-224/05;

               —

               declare that, by not having taken the requisite measures to establish and apply a system of strict protection for the Natrix natrix cypriaca, the Republic of Cyprus has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora;

               —

               order the Republic of Cyprus to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission submits that, by not having included the entire area of Paralimni Lake in the national list of proposed sites of Community importance (SCIs) up until December 2009, the Republic of Cyprus has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. The Republic of Cyprus did not dispute the need to include Paralimni Lake among the proposed SCIs. Nevertheless, the lake was not included in the national list of proposed SCIs before expiry of the period set in the reasoned opinion. On 24 November 2009 the Republic of Cyprus informed the Commission that Paralimni Lake was officially included in the Natura 2000 network, but the important northern end of the lake was omitted from the proposed SCIs. On 24 April 2009 the amendment of the Paralimni Local Plan was published in the Government Gazette of the Republic of Cyprus, an amendment which converted the northern end of the lake into a residential area. The Commission submits that no restriction whatsoever of the extent of the habitat is justified and that, by not having included all of Paralimni Lake in the national list of proposed SCIs, the Republic of Cyprus is infringing Article 4(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC.
   Furthermore, the Commission contends that particular damaging activities at Paralimni Lake (in particular the unlawful over-extraction of water, residential development, motor-cycle racing and the operation of a rifle-range) degrade and damage the habitat of the species and that therefore, by not having taken the protective measures necessary to safeguard the population of the species Natrix natrix cypriaca, the Republic of Cyprus has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 92/43/EEC as interpreted in the Court’s case-law (in Cases C-117/03 and C-224/05).
   In addition, the Commission submits that, as a result of activities such as residential development in the area and the separating of building plots at the northern end of Paralimni Lake, the habitat of the endemic species and its population have been adversely affected. Therefore, by not having taken the requisite measures to establish and implement a system of strict protection for the water snake Natrix natrix cypriaca, through the application of ‘coherent and coordinated measures of a preventive nature’, the Republic of Cyprus is failing to fulfil its obligations under Article 12(1)(a), (b) and (d) of Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.


title: Case C-353/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties Tribunal, Manchester Tribunal Centre, by direction of that court of 8 September 2000, in the case of Keeping Newcastle Warm against Commissioners of Customs and Excise

text:
C 335/38               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     25.11.2000
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vakuutus-                   3)    If the answer to Question (2) is no, is that payment
oikeus by order of that court of 18 January 2000 in the                       nonetheless part of the taxable amount by reason of
                 case of Pirkko Aulikki Niemi                                 constituting the consideration (or part of the consider-
                                                                              ation) for a supply?
                        (Case C-351/00)
                                                                        (1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
                                                                            harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
                        (2000/C 335/65)                                     turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
                                                                            basis of assessment (OJ L 145, 13.06.77, p. 1).
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Vakuutusoikeus
(Insurance Court), Finland, of 18 January 2000, which was
received at the Court Registry on 21 September 2000, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Pirkko Aulikki Niemi on the
following question:
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Diikitiko
                                                                        Protodikio Thessalonikis (Fifth Chamber, Three Judges)
Does the pension scheme under the Valtion eläkelaki (State              by judgment of that court of 31 July 2000 in the case of
Pensions Law) fall within the scope of Article 141 EC or of                            Freskot AE against the Greek State
Council Directive 79/7/EEC (1)?
                                                                                (Case C-355/00)
(1) Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the pro-
    gressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for                              (2000/C 335/67)
    men and women in matters of social security (OJ L 6, 10.01.79,
    p. 24).                                                             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by judgment of the Diikitiko Protodi-
                                                                        kio Thessalonikis (Administrative Court of First Instance,
                                                                        Thessaloniki) (Fifth Chamber, Three Judges) of 31 July 2000,
                                                                        received at the Court Registry on 26 September 2000 for a
                                                                        preliminary ruling in the case of Freskot AE against the Greek
                                                                        State on the following question:
                                                                        Whether the imposition of the insurance contribution referred
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties                to in the grounds of the judgment, to which domestically-
Tribunal, Manchester Tribunal Centre, by direction of                   produced agricultural products and by-products of vegetable
that court of 8 September 2000, in the case of Keeping                  or animal origin or originating from fishing are subject and
Newcastle Warm against Commissioners of Customs and                     which is levied and paid as income to the competent public
                              Excise                                    finance service, is, given the objective which it pursues, namely
                                                                        organising and implementing programmes of proactive protec-
                        (Case C-353/00)                                 tion and insuring the production and assets of agricultural
                                                                        enterprises, contrary to the provisions of European Union law
                                                                        concerning the free movement of goods (Article 28), the
                        (2000/C 335/66)                                 common agricultural policy (Articles 38, 39 and 40), the
                                                                        freedom to provide services (Articles 59 and 60), permitted
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  State aid (Article 92) and the provisions of the First Council
European Communities by a direction of the VAT and Duties               Directive 73/239/EEC of 24 July 1973.
Tribunal, Manchester Tribunal Centre, of 8 September 2000,
which was received at the Court Registry on 25 September
2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Keeping Newcastle
Warm against Commissioners of Customs and Excise, on the
following questions:
1)    Is a payment made by the Energy Grants Action Agency              Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de
      to the Appellant, which receives it in respect of energy          Commerce, Foix, France, by judgment of that court of
      advice given to an eligible householder, a subsidy within         25 September 2000 in the case of Réunion des Assureurs
      the meaning of that word in Article 11.A.I (a) of the EC                             Maladie v Jean Marc Laboup
      Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) (1)?
                                                                                (Case C-359/00)
2)    If the answer to the first Question is yes, is that payment
      also directly linked to the price of the supply of energy                                  (2000/C 335/68)
      advice, so as to form part of the taxable amount of
      that supply by reason of the concluding words of                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      Article 11.A. 1(a)?                                               European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal de


