title: Case C-110/03: Action brought on 10 March 2003 by the Kingdom of Belgium against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 112/14               EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                         10.5.2003
Action brought on 7 March 2003 by the Commission of                     are liable to a maximum fine of PTE 50 000 whereas Spanish
the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain                   nationals who fail to apply in time for their identity documents
                                                                        are liable to a fine of PTE 50 for every month of delay. The
                                                                        Commission gives an outline of some of the complaints which
                         (Case C-108/03)                                gave rise to the reasoned opinion and to the present application
                                                                        which, in its view, clearly show the difference in the scale of
                                                                        fines and their disproportionate nature.
                         (2003/C 112/23)
                                                                        (1 ) OJ English Special Edition 1968 (II), p 485.
                                                                        (2 ) OJ 1973 L 172, p. 14.
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 7 March
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Carmel O’Reilly, Legal Adviser, and Luis
Escobar Guerrero, of its Legal Service, with an address for
service in Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                        Action brought on 10 March 2003 by the Kingdom
—     Declare that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its        of Belgium against the Commission of the European
      obligations under Articles 39, 43 and 49 of the EC Treaty                                     Communities
      and Article 4 of Council Directive 68/360/EEC ( 1) of
      15 October 1968 on the abolition of restrictions on
      movement and residence within the Community for
      workers of Member States and their families and Article 4                                   (Case C-110/03)
      of Council Directive 73/148/EEC (2) of 21 May 1973 on
      the abolition of restrictions on movement and residence
      within the Community for nationals of Member States                                         (2003/C 112/24)
      with regard to establishment and the provision of services
      inasmuch as non-Spanish Community nationals in the
      Kingdom of Spain are treated, as regards the degree of
      fault and scale of fines for infringement of provisions
      relating to residence permits, disproportionately differ-
      ently from Spanish nationals who commit the compar-               An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      able infringement of the obligation to obtain or renew            ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
      national identity documents;                                      Communities on 10 March 2003 by the Kingdom of Belgium,
                                                                        represented by A. Snoecx, acting as Agent, assisted by D. Wael-
                                                                        broeck and D. Brinckman, lawyers.
—     Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        —     declare the application admissible and well founded;
Failure to fulfil requirements relating to residence permits —          —     annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 2204/2002 of
failure to submit the requisite documents, failure to apply for               12 December 2002 on the application of Articles 87 and
or renew permits — may be the subject of fines provided that                  88 of the EC Treaty to State aid for employment (1);
the amount of the fine is not disproportionate to the degree of
seriousness of the infringement. The Commission acknowl-
edges that the situation of non-Spanish nationals, as regards           —     so far as necessary, by virtue of Article 241 of the EC
residence permits, and that of Spanish nationals, as regards                  Treaty, declare inapplicable Council Regulation (EC) No
identity documents, are not identical. However, that has not                  994/98 of 7 May 1998 on the application of Articles 92
precluded, in the Commission’s view, the Court of Justice                     and 93 of the Treaty establishing the European Com-
considering those two situations in order to arrive at the                    munity to certain categories of horizontal State aid (2) as
concept of comparability of fines (see the judgment in Case                   the legal basis for the regulation at issue;
C-24/97 Commission v Germany [1998] ECR I-2133). The
Commission regrets that, for delaying up to three months
before applying for a residence permit, non-Spanish nationals           —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 10.5.2003               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 112/15
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Finally, the Kingdom of Belgium wonders whether the regu-
                                                                          lation at issue should not be annulled for infringing the Treaty
                                                                          inasmuch as the regulation is based on the wrong legal basis.
                                                                          The Treaty provides for a specific legal basis for Community
                                                                          action in the field of employment. The enabling regulation
                                                                          enabled the Council to confer on the Commission the power
                                                                          to adopt actions in the field of employment; to that extent,
—     Infringement of Council Regulation (EC) No 994/98,                  that regulation should also be declared unlawful, since it runs
      hereinafter ‘the enabling regulation’. Commission Regu-             counter to the provisions of the Amsterdam Treaty which does
      lation (EC) No 2204/2002, hereinafter ‘the regulation at            not permit any such conferment of powers by way of a
      issue’, does not observe the enabling regulation in that it         Council regulation.
      does not attain any of the objectives relating to trans-
      parency and legal certainty pursued by the enabling
      regulation. First, the regulation at issue is not clear as
      regards the circumstances in which it applies, in view of           (1 ) OJ 2002 L 337, p. 3.
                                                                          (2 ) OJ 1998 L 142, p. 1.
      the parallel existence of guidelines and frameworks which
      the Commission can apply at the same time to aid for
      employment. Secondly, the regulation at issue is not clear
      either as regards the rules it contains. Finally, the lack of
      clarity affects the very measures which should fall within
      the scope of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty and in respect
      of which the application of the regulation is necessary.
      Indeed, the regulation at issue gives the impression that it
      must also be applied to measures of general scope, that is
      to say, general measures adopted at regional level, when
      such measures should automatically have been excluded
      from the scope of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
                                                                          Action brought on 12 March 2003 by the Commission
                                                                          of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                                                                Sweden
—     Breach of the principle of subsidiarity, by failing to take
      account of the constitutional organisation prevailing in
      Belgium and by therefore considering every action by a                                        (Case C-111/03)
      regional authority, which is exclusively competent in the
      field of employment, as specific and thus as falling within
      the scope of the regulation at issue.
                                                                                (2003/C 112/25)
—     Breach of the principle of non-discrimination: by main-
      taining earlier aid schemes which had previously been
      authorised while introducing a scheme which is altogether
                                                                          An action against the Kingdom of Sweden was brought before
      stricter for new aid and allowing to exist side by side two
      schemes which are diametrically different depending on              the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 12 March
                                                                          2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
      the date on which the aid was implemented, the regu-
                                                                          represented by L. Ström and A. Borders, acting as Agents, with
      lation at issue also entails breach of the principle of non-
                                                                          an address for service in Luxembourg.
      discrimination, which is a general legal principle which
      must be observed when implementing Community
      administrative policy in general and in matters of compe-
      tition and State aid in particular. By leaving intact
      previously authorised aid schemes, the regulation at issue          The Commission claims that the Court should:
      discriminates between undertakings which will benefit
      from aid granted on the basis of earlier schemes and
      those which will be eligible to receive only lower levels           1.    Declare that by retaining a system of prior notification
      of aid on the basis of the new scheme.                                    and health checks for importers of certain food products
                                                                                of animal origin from other Member States the Kingdom
                                                                                of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council
                                                                                Directive 89/662/EEC of 11 December 1989 concerning
                                                                                veterinary checks in intra-Community trade with a view
—     Breach of the principle of proportionality, by making it                  to the completion of the internal market ( 1), and
      difficult or impossible for Member States to pursue a
      genuine employment policy because of such lack of
      transparency, clarity and coherence of the legislation.             2.    Order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.


