title: Case T-286/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 22 April 2009 — CESD-Communautaire v Commission (Public procurement — Declaration of a serious breach of contract — Article 93(1)(f) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 — Action for annulment — Error of law — Jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance — Legal interest in bringing proceedings — Admissibility — Misuse of powers — Manifest error of assessment — Statement of reasons — Right to a fair hearing)

text:
               6.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/12

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 22 April 2009 — CESD-Communautaire v Commission
   (Case T-286/05) (1)

   (Public procurement - Declaration of a serious breach of contract - Article 93(1)(f) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 - Action for annulment - Error of law - Jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance - Legal interest in bringing proceedings - Admissibility - Misuse of powers - Manifest error of assessment - Statement of reasons - Right to a fair hearing)
   2009/C 129/19
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Centre européen pour la statistique et le développement ASBL (CESD-Communautaire) (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: D. Grisay and D. Piccininno, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Dintilhac and G. Wilms, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission’s letter of 18 May 2005 by which it informed the applicant that it had taken the decision to declare, as regards various contracts referred to, that there had been a serious breach of contract under Article 93(1)(f) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders Centre européen pour la statistique et le développement ASBL (CESD-Communautaire) to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 229, 17.9.2005.


title: Case C-592/12: Order of the President of the Court of 4 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid — Spain) — Compañía Europea de Viajeros España S.A. v Tribunal Económico Administrativo Regional de Madrid (Ministerio de Economia y Hacienda)

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/22

         Order of the President of the Court of 4 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid — Spain) — Compañía Europea de Viajeros España S.A. v Tribunal Económico Administrativo Regional de Madrid (Ministerio de Economia y Hacienda)
   (Case C-592/12) (1)

   2014/C 253/30
   Language of the case: Spanish
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 79, 16.3.2013.


title: Case T-522/10: Action brought on 8 November 2010 — Hell Energy v OHIM — Hansa Mineralbrunnen (HELL)

text:
               15.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/33

         Action brought on 8 November 2010 — Hell Energy v OHIM — Hansa Mineralbrunnen (HELL)
   (Case T-522/10)
   ()
   2011/C 13/63
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Hell Energy Magyarország kft (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: M. Treis, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hansa Mineralbrunnen GmbH (Rellingen, Germany)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 5 August 2010 in case R 1517/2009-1;

               —

               Allow the registration of the Community trade mark application No 5937107; and

               —

               Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear the costs of the current proceedings as well as those incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal and the Opposition Division.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘HELL’, for goods in class 32 — Community trade mark application No 5937107

      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: Community trade mark registration No 5135331 of the word mark ‘Hella’, for goods in class 32

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: The applicant considers that the contested decision infringes Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal and the Opposition Division erred in their decisions in finding a likelihood of confusion.


title: Case T-167/08: Action brought on 9 May 2008 — Microsoft v Commission

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/41

         Action brought on 9 May 2008 — Microsoft v Commission
   (Case T-167/08)
   (2008/C 171/80)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Microsoft Corp. (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, lawyer, I. Forrester, QC

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the Decision of the European Commission C(2008) 764 final of 27 February 2008 fixing the definitive amount of the periodic penalty payment imposed on Microsoft Corporation by Commission Decision C(2005) 4420 final;

               —

               in the alternative, annul or reduce the amount of the periodic penalty payment imposed;

               —

               order the defendant to bear the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By a decision of 10 November 2005 adopted pursuant to Article 24(1) of Regulation 1/2003 (1) the Commission imposed a periodic penalty payment on the applicant for failure to comply with the obligation to make the technical documentation embodying the Interoperability Information available to interested undertakings on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms pursuant to Article 5(a) of Commission Decision 2007/53/EC of 24 March 2004 (2). The contested decision fixed the definitive amount of the periodic penalty payment for the period between 21 June 2006 and 21 October 2007 inclusive at EUR 899 million. The applicant seeks the annulment of the contested decision on the following grounds:

               1.

               The Commission erred by subjecting Microsoft to periodic penalty payments to force it to apply ‘reasonable’ price terms without first specifying what price terms would, in the Commission's view, be ‘reasonable’ so as to allow Microsoft to know what to do to avoid the imposition of such penalty payment.

               2.

               The Commission committed a manifest error of assessment and violated Article 253 EC by concluding that published rates adopted by Microsoft were unreasonable and contrary to the 2004 decision without taking account of the facts that (i) these published rates were expressly intended to facilitate negotiations between Microsoft and prospective licensees and (ii) Microsoft had, in consultation with the Commission, created a mechanism whereby the trustee would review the rates proposed by Microsoft if any prospective licensee failed to reach agreement which was virtually identical to the mechanism created by the Commission itself in NDC Health/IMS Health: Interim Measures (‘IMS Health’) (3). The Commission also committed a manifest error of assessment by (i) failing to give due weight to the fact that these published rates were set by Microsoft at a figure lower than the rates that a third party expert determined to be reasonable (ii) failing to give due weight to the fact that no prospective licensee failed to reach agreement with Microsoft and (iii) failing to consider the fact that licensees of the ‘no patent’ licence also obtain rights to use Microsoft's patents.

               3.

               The Commission committed a manifest error of assessment by requiring Microsoft to establish that its trade secrets were innovative under a heightened patentability test in order to justify the imposition of royalties for a licence to such trade secrets. The Commission also violated Article 253 EC by failing to take account of numerous arguments raised by Microsoft on the basis of reports prepared by patent experts which criticised the Commission's approach.

               4.

               The Commission violated Article 233 EC by failing to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment in Case T-201/04 (4) in so far as the Commission based its assessment reports prepared by the trustee on the basis of documents obtained through powers of investigation that the Court of First Instance held to be unlawful.

               5.

               The Commission denied Microsoft's right to be heard by failing to give Microsoft an opportunity to make known its views after the end of the reference period for which Microsoft is fined, there by preventing Microsoft from commenting on all relevant aspects of the case.

               6.

               The amount of the periodic penalty payment is excessive and disproportionate. Among other reasons, the Commission failed to take due account of the fact that the contested decision only concludes that the royalties allegedly established by Microsoft under one particular licence (the ‘no patent’ licence) were unreasonable, and therefore doesn't challenge (i) the royalties allegedly established by Microsoft for all of its intellectual property rights incorporated in the entirety of the Interoperability Information that Microsoft is required to disclose under Article 5 of the 2004 decision or (ii) the completeness and accuracy of the Interoperability Information.

      (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 (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission Decision of 24 May 2004 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 82 of the EC Treaty and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement against Microsoft Corporation (Case COMP/C-3/37.792 — Microsoft) (notified under document number C(2004) 900) (OJ 2007 L 32, p. 23).

      (3)  Commission Decision 2002/165/EC of 3 July 2001 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 82 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP D3/38.044 — NDC Health/IMS Health: Interim measures) (notified under document number C(2001) 1695) (OJ 2002 L 59, p. 18).