title: Case C-509/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 24 September 2015 — Recep Kilic v Land Berlin

text:
               18.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/16

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 24 September 2015 — Recep Kilic v Land Berlin
   (Case C-509/15)
   (2016/C 016/19)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Recep Kilic

      Defendant: Land Berlin

      Question referred

   Can the extension of the residence permit of a family member — who was permitted to join the principal person entitled at a time when the latter was not duly registered as belonging to the labour force — at a date on which the principal person entitled, with whom the family member is lawfully resident, has become an employed person be regarded as constituting an ‘authorisation to join’ for the purposes of Article 7 of EEC-Turkey Association Council Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980?


title: Case T-506/17: Action brought on 8 August 2017 — Makhlouf v Council

text:
               16.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/38

         Action brought on 8 August 2017 — Makhlouf v Council
   (Case T-506/17)
   (2017/C 347/49)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Rami Makhlouf (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the applicant’s action admissible and well-founded;

               —

               In consequence, annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/917 of 29 May 2017 and its subsequent implementing acts, insofar as they concern the applicant;

               —

               Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the contested acts infringe the applicant’s rights of the defence, in particular his right to effective judicial protection, enshrined in Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Article 215 TFEU and Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant has infringed the obligation to state reasons, since the reasoning provided does not satisfy the obligation on the EU institutions under Article 6 of the ECHR and Article 296 TFEU and 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment committed by the Council as regards the involvement of the applicant in the financing of the Syrian regime.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested acts place an unjustified and disproportionate restriction on the fundamental rights of the applicant, in particular on his right to property, enshrined in Article 1 of the First Additional Protocol to the ECHR and Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to respect for his reputation, under Articles 8 and 10(2) of the ECHR, to a presumption of innocence, enshrined in Article 6 of the ECHR and Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and his freedom of movement, guaranteed in Article 2(2) of Protocol No 4 to the ECHR.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the guidelines on implementation and evaluation of restrictive measures (sanctions) in the context of the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy (Council Document 15114/05 of 2 December 2005).