title: Case T-325/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 September 2008 — Boston Scientific Ltd v OHIM — Terumo (CAPIO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark CAPIO — Earlier national word mark CAPIOX — Relative ground for refusal — Genuine use of the mark — Article 43(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94)

text:
               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/23

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 September 2008 — Boston Scientific Ltd v OHIM — Terumo (CAPIO)
   (Case T-325/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark CAPIO - Earlier national word mark CAPIOX - Relative ground for refusal - Genuine use of the mark - Article 43(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94)
   (2008/C 272/43)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Boston Scientific Ltd (Hastings, Barbados) (represented by: P. Rath and W. Festl-Wietek, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM and intervener before the Court of First Instance: Terumo Kabushiki Kaisha (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: C. Bercial Arias, lawyer)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 September 2006 (Case R 61/2006-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Terumo Kabushiki Kaisha and Boston Scientific Ltd.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders Boston Scientific Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.


title: Case C-376/08: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 23 December 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia (Italy)) — Serrantoni Srl, Consorzio stabile edili Scrl v Comune di Milano (Public works contracts — Directive 2004/18/EC — Articles 43 EC and 49 EC — Principle of equal treatment — Groups of undertakings — Prohibition on competing participation in the same tendering procedure by a consorzio stabile ( permanent consortium ) and one of its member companies)

text:
               27.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/9

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 23 December 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia (Italy)) — Serrantoni Srl, Consorzio stabile edili Scrl v Comune di Milano
   (Case C-376/08) (1)

   (Public works contracts - Directive 2004/18/EC - Articles 43 EC and 49 EC - Principle of equal treatment - Groups of undertakings - Prohibition on competing participation in the same tendering procedure by a ‘consorzio stabile’ (‘permanent consortium’) and one of its member companies)
   2010/C 51/13
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Serrantoni Srl, Consorzio stabile edili Scrl

      Defendant: Comune di Milano

      Intervening parties: Bora Srl Construzioni edili, Unione consorzi stabili Italia (UCSI), Associazione nazionale imprese edili (ANIEM),

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia — Interpretation of Articles 39 EC, 43 EC, 49 EC and 81 EC and of Article 4 of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114) — National legislation providing for the automatic exclusion of member companies of a consortium of economic operators, where the consortium itself participates in the procedure.

      Operative part of the judgment

   Community law must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such at that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that, when a public contract is being awarded, with a value below the threshold laid down in Article 7(c) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, but of certain cross-border interest, both a permanent consortium and its member companies are automatically excluded from participating in that procedure and face criminal sanctions where those companies have submitted tenders in competition with the consortium’s tender in the context of the same procedure, even if the consortium’s tender was not submitted on behalf and in the interests of those companies.

      (1)  OJ C 327, 20.12.2008.


               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/52

         Removal from the Register of Case T-246/01 R (1)

   (2004/C 118/115)

      Language of the case: English

   By order of 24 March 2004, the President of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-246/01 R, GrafTech International Ltd v Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 17 of 19.1.2002.


title: Case C-375/08: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 June 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Treviso (Italy)) — Criminal proceedings against Luigi Pontini, Emanuele Rech, Dino Bonora, Giovanni Forato, Laura Forato, Adele Adami, Sinergie sas di Rech & C., Impresa individuale Forato Giovanni, Forato srl, Giglio srl, Impresa individuale Rech Emanuele, Ivo Colomberotto, Agenzia Veneta per i pagamenti in agricoltura — AVEPA, Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA), Agrirocca di Rech Emanuele, Asolat di Rech Emanuele & C. (Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Beef and veal — Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 — Community financial aid concerning special premiums for male bovine animals and payments for extensification — Conditions for granting — Calculation of the stocking density on the holding — Meaning of ‘available forage area’ — Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 and Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 — Integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes — National legislation making the grant of Community financial aid conditional upon production of a valid legal document attesting to the right to use the areas under forage)

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/5

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 June 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Treviso (Italy)) — Criminal proceedings against Luigi Pontini, Emanuele Rech, Dino Bonora, Giovanni Forato, Laura Forato, Adele Adami, Sinergie sas di Rech & C., Impresa individuale Forato Giovanni, Forato srl, Giglio srl, Impresa individuale Rech Emanuele, Ivo Colomberotto, Agenzia Veneta per i pagamenti in agricoltura — AVEPA, Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA), Agrirocca di Rech Emanuele, Asolat di Rech Emanuele & C.
   (Case C-375/08) (1)

   (Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Beef and veal - Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 - Community financial aid concerning special premiums for male bovine animals and payments for extensification - Conditions for granting - Calculation of the stocking density on the holding - Meaning of ‘available forage area’ - Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 and Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 - Integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes - National legislation making the grant of Community financial aid conditional upon production of a valid legal document attesting to the right to use the areas under forage)
   2010/C 221/06
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Treviso

      Parties in the main proceedings

   Luigi Pontini, Emanuele Rech, Dino Bonora, Giovanni Forato, Laura Forato, Adele Adami, Sinergie sas di Rech & C., Impresa individuale Forato Giovanni, Forato srl, Giglio srl, Impresa individuale Rech Emanuele, Ivo Colomberotto, Agenzia Veneta per i pagamenti in agricoltura — AVEPA, Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA), Agrirocca di Rech Emanuele, Asolat di Rech Emanuele & C.