      (4)  Case T-201/04, Microsoft v. Commission, not yet published in the ECR.


title: Action brought on 17 May 1995 by the Kingdom of Belgium against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-155/95)

text:
  12 . 8 . 95             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 208/3
           EEC/USA agreement concluded under GATT, if it is              Action brought on 17 May 1995 by the Kingdom of
           found that the contested Regulation is based on               Belgium against the Commission of the European
           those provisions .                                                                         Communities
                                                                                ( Case C-155/95 )
  — As regards the improper exclusion of the overshoot of                                            ( 95/C 208/06 )
       the MGA by the Portuguese producers from the
       calculation of the overall overshoot of the Specific Basic
       Area allocated to the Community as a whole :                      An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
       — The exclusion of Portugal from the benefit of                   European Communities on 17 May 1995 by the Kingdom of
           weighting of the overshoot of the Specific Base Area          Belgium, represented by J. Devadder, Director of
           in the Community as a whole has no basis in Article           Administration in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Foreign
           5 ( 1 ) ( f) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1765/92 , as            Trade and Cooperation with Developing Countries, acting
           amended by Regulation ( EEC ) No 232/94 which                 as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
           applied the Blair House Agreement within the                  Belgian Embassy, 4 Rue des Girondins .
           Community; it infringes Article 6 of that agreement;
           it also contravenes the principle of equality as
           between the Member States regarding enjoyment of              The applicant claims that the Court should :
           the benefits deriving from Community legislation,
           according to which no exclusion of any of them is             — annul Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 479/95 of
           justified; and the exclusion is discriminatory in that it           1 March 1995 introducing transitional measures for the
           is based on the nationality of certain producers .                  application of the tariff quota arrangements for the
                                                                               import of bananas as a result of the accession of Austria,
  (•) OJ No L 36 , 16 . 2 . 1995 , p . 2 .                                     Finland and Sweden for the second quarter of 1995 and
  (2 ) OJ No L 181 , 1 . 7. 1992 , p . 12,                                     order the Commission to pay the costs ( x ).
  (•') OJ No L 30, 3 . 2 . 1994 , p . 7.
                                                                         The pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support are
                                                                         the same as those relied on against Regulation ( EC )
                                                                         No 3303/94 in Case C-71 /95 ( 2 ).
                                                                         (») OJ No L 49 , 4 . 3 . 1995 , p . 18 .
  References for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura                   ( 2 ) OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 , p. 13 .
  Circondariale di Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli, by
  orders of that court of 25 March 1995 ( C-154/95 ), 3 April
  1995 ( C-157/95 ), 3 May 1995 ( C-174/95 ), 27 April 1995
  ( C-175/95 ) and 10 May 1995 ( C-176/95 ) in the criminal
  proceedings pending before that court against Isidoro
  Narducci, Fulvio Smaldone, Siro Mattei, Bruno Belli and
                           Armando Scrocca
  ( Cases C-154/95 , C-157/95 , C-174/95 , C-175/95 and
                                                                         Action brought on 17 May 1995 by the Kingdom of
                                C-176/95 )
                                                                         Belgium against the Commission of the European
                             ( 95/C 208/05 )                                                          Communities
                                                                                ( Case C-156/95 )
  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                             ( 95/C 208/07 )
  European Communities by orders of the Pretura
  Circondariale di Roma, Sezione Distraccata di Tivoli ( Rome
  District Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division ) of 25 March             An action against the Commission of the European
  1995 ( C-154/95 ), 3 April 1995 ( C-157/95 ), 3 May 1995               Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
  ( C-174/95 ), 27 April 1995 ( C-175/95 ) and 10 May 1995               European Communities on 17 May 1995 by the Kingdom of
  ( C-176/95 ), which were received at the Court Registry on             Belgium, represented by J. Devadder, Flead of Department
  15 May 1995 ( C-154/95 ), 19 May 1995 ( C-157/95 ), 6 June             at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Foreign Trade and
  1995 ( C-174/95 and C-175/95 ) and 7 June 1995                         Cooperation with Developing Countries, with an address
  ( C-176/95 ), for a preliminary ruling in the criminal                 for service in Luxembourg at the Belgian Embassy, 4 Rue des
  proceedings pending before that court against Isidoro                  Girondins .
£
  Narducci, Fulvio Smaldone, Siro Mattei, Bruno Belli     .
                                                               and
  Armando Scrocca on questions which are identical with
  those in Cases C-135/95 , C-140/95 and C-151/95 (*).                   The applicant asks the Court to annul Commission
                                                                         Regulation ( EC ) No 510/95 of 7 March 1995 on the
  (') OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .
                                                                         exceptional allocation of a quantity additional to the tariff
                                                                         quota for imports of bananas during the first quarter of
                                                                          1995 as a result of tropical storm Debbie (*) and order the
                                                                          Commission to pay the costs .


title: Case C-417/07: Action brought on 11 September 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               20.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/20

         Action brought on 11 September 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-417/07)
   (2007/C 247/27)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: R. Vidal Puig, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/36/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on the safety of third-country aircraft using Community airports (1) or, in any event, by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposition of Directive 2004/36/CE expired on 30 April 2006.

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 143, p. 76.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 26 September 1996 in Case C-287/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret): A/S Richard Frederiksen & Co. v. Skatteministeriet (Raising of capital - Capital duty - interest-free loan granted by a parent company to its subsidiary - Company income tax)