title: Case T-309/03: Action brought on 8 September 2003 by Manel Camós Grau against Commission of the European Communities

text:
15.11.2003             EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 275/47
Proprietor of mark or         The applicant in this case                  Pleas in law and main arguments
sign cited in the oppo-
sition proceedings:
                                                                          Applicant for Com-            The applicant in this case
Mark or sign cited in         The German word mark ‘SOLEVI-               munity trade mark:
opposition:                   TA’ for goods in Class 32
                                                                          Community trade mark          The word/figurative mark ‘Opus-
Decision of the Oppo-         Rejection of the opposition                 sought:                       Dent’ for goods and services in
sition Division:                                                                                Classes 9, 10 and 42 (inter alia,
                                                                                lasers, not for medical purposes;
Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of the applicant’s appeal                                       medical, dental and aesthetic
Appeal:                                                                                lasers; medical and dental treat-
                                                                                ment)         —         Application
Pleas in law:                 The applicant has submitted                                               No 1331230
                              adequate evidence of genuine use
                              of the opposing mark;                       Proprietor of mark or         Dornier Medizintechnik GmbH
                                                                          sign cited in the oppo-
                              —     Infringement of the maxim             sition proceedings:
                                    of party disposition laid
                                    down in the second sentence
                                    of Article 74(1) of Regu-             Mark or sign cited in         The Community trade mark
                                    lation 40/94;                         opposition:                   ‘Opus’ for goods in Class 10 (inter
                                                                                alia, medical tables for examin-
                              —     Failure to respect the right to                                     ations and treatment, X-ray appar-
                                    be heard.                                                           atus and X-ray work stations)
                                                                          Decision of the Oppo-         The opposition was upheld in
                                                                          sition Division:              respect of the goods ‘medical, den-
                                                                                tal and aesthetic lasers’ and reject-
                                                                                ed in respect of the remaining
                                                                                goods and services
Action brought on 8 September 2003 by OpusDent                            Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of the appeal
GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the                          Appeal:
    Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
                                                                          Pleas in law:                 No likelihood of confusion
                         (Case T-305/03)
                         (2003/C 275/79)
(Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was
                        submitted: German)
                                                                          Action brought on 8 September 2003 by Manel Camós
                                                                           Grau against Commission of the European Communities
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before                                        (Case T-309/03)
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
8 September 2003 by OpusDent GmbH, Freising (Germany),
represented by P. Munzinger, lawyer. Dornier Medizintechnik                                       (2003/C 275/80)
GmbH, Weßling (Germany), was also a party to the proceed-
ings before the Board of Appeal.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of 23 June 2003 of the Second Board              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      of Appeal of the defendant in Case R 579/2002-2;                    ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 8 September 2003 by Manel Grau,
—     order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.            residing in Brussels, represented by M.-A. Lucas, lawyer.
 ---pagebreak--- C 275/48               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                       15.11.2003
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                the objectivity of OLAF investigations, in that the contested
                                                                           report was drawn up without the assistance of the sole
                                                                           investigator who remained authorised.
—     annul the decision of 17 May 2002 of OLAF or its
      Director removing one of the investigators from the
      Office’s investigation into the IRELA owing to a conflict
                                                                           (1) Communicated in OJ C 112, 10.5.2003, p. 44.
      of interests on his part, in that it left standing measures          (2) Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and
      adopted by that investigator to which he contributed;                    of the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations
                                                                               conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), published
                                                                               in OJ L 136 of 31.05.1999, pp. 1-7.
—     annul the decision of 29 November 2002 of OLAF or its
      Director rejecting by implication the applicant’s adminis-
      trative complaint of 29 July 2002 against that decision;
—     annul the report of 17 October 2002 closing the
      investigation in to IRELA or the decision of its Director
      adopting that report or its conclusions;
—     annul the decision of 28 May 2003 of the Director of                 Action brought on 12 September 2003 by Nürburgring
                                                                           GmbH against the European Parliament and the Council
      OLAF rejecting the applicant’s administrative complaint
                                                                                of the European Union
      of 4 February 2003 against that report;
—     order the Commission to pay the applicant compen-                                             (Case T-311/03)
      sation, evaluated provisionally and ex aequo et bono at
      EUR 10 000, for the non-pecuniary harm sustained;
                                                                                (2003/C 275/81)
—     order the Commission to pay the applicant a provisional
      sum of EUR 1 by way of compensation for the harm to                                     (Language of the case: German)
      his career;
—     order the Commission to reimburse the fees which he
      has incurred in his defence in the investigation and the             An action against the European Parliament and the Council of
      administrative complaints against the contested decision             the European Union was brought before the Court of Justice
      and report;                                                          of the European Communities on 12 September 2003 by
                                                                           Nürburgring GmbH, represented by Dr H.-J. Rabe, and
                                                                           Dr M.A. Dauses.
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           —     declare Directive 2003/33/EC of the European Parliament
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                  and of the Council of 26 May 2003 on the approximation
                                                                                of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
                                                                                of the Member States relating to the advertising and
                                                                                sponsorship of tobacco products, and Article 5(1) thereof
The applicant, an official with the defendant, has already                       in particular, void;
brought an action before the Court (T-96/03) (1) also seeking
annulment of the OLAF’s decision of 12 May 2002 and
claiming damages. By the present action, the applicant repeats             —     order the defendant to bear the costs.
the forms of order already submitted in his first action, but
also attacks the report closing the inquiry. In support of the
present action, he relies first of all on the pleas already raised
in Case T-96/03.
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
He then relies on two further pleas. The first alleges breach of           The applicant organises Formula 1 car racing at the Nürburg-
the principles of the rights of the defence, legitimate expec-             ring. Tobacco companies make substantial contributions to
tations and proper administration, and also of Commission                  support such racing events. The applicant submits that,
Decision 396/96 on the terms and conditions for internal                   because of the prohibition in Article 5(1) of the directive, there
investigations. The second plea alleges breach of Articles 6 and           is a danger that Formula 1 racing will no longer be held at the
9 of Regulation No 1073/1999 (2), and also the principle of                Nürburgring.