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Treviso — Interpretation of Council Regulation No 1254/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal (OJ 1999 L 160, p. 21) — Meaning of ‘forage area’ — National legislation making, in the absence of an ownership right, the grant of Community financial aid conditional upon production of a valid legal document attesting to the right to use the areas under forage.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Community legislation — and, in particular, Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal — does not make the eligibility of an application for special premiums for male bovine animals or payments for extensification conditional upon the production of a valid legal document attesting to the aid applicant’s right to use the forage areas to which the application relates. However, subject to compliance with the objectives pursued by the Community legislation, as well as the general principles of Community law and, in particular, the principle of proportionality, the Community legislation does not preclude Member States from imposing, under their national legislation, a requirement to produce such a document.

      (1)  OJ C 327, 20.12.2008.


20.11.1999              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 333/21
Communities in case T-14/98 between Heidi Hautala, Member                     Removal from the register of Case C-316/98 P (1)
of the European Parliament, supported by the Republic of
Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden, and the Council of the                                        (1999/C 333/46)
European Union, supported by the French Republic, was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-            By order of 2 February 1999 the President of the Court of
ties on 22 September 1999 by the Council of the European                Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
Union, represented by Mrs Jill Aussant, Director, Mr Giorgio            from the register of Case C-316/98 P: Union Européenne de
Maganza, Director, and Mr Martin Bauer, Legal Adviser, acting           l’Artisanat et des Petites et Moyennes Entreprises (UEAPME) v
as agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the             Council of the European Communities.
office of Mr Alessandro Morbilli, Director of the Legal Affairs
Directorate of the European Investment Bank, 100 Boulevard
Konrad Adenauer, Kirchberg.                                             (1) OJ C 312 of 10.10.1998.
The Appellant claims that the Court should:
— set aside the decision of the Court of First Instance of
      19 July 1999 by which it:
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case C-335/98 (1)
      — annuls the Council’s decision of 4 November 1997
          refusing the Respondent access to the report of the                                    (1999/C 333/47)
          Working group on Conventional Arms Exports;
                                                                        By order of 21 May 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                        of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
      — orders the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings;         the register of Case-335/98: Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities v Italian Republic.
— decide to give final judgment in the matter, dismiss the
      Application at First Instance as unfounded and order the          (1) OJ C 327 of 24.10.1998.
      Applicant at First Instance to pay the costs of the
      proceedings before the Court of First Instance;
— decide on the costs of this appeal as it sees fit.
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case C-388/98 (1)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (1999/C 333/48)
The Council’s appeal is based on the ground that the Court of
First Instance committed a fundamental error of law in                  By order of 11 June 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
interpreting Article 4(1) of the decision (2) on public access to       of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
Council documents as legally requiring the Council to consider          the register of Case C-388/98: Commission of the European
whether access should be given to parts of a document to                Communities v Hellenic Republic.
which access is requested.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 397 of 19.12.1998.
According to the Council, the Court of First Instance:
i)    incorrectly construed the legal effect of the decision on
      public access to Council documents;
ii) misconstrued the objective of the decision on public access                Removal from the register of Case C-338/96 (1)
      to Council documents;
                                                                                (1999/C 333/49)
iii) misapplied the principle of proportionality.
                                                                        By order of 21 June 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                        of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                        the register of Case C-338/96 (reference for a preliminary
(1) OJ C 72, 7.3.1998, p. 27.                                           ruling from Genova): Ignazio Messina & C. SpA v Amministra-
(2) Council Decision 93/731/EC of 20.12.1993 (OJ L 340,                 zione delle Finanze dello Stato.
     31.12.1993, p. 43).
                                                                        (1) OJ C 370 of 7.12.1996.