text:
23 . 11 . 96           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 354/7
uniform basis of assessment ( OJ No L 145 , 1977, p. 1 ), the          Commission of the European Communities ( Agents :
Court ( Fourth Chamber ), composed of: C. N. Kakouris,                 Jean-Paul Keppenne and Ben Smulders ) — application for
President of the Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn and                         annulment of Commission decision SG(94 ) D/8907 of
H. Ragnemalm ( Rapporteur ), Judges; G. Cosmas,                        27 June 1994 concerning aid to the company Kimberly
Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl , Principal Administrator, for            Clark Sopalin — the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 26 September 1996               Iglesias , President, C. N. Kakouris, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P.
in which it ruled :                                                    Puissochet and G. Hirsch ( Rapporteur ), ( Presidents of
                                                                       Chambers ), G. F. Mancini , P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann,
I. The hiring out of tangible property constitutes                     J. L. Murray, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet, Judges; F. G.
     exploitation ofsuch property which must be classified as          Jacobs, Advocate-General ; H. von Holstein, Deputy
     an 'economic activity ' within the meaning of Article 4           Registrar, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on
     (2) of the sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of                26 September 1996 , in which it:
     17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the
     Member States relating to turnover taxes — common                 1 . dismisses the application;
     system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment,
     if it is done for the purpose of obtaining income
     therefrom on a continuing basis.                                  2 . orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
2 . In order to determine whether the hiring out of tangible           (') OJ No C 304 , 29 . 10 . 1994 .
     property such as a motor caravan is carried on with a
     view to obtaining income on a continuing basis, within
     the meaning of the second sentence ofArticle 4 (2) of the
     sixth Directive, it is for the national court to evaluate all
     the circumstances of the particular case.
3 . Article 11 (A) (1 ) (c) of the sixth Directive is to be
     interpreted as meaning that the taxable amount for                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
     turnover tax on transactions treated as supplies of                                       ( Sixth Chamber)
     services under Article 6 (2) (a) of the Directive must
     include expenses which are incurred during a period in                                 of 26 September 1996
     which the goods are at the taxable person 's disposal in a        in Case C-287/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
     way that he can actually use them at any time for                 the 0stre Landsret ): A/S Richard Frederiksen & Co . v.
     non-business purposes and which relate to the goods                                      Skatteministeriet ( 1 )
     themselves or which the taxable person is entitled to             (Raising of capital — Capital duty — interest-free loan
     deduct for VAT purposes. The portion of the expenses              granted by a parent company to its subsidiary — Company
     to be included must be proportionate to the ratio                                              income tax)
     between the total duration ofactual use of the goods and
                                                                                ( 96/C 354/ 13 )
     the duration of actual use for non-business purposes.
(') OJ No C 275 , 1 . 10 . 1994 .                                                       (Language of the case: Danish)
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                   In Case C-287/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                       of the EC Treaty from the 0stre Landsret ( Eastern Regional
                    of 26 September 1996
                                                                       Court ) ( Denmark ) for a preliminary ruling in the
in Case C-241/94 : French Republic v. Commission of the                proceedings pending before that court between A/S Richard
                  European Communities ( 1 )                           Frederiksen       &   Co .     and   Skatteministeriet   on   the
(Concept ofState aid within the meaning ofArticle 92 (1) of            interpretation of Article 4 ( 2 ) ( b ) and Article 10 of Council
   the Treaty — State intervention of a social character)              Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect
                           ( 96/C 354/ 12 )                            taxes on the raising of capital ( Official Journal, English
                                                                       Special Edition, 1969 ( II ), p. 412 ), the Court ( Sixth
                                                                       Chamber ), composed of: C. N. Kakouris , President of the
                (Language of the case: French)                         Chamber, G. F. Mancini and H. Ragnemalm ( Rapporteur ),
                                                                       Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate-General ; H. A. Rühl ,
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be           Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
          published in the European Court Reports)                     judgment on 26 September 1996 in which it rules :
In Case C-241 /94 : French Republic ( Agents : Edwige                   1 . Article 4 (2) (b) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of
Belliard, Catherine de Salins and Jean-Marc Belorgey ) v.                   1 7 July 1 969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of
 ---pagebreak--- No C 354/ 8             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   23 . 11 . 96
      capital must be interpreted as applying, where a                       he provides constitutes a prerequisite for the
      company benefits from an interest-free loan, to the                    performance of the principal artistic or entertainment
      amount of interest saved.                                              service supplied.
2 . Article 10 of Directive 69/335/EEC does not preclude                2 . The fact that the person concerned has undertaken in
      the levying of income tax on a parent company which                    addition to coordinate the sound effects to be produced
      has granted an interest-free loan to one of its                        with his assistance with certain visual effects produced
      subsidiaries, on the basis of interest fixed after the                 by other persons cannot affect the answer given to the
      event.                                                                 first question.
( 1 ) OJ No C 351 , 10 . 12 . 1994 .                                    (') OJ No C 392 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          ( Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                ( Sixth Chamber )
                      of 26 September 1996
                                                                                of 26 September 1996
in Case C-327/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Finanzgericht, Cologne ): Jiirgen Dudda v. Finanzamt                in Case C-43/95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from the
                       Bergisch Gladbach (')                            Hogsta Domstolen ): Data Delecta Aktiebolag and Ronny
                                                                                Forsberg v. MSL Dynamics (')
 ( Value added tax — Interpretation of Article 17 (2) and
Article 3 (a) of Directive 77/388/EEC and of Article 3 (b)              (Equal treatment — Discrimination on grounds of
and the first paragraph of Article 5 of Directive                       nationality — Security for the costs of judicial
 79/1072/EEC — Refund of value added tax to taxable                                                 proceedings)
    persons not established in the territory of the country)                                       ( 96/C 354/ 15 )
                            ( 96/C 354/ 14 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: Swedish)
                (Language of the case: German)
                                                                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                     published in the European Court Reports)
           published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                        In Case C-43/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177 of
In Case C-327/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177             the EC Treaty from the Hogsta Domstolen [ Supreme
of the EC Treaty from the Finanzgericht [Finance Court],                Court], Stockholm, for a preliminary ruling in the
 Cologne ( Germany ) for a preliminary ruling in the                    proceedings pending before that court between Data
 proceedings pending before that court between Jiirgen                  Delecta Aktiebolag and Ronny Forsberg, and MSL
 Dudda and Finanzamt Bergisch Gladbach on the                           Dynamics Ltd — on the interpretation of Article 6 of the EC
 interpretation of Article 9 ( 2 ) of the sixth Council Directive       Treaty — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ) composed of: C. N.
 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the                  Kakouris , President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini and
 laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —                 P. J. G. Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ), Judges; A. La Pergola ,
 common system of value added tax : uniform basis of                    Advocate-General, R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on
 assessment ( OJ No L 145 , 1977, p. 1 ), the Court ( Sixth             26 September 1996 , the operative part of which is as
 Chamber ), composed of: C. N. Kakouris ( Rapporteur ),                 follows :
 President of the Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn and J. L. Murray,
Judges ; N. Fennelly, Advocate-General ; H. von Holstein,                The first paragraph of Article 6 of the EC Treaty must be
 Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 26 September                  interpreted as precluding a Member State from requiring
  1996 in which it rules :
                                                                        security to be lodged for the costs ofjudicial proceedings by
                                                                        a legal person established in another Member State which
  1 . The first indent of Article 9 (2) (c) of the sixth Council         has brought, before one of its courts, an action against one
       Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the                        of its nationals or a company established in the Member
       harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating           State in question , where no such requirement can be
       to turnover taxes — common system of value added tax:             imposed on legal persons from that State, in a situation in
       uniform basis of assessment must be interpreted as                which the action is connected with the exercise of
       covering the activity of a person who provides                    fundamental freedoms guaranteed by Community law.
       sound-engineering for artistic or entertainment events
       by choosing and operating the equipment used,                     (') OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 .
       adjusting it to the particular acoustic conditions and the
       desired sound effects, and who supplies the requisite
       equipment and operating staff, where the service which