title: Case F-114/07: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2009 — Rainer Wenning v European Police Office (Europol) (Civil Service — Europol staff — Renewal of contract of a member of the contract staff of Europol — Article 6 of the Europol Staff Regulations — Assessment report)

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/72

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2009 — Rainer Wenning v European Police Office (Europol)
   (Case F-114/07) (1)

   (Civil Service - Europol staff - Renewal of contract of a member of the contract staff of Europol - Article 6 of the Europol Staff Regulations - Assessment report)
   2010/C 24/131
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Rainer Wenning (The Hague, Netherlands) (represented by: G. Vandersanden and C. Ronzi, lawyers and subsequently by L. Levi, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Police Office (Europol) (represented by: B. Exterkate and D. El Khoury, acting as Agents, assisted by B. Wägenbaur and R. Van der Hout, lawyers, and subsequently by D. El Khoury and D. Neumann, acting as Agents, assisted by B. Wägenbaur and R. Van der Hout, lawyers)

      Re:

   Annulment of the decision of Europol of 21 December 2006 not to renew the applicant’s contract and not to reinstate him, and an order that Europol renew the applicant’s contract for a period of 4 years from 1 October 2007 and pay damages

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 315, 22.12.2007, p. 47.


title: Case C-139/17 P: Appeal brought on 20 March 2017 by QuaMa Quality Management GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 17 January 2017 in Case T-225/15, QuaMa Quality Management GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office

text:
               23.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 357/2

         Appeal brought on 20 March 2017 by QuaMa Quality Management GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 17 January 2017 in Case T-225/15, QuaMa Quality Management GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office
   (Case C-139/17 P)
   (2017/C 357/02)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: QuaMa Quality Management GmbH (represented by: C. Russ, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Microchip Technology, Inc.

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2017;

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 February 2015 (Joined Cases R 1809/2014-4 and R 1680/2014-4).

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   The appellant bases its appeal, lodged against the judgment of the General Court, on the following considerations:
   The appeal alleges an infringement of Article 41(1) of Regulation No 207/2009. (1) The General Court, it is submitted, erred in proceeding on the basis of the premiss that the intervener had, on 9 April 2013, submitted the correct application for registration of the change of ownership and had merely used an incorrect form for that purpose. In fact, the application for a ‘change of name or address of a proprietor’ related to all of SMSC Europe GmbH’s trade marks (14) and was also interpreted by EUIPO in that manner, as the letter of 14 April 2013 makes clear. It is therefore not in dispute that EUIPO dismissed the application of 9 April 2013 in its entirety and upheld only the application lodged on 14 June 2013, after the period for submitting a statement of opposition had expired.
   The appeal further alleges infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. Neither the Opposition Division nor the Board of Appeal, it is submitted, addressed the determination of the relevant public in anything approaching a sufficiently satisfactory manner. The assessment of the likelihood of confusion cannot take place without determination of the relevant public and the distinctiveness in relation to each of the individual goods and services. This is even more so the case as regards the General Court’s finding that the similarity of the signs in question for a specialist public — to which the General Court does not belong — is ‘low’.