C 161/12              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      2.6.2001
       Removal from the register of Case C-237/00 (1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-344/99 (1)
                       (2001/C 161/22)                                                       (2001/C 161/25)
By order of 9 January 2001 the President of the Court of              By order of 12 March 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-237/00: Commission of the                 from the register of Case C-344/99: Italian Republic v Com-
European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.                     mission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.                                            (1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-120/00 (1)
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-359/00 (1)
                       (2001/C 161/23)
                                                                                (2001/C 161/26)
By order of 9 March 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from              By order of 12 March 2001 the President of the Court of
the register of Case C-120/00: Commission of the European             Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
Communities v French Republic.                                        from the register of Case C-359/00: (reference for a preliminary
                                                                      ruling from the Tribunal de Commerce, Foix and l’Ariège,
                                                                      France): Réunion des Assureurs Maladie v Jean-Marc Laboup.
(1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-182/95 (1)
                       (2001/C 161/24)                                       Removal from the register of Case C-21/00 (1)
By order of 12 March 2001 the President of the Court of                                      (2001/C 161/27)
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-182/95: (reference for a preliminary      By order of 13 March 2001 the President of the Court of
ruling from Finanzgericht Hamburg): T. Port GmbH & Co v               Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas.                                           from the register of Case C-21/00: (reference for a preliminary
                                                                      ruling from the Giudice di pace di Massa): Hamadeh Adnan v
(1) OJ C 208 of 12.8.1995.                                            Sociétà Fiat Sava SpA.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.


title: Case T-57/13: Order of the General Court of 19 March 2014  — Club Hotel Loutraki and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Operation of video lottery terminals — Grant of an exclusive licence by the Hellenic Republic — Decision finding no State aid — Letter addressed to the complainants — Act not open to challenge — Inadmissibility)

text:
               26.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 159/26

         Order of the General Court of 19 March 2014 — Club Hotel Loutraki and Others v Commission
   (Case T-57/13) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - State aid - Operation of video lottery terminals - Grant of an exclusive licence by the Hellenic Republic - Decision finding no State aid - Letter addressed to the complainants - Act not open to challenge - Inadmissibility))
   2014/C 159/36
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Club Hotel Loutraki AE (Loutraki, Greece); Vivere Entertainment AE (Athens, Greece); Theros International Gaming, Inc. (Patras, Greece); Elliniko Casino Kerkyras (Athens); Casino Rodos (Rhodes, Greece); and Porto Carras AE (Alimos, Greece) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Afonso and P.-J. Loewenthal, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E.M. Mamouna, acting as Agent) and Organismos Prognostikon Agonon Podosfairou AE (OPAP) (Athens) (represented initially by K. Fountoukakos-Kyriakakos, Solicitor, L. Van den Hende and M. Sánchez Rydelski, lawyers, and subsequently by M. Petite and A. Tomtsis, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision allegedly contained in the Commission’s letter of 29 November 2012 relating to a complaint by the applicants concerning the existence of State aid allegedly granted by the Greek authorities to OPAP

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as being inadmissible.

               2.

               Club Hotel Loutraki AE, Vivere Entertainment AE, Theros International Gaming, Inc., Elliniko Casino Kerkyras, Casino Rodos and Porto Carras AE shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission and by Organismos Prognostikon Agonon Podosfairou AE (OPAP).

               3.

               The Hellenic Republic shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 114, 20.4.2013.