title: Case T-76/99: Action brought on 1 April 1999 by Jütro Konservenfabrik GmbH & Co. KG against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 174/10              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       19.6.1999
— order the Commission to bear the costs of the present                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
     proceedings.
                                                                        1. annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 590/99 of
                                                                             18 March 1999 supplementing the Annex to Commission
                                                                             Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 on the registration of geo-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              graphical indications and designations of origin under the
                                                                             procedure laid down in Article 17 of Regulation (EEC)
                                                                             No 2081/92, in so far as the designation ‘Spreewälder
In its judgment in Case T-120/96, (1) the Court of First Instance            Gurken’ is concerned;
annulled the Commission’s decision of 22 May 1996, rejecting
the request for inclusion of somidobove in Annex II to Council          2. order the defendant to pay the recoverable costs of the
Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 laying down a Community                          proceedings.
procedure for the establishment of maximum residue limits of
veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin. (2)
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
Following that judgment, the Commission, in breach of its
obligations under Article 176 EC, has failed to submit the              The applicant produces tinned cucumbers in accordance with
draft regulation including somidobove in Annex II to the                recipes which have been used for centuries in the Spreewald
abovementioned regulation to the Adaptation Committee.                  area. The seat of the applicant’s undertaking is located some
                                                                        40 to 50 km to the west of that area.
According to the applicant, no margin of discretion is left to
the Commission in this case, so that it is under an obligation          The applicant states that the designation ‘Spreewälder Gurken’
to draw up a draft regulation including somidobove in Annex II          has been included by the contested regulation in the annex to
and to submit it to the Adaptation Committee for approval.              Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 in accordance with Regulation
                                                                        (EEC) No 2081/92 on the protection of geographical indi-
                                                                        cations and designations of origin for agricultural products
Furthermore, on the basis of the case-law of the Court of               and foodstuffs (1). The contested regulation has the effect of
Justice, measures giving effect to a judgment annulling an act          henceforth prohibiting the use of the word ‘Spreewald’ where
of an institution must be taken within a reasonable time. More          the criteria laid down in that regulation are not fulfilled.
than seven months have elapsed since the judgment in Case
T-120/96 was delivered and the defendant institution has still          In the applicant’s view, the contested regulation is character-
failed to take any measure to comply with it, and has,                  ised, in particular, by the fact that it ignores all the legal and
moreover, publicly announced its unwillingness to do so.                factual circumstances and constitutes a dubious manoeuvre
                                                                        prompted by politically and economically motivated machi-
                                                                        nations (‘cliquish intrigues’) on the part of the Justice Ministry
(1) Judgment of 25 June 1998 in Case T-120/96 Lilly Industries Ltd      of the Federal Republic of Germany, which ultimately rec-
    v Commission of the European Communities [1998] ECR II-2573.        ommended to the Commission that the contested regulation
(2) OJ 1990 L 224, p. 1.                                                be adopted.
                                                                        The applicant complains of infringement of essential pro-
                                                                        cedural requirements in relation to the enactment of the
                                                                        contested regulation, especially as regards the application of
                                                                        the simplified procedure under Article 17 of Regulation (EEC)
                                                                        No 2081/92, which is inappropriate in the case of ‘Spreewälder
                                                                        Gurken’, the curtailment of legal remedies connected therewith
                                                                        and failure to observe the six-month time-limit laid down in
                                                                        Article 17 of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92.
Action brought on 1 April 1999 by Jütro Konservenfabrik
GmbH & Co. KG against the Commission of the European                    The applicant further maintains that the contested regulation
                           Communities                                  is incompatible with Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92
                                                                        as regards the protection of geographical indications and/or
                                                                        designations of origin. Moreover, no provision has been made
                          (Case T-76/99)                                in the contested regulation for transitional arrangements to be
                                                                        applicable in the Federal Republic of Germany, as required in
                                                                        principle by Article 13(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92.
                         (1999/C 174/21)
                                                                        In addition, the applicant complains of a misuse of discretion-
                                                                        ary powers with regard to the demarcation of the ‘Spreewald
                  (Language of the case: German)                        economic area’, which has been artificially delimited and, in
                                                                        particular, incorrectly defined. The discretion conferred on the
                                                                        Community legislature in the definition of geographical areas
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               is not properly exercised where the geographic delimitation is
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              based — as it is in the present case — on extraneous
European Communities on 1 April 1997 by Jütro Konservenfa-              considerations such as political and economic needs. Further-
brik GmbH & Co. KG, of Jüterbog (Germany), represented by               more, to define a ‘Spreewald economic area’, having nothing
Rolf Schultz-Süchting, Rechtsanwalt, of Messrs Boesebeek                whatever to do with the ‘Spreewald’ geographical region,
Droste, Hamburg, with an address for service in Luxembourg              instead of defining that region itself, which is well-known in
at the Chambers of Messrs Arendt & Medernach, 8-10 Rue                  commercial circles, amounts to an incorrect exercise of
Mathias Hardt.                                                          discretion.
 ---pagebreak--- 19.6.1999             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 174/11
Finally, the applicant pleads infringement of fundamental                The applicant was subsequently refused registration of his
Community rights, alternatively of rights equivalent thereto, in         vehicle. He learned thereafter that the chassis number of his
the form of a disproportionate impairment, contrary to the               vehicle had been blocked by the customs service by reason of
principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, of the           the fact that the Commission had not supplied the Belgian
commercial enterprise set up and operated by the applicant,              Customs and Excise Administration with relevant and necess-
viewed as a property right. According to the applicant, there            ary information that had been requested a number of times.
has been an infringement of the guaranteed right to have
access to legal remedies (see Article 19(4) of the German Basic          The applicant maintains that the Commission is liable to him
Law), which is enshrined in the German constitution but which            for the following failures in its administrative system:
also falls to be observed in the context of Community law.
                                                                         — The Commission did not ensure that the applicant’s
                                                                              individual file contained all the important and relevant
(1) OJ L 208 of 24.7.1992, p. 1.                                              documents which it should have contained in order to
                                                                              enable it to give the Belgian authorities correct and
                                                                              complete information;
                                                                         — the Commission did not correctly defend the applicant’s
                                                                              interests before the Belgian authorities, in that they insisted
                                                                              on 1 November 1992 as the date on which he assumed
                                                                              his duties, whereas his individual file contained two
                                                                              documents showing that it was 5 January 1993;
Action brought on 2 April 1999 by Girish Ojha against
       the Commission of the European Communities                        — the Commission did not appear to know the terms of the
                                                                              agreements concluded with the Belgian Ministry of Finance
                                                                              and did not make the effort to become acquainted with
                         (Case T-77/99)                                       them.
                        (1999/C 174/22)                                  The material damage comprises the cost of hiring a vehicle
                                                                         identical to the applicant’s, at the rate of BFR 2 200 per day
                                                                         for the period from 1 February 1996 until 31 December 1997.
                                                                         The applicant considers that the non-material damage may
                   (Language of the case: French)                        fairly be assessed at BFR 300 000, since he suffered significant
                                                                         non-material damage through the errors and omissions of the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                Commission’s staff.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 2 April 1999 by Girish Ojha,
residing at Bierbeek (Belgium), represented by Antonietta
Ottati and Marc Dallemagne, both of the Brussels Bar.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Action brought on 1 April 1999 by Sonia Marion Elder
                                                                         and Robert Dale Elder against the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
— annul the express decision of the Commission rejecting
    the applicant’s complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff                                     (Case T-78/99)
    Regulations;
                                                                                (1999/C 174/23)
— order the Commission to pay the applicant damages of
    BFR 1 552 339 for material damage and BFR 300 000 for
    non-material damage;                                                                    (Language of the case: English)
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 1 April 1999 by Sonia Marion
                                                                         Elder and Robert Dale Elder, represented by Scott Crosby of
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Kemmier Rapp Böhlke & Crosby, 9, Rond-Point, Brussels.
The applicant was posted to the Commission delegation in                 The applicant claims that the Court should.
Dacca (Bangladesh) until 31 December 1992. He imported a
Mercedes motor car, purchased free of VAT on 17 December                 (i) annul the refusal of the Commission to grant the appli-
1991, to Bangladesh from Belgium. On 5 January 1993, he                       cation for review of 6 January 1999 addressed to the
resumed his duties with the Commission in Brussels.                           Secretary General of the Commission constituted by its
                                                                              failure to reply in any form by the last hour of 8 February
                                                                              1999, or in the alternative by its failure to define its
According to the applicant, the relevant department of the                    position before the last hour of 13 or 14 February 1999;
Commission stated on tax forms on 23 December 1992 and
15 January 1993 that the applicant satisfied the conditions for          (ii) order the defendant to pay the applicants’ costs pursuant
customs exemption, erroneously indicating 1 November 1992                     to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First
as the date on which he assumed his duties.                                   Instance.