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


title: Appeal brought on 11 February 1997 by L. B. Rasmussen against the judgment delivered on 12 December 1996 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-130/95 between L. B. Rasmussen and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-60/97 P)

text:
5 . 4 . 97                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 108/ 13
       3 . Council , Directive 93/114/EC ( 3 ) of 14 December               Member States are required to observe the time-limits laid
           1993      amending            Directive    70/524/EEC (4)        down in directives for their transposition . That time-limit
           concerning additives in feedingstuffs,                           expired on 13 September 1994 without the Italian
                                                                            Republic having brought into force the necessary
       and/or by failing to notify the Commission thereof, the              provisions in order to comply with the Directive referred
       French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations                 to in the Commission's application.
       under Article 20 of Directive 93/53/EEC, Article 8 of
       Directive 93/ 113/EC and Article 2 of Directive 93/114/              H OJ No L 247, 5 . 10 . 1993 , p. 19 .
       EC and of the EC Treaty;
( b) order the French Republic to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                            Appeal brought on 11 February 1997 by L. B. Rasmussen
                                                                            against the judgment delivered on 12 December 1996 by
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those                    the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
relied on in Case C-56/97 (s ); the time-limits expired on
                                                                            European Communities in Case T-130/95 between L. B.
1 January 1994 (Directive 93/53/EEC ), 1 October 1994
(Directive 93/113/EC and Directive 93/114/EC) and                           Rasmussen and the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
1 January 1995 (Article 7 of Directive 93/113/EC )
respectively.                                                                                ( Case C-60/97 P)
                                                                                ( 97/C 108/24 )
(1 )  OJ  No L 175 , 19 . 7 . 1993 , p . 23 .
(2 )  OJ  No L 334,  31 . 12 . 1993 , p. 17.
(3)   OJ  No L 334,  31 . 12 . 1993 , p . 24 .                              An appeal against the judgment delivered on 12 December
(4)   OJ  No L 270,  14 . 12 . 1970, p . 1 .                                 1996 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance
(5 ) See page 12 of this Official Journal.                                  of the European Communities in Case T-130/95 between
                                                                            L. B. Rasmussen and the Commission of the European
                                                                             Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
                                                                            the European Communities on 11 February 1997 by L. B.
                                                                             Rasmussen, represented by Carlo Revoldini, with an
                                                                             address for service in Luxembourg at 180, route de
Action brought on 7 February 1997 by the Commission of                       Longwy.
     the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                              ( Case C-58/97 )                               The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                ( 97/C 108/23 )
                                                                             — quash the judgment appealed against in its entirety,
                                                                                except as to the costs of the proceedings,
 An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
 the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                         and as should have been held at first instance :
 7 February 1997 by the Commission of the European
 Communities, represented by Frank Benyon, Legal                             — annul the decision of the Commission not to promote
 Adviser, and Laura Pignataro, of its Legal Service, acting                      the applicant to Grade A 4 in the 1994 promotion
 as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                         procedure,
 the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,
 Kirchberg.                                                                  — annul the decision of the Commission to promote to
                                                                                Grade A 4 the officials on the list published in
 The applicant claims that the Court should :                                    Administrative     Information        Bulletin No   859   of
                                                                                8 September 1994,
  1 . declare that, by failing to adopt and/or notify the
        laws, regulations or administrative provisions                       — order the Commission to pay damages in respect of
        necessary to comply with Council Directive 93/75/EEC                      the non-material harm suffered,
        of 13 September 1993 concerning minimum
        requirements for vessels bound for or leaving                        — order the Commission to pay the costs of the
        Community ports and carrying dangerous or polluting                       proceedings in any event.
        goods ('), the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
        obligations under that Directive and the EC Treaty;                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
  2 . order the Italian Republic to pay the costs .                           Defective and inadequate reasoning of the contested
                                                                              judgment which failed to deal with the applicant's
  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                         arguments and claims (] ).
  Under Article 189 of the EC Treaty, according to which a                    H OJ No C 208 , 17 . 8 . 1995 , p . 35 .
  directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved,
  upon each Member State to which it is addressed,