               14.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/19

         (2006/C 249/40)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 237, 30.9.2006

   Past publications

      OJ C 224, 16.9.2006

      OJ C 212, 2.9.2006

      OJ C 190, 12.8.2006

      OJ C 178, 29.7.2006

      OJ C 165, 15.7.2006

      OJ C 154, 1.7.2006

   These texts are available on:

               EUR-Lex:http://eur-lex.europa.eu


title: Case T-194/14: Judgment of the General Court of 28 January 2016 — Bristol Global v OHIM — Bridgestone (AEROSTONE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark AEROSTONE — Earlier Community word marks STONE and BRIDGESTONE — Earlier non-registered national figurative mark BRIDGESTONE — Relative ground for refusal — Partial refusal of registration)

text:
               14.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/33

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 January 2016 — Bristol Global v OHIM — Bridgestone (AEROSTONE)
   (Case T-194/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark AEROSTONE - Earlier Community word marks STONE and BRIDGESTONE - Earlier non-registered national figurative mark BRIDGESTONE - Relative ground for refusal - Partial refusal of registration))
   (2016/C 098/43)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Bristol Global Co. Ltd (Birmingham, United Kingdom) (represented by: F. Bozhinova, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Bridgestone Corp. (Tokyo, Japan) (represented initially by M. Blair, Solicitor, and subsequently by S. Malynicz, Barrister, and C. Balme and K. Gilbert, Solicitors)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 December 2013 (Case R 916/2013-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Bridgestone Corp. and Bristol Global Co. Ltd.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Bristol Global Co. Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and by Bridgestone Corp.

      (1)  OJ C 151, 19.5.2014.


title: Case T-418/04: Action brought on 15 October 2004 by Confcooperative and Others against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/53

         Action brought on 15 October 2004 by Confcooperative and Others against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-418/04)
   (2004/C 300/103)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 15 October 2004 by Confcooperative FVG Federagricole, il Consorzio Friulvini S.C.a.r.l., la Cantina Sociale di Ramoscello, S. Vito S.C.a.r.l., la Cantina Produttori Cormòns S.C.a.r.l. and Luigi Soini, represented by Fausto Capelli.
   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the explanatory note attached to item no 103 in Annex I to Commission Regulation No 1429/2004 concerning the limitation in time on the use of the name ‘Tocai friulano’ up to 31 March 2007;

               —

               order the Commission to pay all costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The pleas in law and main arguments are identical to those put forward in Case T-417/04 Regione Autonoma Friuli Venezia Giulia v Commission (1).

      (1)  Not yet published in the Official Journal.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) of 10 December 1998 in Case C-290/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof): Georg Bruner, trading as 'Georg Bruner' v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Export refunds - Nomenclature of agricultural products)