title: Case T-726/14: Judgment of the General Court of 17 February 2017 — Novar v EUIPO (Non-contractual liability — Proof of the existence, validity and scope of protection of the earlier mark — International registration designating the European Union — Decision rejecting the opposition in the absence of proof of the earlier right — Rule 19(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Revision of the decision — Article 62(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Damage consisting in lawyers’ fees — Causal link)

text:
               3.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/42

         Judgment of the General Court of 17 February 2017 — Novar v EUIPO
   (Case T-726/14) (1)

   ((Non-contractual liability - Proof of the existence, validity and scope of protection of the earlier mark - International registration designating the European Union - Decision rejecting the opposition in the absence of proof of the earlier right - Rule 19(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Revision of the decision - Article 62(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Damage consisting in lawyers’ fees - Causal link))
   (2017/C 104/59)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Novar GmbH (Albstadt, Germany) (represented by: R. Weede, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: S. Hanne, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Application pursuant to Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for material damage which the applicant allegedly sustained on account of lawyers’ fees that it incurred in an appeal against a decision of the Opposition Division allegedly adopted in breach of Rule 19(2)(a) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark and of general legal principles.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Novar GmbH and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) each to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 7, 12.1.2015.


title: Case T-211/06: Action brought on 4 August 2006 — Euro-Information v OHIM (word mark CYBERCREDIT )

text:
               14.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/11

         Action brought on 4 August 2006 — Euro-Information v OHIM (word mark ‘CYBERCREDIT’)
   (Case T-211/06)
   (2006/C 249/29)
   Language in which the application was lodged: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Européenne de traitement de l'information SAS (Euro-Information) (Strasbourg, France) (represented by: A. Jacquet, J. Schouman and P. Greffe, lawyers)

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

               —

               annulment in its entirety of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 June 2006, Case R 66/2006-1, which refused to register ‘CYBERCREDIT’ as a Community trade mark, under application No 4 114 336, in respect of all the goods and services applied for in Classes 9, 36 and 38;

               —

               registration of ‘CYBERCREDIT’ as a Community trade mark, under application No 4 114 336, in respect of all the goods and services applied for.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘CYBERCREDIT’ in respect of goods and services in Classes 9, 36 and 38 (application No 4 114 336)

      Decision of the examiner: Refusal to register

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: The applicant claims that, contrary to the finding of the Board of Appeal of OHIM in the contested decision, its mark is arbitrary and is sufficiently distinctive in relation to the goods and services applied for to meet the requirements of Council Regulation No 40/94.


title: Case T-387/14: Order of the General Court of 11 November 2015 — salesforce.com v OHIM (MARKETINGCLOUD)

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/75

         Order of the General Court of 11 November 2015 — salesforce.com v OHIM (MARKETINGCLOUD)
   (Case T-387/14) (1)

   (2016/C 027/95)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 261, 11.8.2014.


title: Case T-212/14: Order of the General Court of 29 June 2015 — PSL v OHIM — Consortium Ménager Parisien (Representation of a watch)

text:
               21.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/61

         Order of the General Court of 29 June 2015 — PSL v OHIM — Consortium Ménager Parisien (Representation of a watch)
   (Case T-212/14) (1)

   (2015/C 311/68)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 245, 28.7.2014.


title: Case T-527/11: Action brought on 7 October 2011 — Luxembourg Patent Co. v OHIM — DETEC (FIREDETEC)

text:
               17.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 370/25

         Action brought on 7 October 2011 — Luxembourg Patent Co. v OHIM — DETEC (FIREDETEC)
   (Case T-527/11)
   2011/C 370/43
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Luxembourg Patent Co. SA (Lintgen, Luxembourg) (represented by: K. Manhaeve, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sistemas de Seguridad, Detección y Extinción de Incendios, SL (DETEC) (Madrid, Spain)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 26 July 2011 in case R 736/2010-4 insofar as it has declared the opponent’s opposition successful against the applicant’s trademark application for ‘fire-extinguishing apparatus; fire-extinguishing apparatus for automatic and independent detection and extinguishing of fires’ in class 9 and ‘development of fire extinguishers and fire extinguishing apparatus’ in class 42; and

               —

               Order the defendant and — if applicable — the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to jointly and severally pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘FIREDETEC’ for goods in classes 1, 9, 17 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 4904389

      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: Spanish trade mark registration No 1759982 of the figurative mark ‘DETEC’, for goods in class 9; Spanish trade mark registration No 1759983 of the figurative mark ‘DETEC’, for services in class 37; Community trade mark registration No 3813219 of the figurative mark ‘DETEC Sistemas de Seguridad, Detección y Extinción de Incendios, SL’, for goods and services in classes 9, 37 and 45

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly assessed the existence of likelihood of confusion between the applied mark and the opposed mark.


title: Case T-215/04: Action brought on 9 June 2004 by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               28.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/29