title: Case T-745/14: Judgment of the General Court of 20 July 2016 — TeamBank v EUIPO — Easy Asset Management (e@sy Credit) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark e@sy Credit — Earlier national figurative mark EasyCredit — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               5.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 20 July 2016 — TeamBank v EUIPO — Easy Asset Management (e@sy Credit)
   (Case T-745/14) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark e@sy Credit - Earlier national figurative mark EasyCredit - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 326/40)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: TeamBank AG Nürnberg (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: H. Lindner, D. Terheggen and T. Kiphuth, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented initially by: P. Geroulakos, and subsequently by: D. Gája, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO and intervener before the General Court: Easy Asset Management AD (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: M. Georgieva-Tabakova and H. Raychev, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 September 2014 (Case R 1975/2013-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Easy Asset Management AD and TeamBank AG Nürnberg.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders TeamBank AG Nürnberg to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 7, 12.1.2015.


title: Case C-179/14: Action brought on 10 April 2014  — European Commission v Hungary

text:
               30.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 202/10

         Action brought on 10 April 2014 — European Commission v Hungary
   (Case C-179/14)
   2014/C 202/12
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Tokár and E. Montaguti, agents)

      Defendant: Hungary

      Form of order sought

   The Commission claims that the Court should

               1.

               Declare that Hungary has infringed Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (1) by adopting and maintaining in force the SZÉP card system governed by Government decree 55/2011 (IV. 12.), amended by Law CLVI of 2011, in so far as:

                           —

                           Paragraph 13 of the decree on the SZÉP card, read in conjunction with Paragraph 2(2)(d) of Law XCVI of 1993, Paragraph 2(b) of Law CXXXII of 1997 and Paragraphs 1, 2(1) and (2), 55(1) and (3) and 64(1) of Law IV of 2006, precludes branches of companies from issuing SZÉP cards and thereby infringes Article 14(3) and Article 15(2)(b) of Directive 2006/123;

                           —

                           Paragraph 13 of the decree on the SZÉP card, read in conjunction with Paragraphs 1, 2(1) and (2), 55(1) and (3) and 64(1) of Law IV of 2006, Paragraph 2(2)(d) of Law XCVI of 1993 and Paragraph 2(b) of Law CXXXII of 1997, does not recognise, for the purposes of the fulfilment of the conditions contained in Paragraph 13(a), (b) and (c) of the decree on the SZÉP card, the activity of groups of companies whose parent company is not a company incorporated under Hungarian law and whose constituent companies do not operate as companies under Hungarian law, and thereby infringes Article 15(1), (2)(b) and (3) of Directive 2006/123;

                           —

                           Paragraph 13 of the decree on the SZÉP card, read in conjunction with Paragraphs 1, 2(1) and (2), 55(1) and (3) and 64(1) of Law IV of 2006, Paragraph 2(2)(d) of Law XCVI of 1993 and Paragraph 2(b) of Law CXXXII of 1997, retains the option for banks and other finance institutions to issue the SZÉP card since only those institutions are able to meet the conditions laid down by Paragraph 13 of the decree and thereby infringes Article 15(1), (2)(d) and (3) of Directive 2006/123;

                           —

                           Paragraph 13 of the decree on the SZÉP card breaches Article 16 of Directive 2006/123 in that it makes the issue of the SZÉP card dependent on the existence of an establishment in Hungary.

               2.

               In the alternative, declare that the SZÉP card system set up by Decree 55/2011 of 12 April 2011 breaches Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU in so far as the terms of Directive 2006/123 mentioned in point 1 are not applicable to the provisions mentioned in that point.

               3.

               Declare that the Erzsébet voucher system provided for by Law CLVI of 2011 and Law CIII of 2012 which establishes a monopoly in favour of public bodies for the issue of vouchers for cold meals which entered into force without any appropriate prior transition period or the necessary transitional measures, breaches Articles 49 and 56 TFEU in so far as Paragraphs 1, 5 and 477 of Law CLVI of 2011 and Paragraphs 2(1) and (2), 6 and 7 of Law CIII of 2012 lay down disproportionate restrictions.

               4.