text:
C 48/2               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    20.2.1999
Zuchtschweine Epe GbR, a partnership governed by                     Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett,
German law, established in Neuenkirchen (Germany),                   Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
represented by Gerd Rentzmann and Rudolf Brenken,                    10 December 1998, in which it has ruled:
Rechtsanwälte, Quakenbrück, with an address for service
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Michel Molitor, Pierre
                                                                     1. In the case of a former frontier worker and recipient
Feltgen and AndreÂ Harpes, 14A Rue des Bains Ð appeal
                                                                          of invalidity benefits who lives in a Member State
against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          other than that of the institution responsible for
European Communities (Fifth Chamber) of 15 April 1997
                                                                          payment, and whose place of residence is nearer to the
in Case T-390/94 Schröder and Others v. Commission
                                                                          institution of the competent Member State than to the
[1997] ECR II-501, seeking to have that judgment set
                                                                          institution of the State of residence, Article 51(1) of
aside, the other party to the proceedings being:
                                                                          Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of the Council of
Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
                                                                          21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing
Claudia Schmidt, assisted by Bertrand Wägenbaur) Ð the
                                                                          Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann
                                                                          social security schemes to employed persons and their
(Rapporteur), President of the First Chamber, acting as
                                                                          families moving within the Community, as amended
President of the Fifth Chamber, C. Gulmann, D. A. O.
                                                                          and updated by Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83
Edward, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet, Judges; D.
                                                                          precludes the competent institution from carrying out
Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate-General; R. Grass,
                                                                          the administrative checks and medical examination of
Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 December 1998, in
                                                                          that worker without requesting a prior examination by
which it:
                                                                          the institution of his place of residence. However, the
                                                                          provision does not preclude the worker from waiving
1. Dismisses the appeal.                                                  the right to undergo the prior examination by the
                                                                          institution of his place of residence, provided that his
2. Orders the appellants to pay the costs.                                waiver is freely made and unambiguous.
(1) OJ C 252, 16.8.1997.                                             2. In the case of a first assessment of invalidity benefit
                                                                          granted to a person who is resident in a Member State
                                                                          other than that of the competent institution, Article 40
                                                                          of the Regulation does not preclude the competent
                                                                          institution from determining the degree of invalidity
                                                                          on the basis of its own medical examination without
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       requesting a prior examination by the institution of
                      (Third Chamber)                                     the place of residence. However, the competent
                                                                          institution must take account of any documents,
                    of 10 December 1998                                   medical reports and administrative information from
in Case C-279/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                 the institution in the Member State in which the
the Centrale Raad van Beroep): Bestuur van het Landelijk                  worker resides.
Instituut Sociale Verzekeringen v. C. J. M. Voeten and
                          J. Beckers (1)                             (1) OJ C 271, 6.9.1997.
(Social security Ð Frontier workers Ð Invalidity Ð
                    Medical examination)
                        (1999/C 48/03)
                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
         published in the European Court Reports)                                         of 10 December 1998
                                                                     in Case C-290/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
In Case C-279/97: reference to the Court under Article 177           the Bundesfinanzhof): Georg Bruner, trading as Georg
of the EC Treaty from the Centrale Raad van Beroep                             Bruner' v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (1)
(Netherlands) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
pending before that court between Bestuur van het                    (Export refunds Ð Nomenclature of agricultural products)
Landelijk Instituut Sociale Verzekeringen and C. J. M.                                       (1999/C 48/04)
Voeten, J. Beckers Ð on the interpretation of Articles 40
and 51 of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of the Council of
21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing                                  (Language of the case: German)
Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social
security schemes to employed persons and their families
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