         Action brought on 9 June 2004 by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-215/04)
   (2004/C 217/51)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 9 June 2004 by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, represented by M. Bethell, agent, assisted by D. Anderson QC and H. Davies, Barrister, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision in its entirety;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicants costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The applicant contests the Commission decision of 30 March 2004 on the aid scheme which the United Kingdom is planning to implement with regard to the Government of Gibraltar Corporation Tax Reform (1). In the decision, the Commission finds that the proposed tax reform constitutes state aid incompatible with the common market.
   In support of its application, the applicant submits that the Commission's conclusions as to regional selectivity are vitiated by material errors of fact and are wrong in law.
   According to the applicant, Gibraltar, which is a colony whose self-government the United Kingdom is obliged to develop under the UN Charter, does not form part of the United Kingdom as a matter of domestic, international and Community law. Furthermore, the applicant states that Gibraltar is distinct from the United Kingdom and that it receives no subsidy or financing from the United Kingdom. The applicant also claims that the tax systems of the United Kingdom and of Gibraltar are entirely separate and unconnected and that the reform proposals do not constitute a tax reduction to the tax system applicable in the United Kingdom. The Commission's approach also infringes, according to the applicant, the principle of equal treatment in that measures adopted by a symmetrically devolved region are not to be treated as state aid whereas the same measures adopted by a asymmetrically devolved region are.
   The applicant contends that the Commission's conclusions with respect to material selectivity are wrong in law and are insufficiently reasoned.
   The applicant finally submits that the Commission has infringed the applicant's right to be heard in that it did not raise certain matters upon which it has sought to base its decision during the course of the procedure under Article 88(2) EC.

      (1)  State aid C 66/2002 — Gibraltar government corporation tax reform.


title: Judgment of the Court of 12 September 2000 in Case C-366/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'Appel de Lyon): Yannick Geffroy and Casino France SNC (Free movement of goods — National legislation on the marketing of a product — Description and labelling — National legislation requiring use of the official language of the Member State — Directive 79/112/EEC)

text:
4.11.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 316/11
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                      of 12 September 2000
                                                                                of 12 September 2000
in Case C-260/98: Commission of the European Communi-
                   ties v Hellenic Republic (1)
                                                                           in Case C-366/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                           the Cour d’Appel de Lyon): Yannick Geffroy and Casino
(Failure to fulfil obligations — Article 4(5) of the Sixth VAT
                                                                                France SNC (1)
Directive — Access to roads on payment of a toll —Failure to
levy VAT — Regulations (EEC, Euratom) Nos 1552/89 and
       1553/89 — Own resources accruing from VAT)
                                                                           (Free movement of goods — National legislation on the
                                                                           marketing of a product — Description and labelling —
                          (2000/C 316/19)
                                                                           National legislation requiring use of the official language of
                                                                                the Member State — Directive 79/112/EEC)
                    (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                                (2000/C 316/20)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-260/98: Commission of the European Communities                                        (Language of the case: French)
(Agents: D. Gouloussis and H. Michard) v Hellenic Republic
(Agents: P. Mylonopoulos and A. Rokofyllou) — application
for a declaration that, by failing to subject to value added tax
tolls paid by users as consideration for the service of providing
access to motorways and related infrastructures, contrary to               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Articles 2 and 4 of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of                                  in the European Court Reports)
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),
                                                                           In Case C-366/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
and by thereby avoiding payment of the own resources
                                                                           the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Cour d’Appel de
and interest due under Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom)
                                                                           Lyon, France, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision
                                                                           pending before that court between Yannick Geffroy and Casino
88/376/EEC, Euratom, on the system of the Community’s own
                                                                           France SK — on the interpretation of Article 30 of the EC
resources (OJ 1989 L 155, p. 1), and Council Regulation (EEC,
                                                                           Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC) and Article 14
Euratom) No 1553/89 of 29 May 1989 on the definitive
                                                                           of Council Directive 79/112/EEC of 18 December 1978 on
uniform arrangements for the collection of own resources
                                                                           the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating
accruing from value added tax (OJ 1989 L 155, p. 9), the
                                                                           to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs
Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
                                                                           (OJ 1979 L 33, p. 1), as amended by Commission Directive
EC Treaty — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias,
                                                                           93/102/EC of 16 November 1993 (OJ 1993 L 291, p. 14), —
President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida (Rapporteur), L. Sevón
                                                                           the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President,
and R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers), P.J.G. Kapteyn,
                                                                           J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur) and
C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm, V. Skou-
                                                                           L. Sevón (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puisso-
ris and F. Macken, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; D. Lou-
                                                                           chet, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet, Judges, D. Ruiz-
terman-Hubeau and H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrators, for
                                                                           Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator,
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 September 2000, in
                                                                           for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 September
which it:
                                                                           2000, in which it has ruled:
1.    Dismisses the application;
                                                                           1.    Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28
2.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear                  EC) and Article 14 of Council Directive 79/112/EEC of
      the costs.                                                                 18 December 1978 on the approximation of the laws of the
                                                                                Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and
                                                                                advertising of foodstuffs, as amended by Commission Directive
(1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.
                                                                                93/102/EC of 16 November 1993, do not preclude a national
                                                                                provision from requiring that the labelling of foodstuffs and the
                                                                                labelling methods used must not mislead the purchaser or
                                                                                consumer, particularly as to the characteristics of those food-
                                                                                stuffs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 316/12                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          4.11.2000
2.     Article 30 of the Treaty and Article 14 of Directive 79/112                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
       preclude a national provision from requiring the use of a specific
       language for the labelling of foodstuffs, without allowing for
       the possibility for another language easily understood by                                   of 19 September 2000
       purchasers to be used or for the purchaser to be informed by
       other means.
                                                                            in Case C-454/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                            the Bundesfinanzhof): Schmeink & Cofreth AG & Co. KG
(1) OJ C 378 of 5.12.1998.                                                  v Finanzamt Borken and Manfred Strobel v Finanzamt
                                                                                Esslingen (1)
                                                                            (Sixth VAT Directive — Obligation of Member States to
                                                                            provide for the possibility of adjusting tax improperly
                                                                            mentioned on an invoice — Conditions — Good faith of
                                                                                issuer of invoice)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                                 (2000/C 316/22)
                       of 19 September 2000
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
in Case C-156/98: Federal Republic of Germany v Com-
           mission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Aid granted to undertakings in the new German Länder —                                          in the European Court Reports)
               Tax provision favouring investment)
                                                                            In Case C-454/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                           (2000/C 316/21)                                  the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Bundesfinanzhof
                                                                            (Federal Finance Court), Germany, for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                            the proceedings pending before that court between Schmeink
                                                                            & Cofreth AG & Co. KG and Finanzamt Borken and between
                    (Language of the case: German)                          Manfred Strobel and Finanzamt Esslingen — on the interpret-
                                                                            ation of Article 21(1)(c) of the Sixth Council Directive of
                                                                            17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value
                    in the European Court Reports)                          added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1)
                                                                            — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President,
                                                                            J.C. Moitinho de Almeida (Rapporteur) and L. Sevón (Presi-
In Case C-156/98: Federal Republic of Germany (Agents:                      dents of Chambers), P.J.G. Kapteyn, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann,
C.-D. Quassowski, assisted by K.A. Schroeter) v Commission                  H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet and V. Skouris, Judges; N. Fennel-
of the European Communities (Agents: P.F. Nemitz and D. Tri-                ly, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
antafyllou, assisted by M. Hilf) — application for a annulment              on 19 September 2000, in which it has ruled:
of Commission Decision 98/476/EC of 21 January 1998 on
tax concessions under Paragraph 52(8) of the German Income
Tax Act (the Einkommensteuergesetz) (OJ 1998 L 212, p. 50)                  1.    Where the issuer of the invoice has in sufficient time wholly
— the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President,                    eliminated the risk of any loss in tax revenues, the principle of
L. Sevón (President of Chamber), P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann,                     the neutrality of VAT requires that VAT which has been
J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet (Rappor-                     improperly invoiced can be adjusted without such adjustment
teur) and V. Skouris, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate General;                        being made conditional upon the issuer of the relevant invoice
D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Regis-                      having acted in good faith.
trar, has given a judgment on 19 September 2000, in which it:
                                                                            2.    It is for the Member States to lay down the procedures to apply
1.     Dismisses the application;                                                 as regards the adjustment of improperly invoiced VAT, provided
                                                                                that such adjustment is not dependent on the discretion of the
                                                                                tax authorities.
2.     Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 234 of 25.7.1998.                                                  (1) OJ C 48 of 20.2.1999.