               Order Hungary to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In 2011 Hungary amended the legislation on the issue of vouchers for hot and cold meals, holidays and leisure granted by undertakings to workers, which are deemed to be non-salary allowances and therefore fall within a more advantageous tax and social security regime. That legislation entered into force on 1 January 2012 without an appropriate transitional period. Before those amendments the national legislation laid down no specific or special conditions as regards the issue of such meal vouchers or their form. Following the introduction of those amendments, however, a public body, the Magyar Nemzeti Üdülési Alapítvány (Hungarian National Leisure Foundation), acquired a monopoly position as regards the issue of paper vouchers for hot meals and paper or electronic vouchers for cold meals. Further, the legislation imposes especially strict conditions on the issue of vouchers for hot meals, holidays and leisure which can now only be issued electronically. The contested measures have led to the exclusion from the market of several traders who had operated on this market for many years, constitute a restriction on the entry into the market of new traders and prevent the free movement of services. Moreover, the SZÉP card system reserves the market de facto for three large banking groups set up under Hungarian law, while the issue of Erzsébet vouchers is only possible in the framework of a State monopoly. The fact that the income of the public body which enjoys that monopoly is intended to meet social expenditure is not sufficient justification for the restrictions introduced. Under the relevant provisions of the FEU Treaty and Directive 2006/123, it is only possible to introduce restrictions on freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services if such restrictions are not discriminatory and are in the public interest, and provided that they meet the requirements of necessity and proportionality.

      (1)  Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36)


               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/62

         Removal from the Register of Case T-55/97 (1)

   (2005/C 217/125)

      (Language of the case: Dutch)

   By order of 16 June 2005, the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-55/97, C.H.L. Wijnen v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 142 of 10.5.1997.


title: Case T-171/10: Action brought on 15 April 2010 — Slovak Telekom v Commission

text:
               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/49

         Action brought on 15 April 2010 — Slovak Telekom v Commission
   (Case T-171/10)
   2010/C 148/80
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Slovak Telekom a.s. (Bratislava, Slovak Republic) (represented by: D. Geradin, L. Kjølbye and M. Maier, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the Commission Decision C(2010) 902 of 8 February 2010 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Articles 18(3) and 24(1) of Council Regulation 1/2003 (1) (Case COMP/39523 — Slovak Telekom); and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By means of the present application, the applicant seeks, pursuant to Article 263 TFUE, the annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 902 of 8 February 2010 ordering it, in accordance with Articles 18(3) and 24(1) of Council Regulation No 1/2003, to provide certain information in the framework of the Case COMP/39523 — Slovak Telekom relating to a proceeding under Article 102 TFUE and imposing periodic penalties in case of non compliance with the said decision.
   In support of its claims, the applicant puts forward three pleas in law.
   Firstly, the applicant alleges an error of law concerning the Commission’s powers to request information under Article 18(3) of Council Regulation No 1/2003 covering a period that predates the Slovak Republic’s accession to the European Union. Prior to 1 May 2004, the Commission had no power to apply European Union law to conduct investigations in within the territory of the Slovak Republic. As a consequence, the Commission is not entitled to use the powers of investigation enshrined in Article 18(3) of Regulation 1/2003 to obtain information pertaining to that same period.
   Secondly, the applicant claims that the contested decision should be annulled because it infringes the principle of procedural fairness enshrined in Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (2). The Commission’s investigation into Slovak Telekom’s conduct during a period where the EU law was not applicable and Slovak Telekom was under no obligation to comply with these rules may be prejudicial to Slovak Telekom. The Commission could take this information into account in its assessment. Indeed, the contested decision makes clear that this is the Commission’s intention.
   Thirdly, the applicant contends that the contested decision should be annulled because it infringes the principle of proportionality. This principle is reflected in Article 18(3) of Council Regulation No 1/2003, according to which the Commission is empowered to require undertakings to provide all necessary information. In the Slovak Telekom case, however, the Commission failed to establish the required link between the requested pre-accession information and the allegedly illegal conduct after 1 May 2004. As a result, information or documents pertaining to the pre-accession period are not necessary in order to enable the Commission to assess whether Slovak Telekom’s post-accession conduct complies with the EU law.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty; OJ L 1, p. 1.

      (2)  Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, OJ C 83 of 30 March 2010, p. 389.