moving within the Community, as amended and updated
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
by Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 (OJ L 230, 22.8.1984,
p. 86) Ð the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: J.-P.
Puissochet, President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de              In Case C-290/97: reference to the Court under Article 177
Almeida (Rapporteur) and C. Gulmann, Judges; D.                      of the EC Treaty from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) for
 ---pagebreak--- 20.2.1999             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 48/3
a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before               The Combined Nomenclature, as laid down in Annex I to
that court between Georg Bruner, trading as Georg                   Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2505/92 of 14 July
Bruner' and Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas Ð on the                      1992 amending Annexes I and II to Council Regulation
interpretation     of    Commission       Regulation    (EEC)        (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical
No 3846/87 of 17 December 1987 establishing an                       nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff is to be
agricultural product nomenclature for export refunds (OJ             interpreted as meaning that products such as Taxofit
L 366, 24.12.1981, p. 1) Ð the Court (Third Chamber),                Vitamin C + Ca Brausetabletten and Taxofit Vitamin C
composed of: J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), President of             Kautabletten are to be classified under heading No 3004.
the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida and C.
Gulmann, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate-General; L.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 357, 22.11.1997.
Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 10 December 1998, in which it has ruled:
Poultry cuts made up of two hind quarters of a fowl still
attached to one another by the skin of the back constitute
quarters' (code 0207 41 11 000) within the meaning of
the nomenclature of agricultural products for export                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
refunds established by Commission Regulation (EEC)
No 3846/87 of 17 December 1987.                                                            (Second Chamber)
                                                                                of 16 December 1998
(1) OJ C 295, 27.9.1997.
                                                                     in Case C-374/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                     the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf): Florian Vorderbrüggen v.
                                                                                Hauptzollamt Bielefeld (1)
                                                                     (Additional levy on milk Ð Special reference quantity Ð
                                                                                Definitive grant Ð Conditions)
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                          (1999/C 48/06)
                       (First Chamber)
                    of 10 December 1998                                             (Language of the case: German)
in Case C-328/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Bundesfinanzhof): Glob-Sped AG v. Hauptzollamt
                          Lörrach (1)
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
(Combined Nomenclature Ð Headings Nos 3004 and                                published in the European Court Reports)
           2106 Ð Vitamin C-based preparations)
                        (1999/C 48/05)
                                                                     In Case C-374/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                     of the EC Treaty from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf for a
               (Language of the case: German)                        preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
                                                                     court between Florian Vorderbrüggen and Hauptzollamt
                                                                     Bielefeld Ð on the validity of Article 3(a)(3) of
                                                                     Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1546/88 of 3 June
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                     1988 laying down detailed rules for the application of the
         published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                     additional levy referred to in Article 5(c) of Regulation
                                                                     (EEC) No 804/68 (OJ L 139, 4.6.1988, p. 12), as
In Case C-328/97: reference to the Court under Article 177           amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1033/89 (OJ L 110,
of the EC Treaty from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) for              21.4.1989, p. 27) Ð the Court (Second Chamber),
a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before               composed of: G. Hirsch (Rapporteur), President of
that court between Glob-Sped AG and Hauptzollamt                     Chamber, G. F. Mancini and R. Schintgen, Judges; P.
Lörrach Ð on the interpretation of heading No 3004 of                LeÂger, Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl, Principal
Annex I to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2505/92 of                 Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
14 July 1992 amending Annexes I and II to Council                    16 December 1998, in which it has ruled:
Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical
nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ
L 267, 14.9.1992, p. 1) concerning the classification of             Consideration of the question referred has not revealed
vitamin C-based preparations Ð the Court (First                      any factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of the
Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the                     first subparagraph of Article 3(a)(3) of Commission
Chamber, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), Judges;              Regulation (EEC) No 1546/88 of 3 June 1988 laying
N. Fennelly, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator,            down detailed rules for the application of the additional
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 December               levy referred to in Article 5(c) of Regulation (EEC)
1998, in which it has ruled:                                         No 804/68, as added by Regulation (EEC) No 1033/89, in