title: Case T-276/10: Judgment of the General Court of 15 November 2011 — El Coto de Rioja v OHIM — Álvarez Serrano (COTO DE GOMARIZ) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Figurative Community mark COTO DE GOMARIZ — Prior Community word marks COTO DE IMAZ and EL COTO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               7.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/13

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 November 2011 — El Coto de Rioja v OHIM — Álvarez Serrano (COTO DE GOMARIZ)
   (Case T-276/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Figurative Community mark COTO DE GOMARIZ - Prior Community word marks COTO DE IMAZ and EL COTO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2012/C 6/22
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: El Coto de Rioja, SA (Oyón, Spain) (represented by: J. Grimau Muñoz and J. Villamor Muguerza, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: María Álvarez Serrano (Gomariz Leiro, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 April 2010 (Case R 1020/2008-4) concerning invalidity proceedings between El Coto de Rioja, SA and Ms María Álvarez Serrano.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 April 2010 (Case R 1020/2008-4) in so far as the assessment of the Board of Appeal as to the similarity of the signs in question is incorrect;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 234, 28.8.2010.


title: Case C-135/07 P: Appeal brought on 6 March 2007 by Bank Austria Creditanstalt AG against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 14 December 2006 in Joined Cases T-259/02 to T-264/02 and T-271/02 Raiffeisen Zentralbank Österreich AG and Others v Commission of the European Communities, concerning Case T-260/02

text:
               26.5.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 117/12

         Appeal brought on 6 March 2007 by Bank Austria Creditanstalt AG against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 14 December 2006 in Joined Cases T-259/02 to T-264/02 and T-271/02 Raiffeisen Zentralbank Österreich AG and Others v Commission of the European Communities, concerning Case T-260/02
   (Case C-135/07 P)
   (2007/C 117/19)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Appellant: Bank Austria Creditanstalt AG (‘BA-CA’) (represented by: C. Zschocke and J. Beninca, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               set aside in whole or in part the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 December 2006 in Joined Cases T-259/02 to T-264/02 and T-271/02 (1), in respect of Case T-260/02;

               —

               annul the decision of the Commission of 11 June 2002 in Case COMP/36.571, in so far as it concerns BA-CA;

               —

               in the alternative, reduce by an appropriate amount the fine imposed by the Commission upon BA-CA in the contested decision;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By this appeal, the appellant seeks the setting aside of the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 December 2006. The appellant complains of numerous defects in reasoning and legal and procedural errors.
   The appellant contends that the judgment appealed against endorsed without evident justification the Commission's view that the committee meetings of the banks had negative economic consequences. According to the appellant, the judgment appealed against infringes the principles governing the procedure for adducing evidence by misunderstanding the conditions to be satisfied by economic reports submitted in order to prove the absence of economic effects. On the basis of the report submitted, economic effects should not have been taken into account in the fixing of the fine.
   The appellant maintains that the judgment appealed against disregarded the requirements established by the European courts imposing a need to reduce the fine on the basis of mitigating factors. Owing to this legal error, the judgment appealed against failed to correct the Commission's wrongful exercise of discretion which occurred when it took into account neither the participation of public bodies in, nor the widespread and proven public knowledge of, the committee meetings of the banks as factors mitigating the level of fines.
   By its third plea in law, the appellant alleges defects in reasoning, infringement of the principle of equal treatment and further errors of law and procedure in the judgment appealed against in relation to the appraisal of its cooperation by the Commission.
   The appellant maintains that it cooperated with the Commission from the outset in the reconstruction of the facts of the case. In particular it submitted at an early stage of the procedure a comprehensive account of the committee meetings of the banks and also, on a voluntary basis, an extensive set of documentation which — as found by the Court — was used by the Commission for its contested decision. Furthermore, in its reply to the statement of objections it provided an account of the facts which — as also confirmed by the judgment appealed against — the Commission was able to use for its contested decision.
   Like the contested decision, the judgment appealed against failed to reduce the fine in return for this comprehensive, valuable and proven cooperation on the part of the appellant. This constitutes an incorrect application of the Leniency Notice, infringing the principle of equal treatment and the principle of legitimate expectations. Moreover, the judgment appealed against also infringed the appellant's right to be heard by independently considering factors relating to the level of the fine imposed on the appellant upon which it had been unable previously to comment.

      (1)  OJ 2006 C 331, p. 29.


title: Case T-582/11: Action brought on 14 November 2011 — Solar-Fabrik v OHIM (Premium XL)

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/59

      Action brought on 14 November 2011 — Solar-Fabrik v OHIM (Premium XL)
      (Case T-582/11)
      (2012/C 25/113)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Solar-Fabrik AG für Produktion und Vertrieb von solartechnischen Produkten (Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany) (represented by M. Douglas, lawyer)

         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 1 September 2011 in Case R 245/2011-1;

                  —

                  Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

         Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Premium XL’ for goods in Classes 9 and 11

         Decision of the Examiner: rejection of the application

         Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the appeal

         Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009 as the mark applied for has distinctive character.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 October 2003 in Case T-279/01: Giorgio Lebedef v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Staff report — Late preparation — Action for compensation)

text:
C 7/32                  EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                            10.1.2004
3.    Orders the Commission to bear its own costs.                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
(1) OJ C 3 of 5.1.2002.                                                                             of 21 October 2003
                                                                           in Case T-302/01: Gerhard Birkhoff v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
                                                                           (Officials — Article 2(5) of Annex VII to the Staff Regu-
                                                                           lations — Cancellation of an allowance for dependent child
                                                                               who has reached majority — Legitimate expectations)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (2004/C 7/58)
                        of 23 October 2003
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
in Case T-279/01: Giorgio Lebedef v Commission of the
                    European Communities (1)
(Officials — Staff report — Late preparation — Action for                  In Case T-302/01: Gerhard Birkhoff, former official of the
                           compensation)                                   Commission of the European Communities, now retired,
                                                                           residing in Weitnau (Germany), represented by V. Salvatore,
                                                                           lawyer, against Commission of the European Communities
                           (2004/C 7/57)                                   (Agents: J. Currall and A. Dal Ferro) — first, an application for
                                                                           annulment of the decision of the appointing authority of
                                                                           26 September 2001 rejecting the complaint brought by the
                    (Language of the case: French)                         applicant against the decision of the Commission of 4 July
                                                                           2001 by which it cancelled payment to the applicant of the
                                                                           dependent child allowance in respect of his daughter and of
                                                                           the decision of 4 July 2001 and, secondly, a claim for
                                                                           compensation for material and non-material damage — the
In Case T-279/01: Giorgio Lebedef, an official of the Com-                 Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of
mission of the European Communities, residing in Senninger-                N.J. Forwood, President, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges;
berg (Luxembourg), represented by G. Bouneou and F. Frabetti,              H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on 21 October 2003, in
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against                which it:
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: J. Currall)
— application, first, for annulment of the Commission’s
decisions partially rejecting the applicant’s complaints seeking           1.    Annuls the decision of the Commission of 4 July 2001
damages to compensate him for the non-material damage                            cancelling, with effect from 1 July 2001, payment of the
caused by the delay in the preparation of the staff reports                      dependent child allowance in respect of the applicant’s daughter
concerning him for the periods 1995/1997 and 1997/1999                           who has reached majority.
and, secondly, for damages to compensate him for that non-
material damage — the Court of First Instance (Single Judge:
V. Tiili); I. Natsinas, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given        2.    Finds that there is no need to adjudicate on the claim for
a judgment on 23 October 2002, in which it:                                      compensation for the damage arising from the loss of cover in
                                                                                respect of the applicant’s daughter by the EC Sickness Insurance
                                                                                Fund, nor on the part of the claim seeking compensation for the
1.    Orders the Commission to pay the applicant the sum of                      tax consequences of the contested decision.
      EUR 1 500, in addition to the sum of EUR 619,73 already
      awarded by the Appointing Authority.                                 3.    Dismisses the remainder of the claim for compensation.
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the action.                               4.    Orders the Commission to pay two-thirds of the applicant’s
                                                                                costs, including those incurred in the proceedings for interim
3.    Orders the Commission to pay the costs.                                    relief in the present case.
(1) OJ C 3 of 5.1.2002.                                                    (1) OJ C 44 of 16.2.2002.


title: Case C-434/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bari (Italy) lodged on 22 September 2014  — Criminal proceedings against Raffaele Mignone

text:
               15.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 448/4

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bari (Italy) lodged on 22 September 2014 — Criminal proceedings against Raffaele Mignone
   (Case C-434/14)
   (2014/C 448/05)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Bari

      Party to the main proceedings

   Raffaele Mignone

      Questions referred

               1)

               Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU, as also construed in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 16 February 2012 [in Joined Cases C-72/10 and C-77/10], to be interpreted as precluding a call for tenders for the award of licences with a period of validity shorter than that of licences awarded in the past, where that tendering procedure has been launched in order to remedy the consequences of the unlawful exclusion of a certain number of operators from earlier tendering procedures?

               2)

               Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU, as also construed in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 16 February 2012 in Joined Cases C-72/10 and C-77/10, to be interpreted as precluding the possibility that sufficient justification for the shorter period of validity of licences offered for tender, as compared with licences awarded in the past, can be found in the requirement for the licensing system to be reorganised through the alignment of licence expiry dates?

               3)

               Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU, as also construed in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 16 February 2012 in Joined Cases C-72/10 and C-77/10, to be interpreted as precluding the imposition of an obligation to transfer, free of charge, the use of tangible and intangible assets represented by the betting management and collection network in the event that the activity has ceased owing to the expiry of the licence or as a result of measures disqualifying the licence-holder or withdrawing the licence?


title: Case T-16/09 P: Appeal brought on 19 January 2009 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal made on 4 November 2008 in Case F-87/07 Marcuccio v Commission

text:
               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/48

         Appeal brought on 19 January 2009 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal made on 4 November 2008 in Case F-87/07 Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case T-16/09 P)
   (2009/C 55/86)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               In any event:

                           A.1

                           A decision setting aside the order under appeal, in its entirety and without exception.

                           A.2

                           A declaration that the action at first instance was perfectly admissible.

               —

               The principal claim:

                           B.1

                           The granting in toto and without exception of the appellant's claims at first instance;

                           B.2

                           an order that the respondent should pay in favour of the appellant all costs, fees and expenses incurred by him both at first instance and on appeal;

               —

               or

                           B.3

                           refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal, sitting in a different formation, so that it may give a fresh decision on the merits of the case.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The decision under appeal in this case is the order made by the Civil Service Tribunal on 4 November 2008 in Case T-87/07 Marcuccio v Commission.
   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Case T-9/09 Marcuccio v Commission.
   The appellant claims, in particular, that the Civil Service Tribunal did not rule on a fundamental aspect of the dispute, that is to say, authorisation to produce a note signed by a doctor. He also alleges that the order lacks any reasoning and is illogical in respect of the alleged inadmissibility of the claim for damages, of the claim that the Tribunal should make a declaration establishing the reality of the actions and conduct complained of and, at least incidentally, declare them unlawful, and of the action at first instance as a whole.


title: Case T-452/15: Action brought on 10 August 2015 — Petrov and Others v European Parliament

text:
               3.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 363/39

         Action brought on 10 August 2015 — Petrov and Others v European Parliament
   (Case T-452/15)
   (2015/C 363/48)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Andrei Petrov (St. Petersburg, Russia), Fedor Biryukov (Moscow, Russia), Alexander Sotnichenko (St. Petersburg, Russia) (represented by: P. Richter, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the ban on entering the premises of the European Parliament made by the President of the European Parliament against the applicants on 16 June 2015;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
               The applicants claim that they were discriminated against solely because of their nationality and in contravention of the prohibition under Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, since there appear to be no substantive grounds for the ban pronounced. Moreover, in the view of the applicants, their presence on the premises of the European Parliament did not pose a risk to security and could not adversely affect the Parliament’s functioning.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging misuse of power
               The applicants claim that the actions of the President of the European Parliament were manifestly purely arbitrary and are diametrically opposed to the prohibition of discrimination in the Treaties.