title: Case C-665/13: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal do Trabalho de Lisboa — Portugal) — Sindicato Nacional dos Profissionais de Seguros e Afins v Via Directa — Companhia de Seguros SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination — National legislation establishing salary reductions for certain public sector employees — No implementation of EU law — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

text:
               19.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/11

      Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal do Trabalho de Lisboa — Portugal) — Sindicato Nacional dos Profissionais de Seguros e Afins v Via Directa — Companhia de Seguros SA
      (Case C-665/13) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination - National legislation establishing salary reductions for certain public sector employees - No implementation of EU law - Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)
      (2015/C 016/16)
      Language of the case: Portuguese

         Referring court

      Tribunal do Trabalho de Lisboa

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Sindicato Nacional dos Profissionais de Seguros e Afins

         Defendant: Via Directa — Companhia de Seguros SA

         Operative part of the order

      The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction to take cognisance of the present request for a preliminary ruling made by the Tribunal do Trabalho de Lisboa (Portugal), by order of 28 October 2013 (Case C-665/13).

         (1)  OJ C 85, 22.3.2014.


title: Case C-79/06: Action brought on  10 February 2006  by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
               8.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/16

         Action brought on 10 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic
   (Case C-79/06)
   (2006/C 86/30)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the French Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 10 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by M. Heller, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by failing to take the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 27 November 2003 in Case C-429/01, (1) regarding failure to transpose Directive 90/219/EEC (2) correctly and in full, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 228(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community;

               2.

               order the French Republic to pay to the Commission of the European Communities, for the ‘European Community's own resources’ account, a fine of EUR 168 000 per day of delay in complying with the judgment in Case C-429/01, from the date of judgment herein until the judgment in Case C-429/01 is complied with;

               3.

               order the French Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The French Republic should have initiated, immediately after the Court's judgment, the necessary legislative process and adopted the appropriate amendments to comply with Directive 90/219/EEC.
   Hitherto the amendments necessary at both the legislative and regulatory levels have still not been adopted, 14 years, and even ten and seven years respectively after the expiry of the period for compliance and more than two years after the Court's declaration of the failure to fulfil obligations.

      (1)  [2003] ECR I-14355.

      (2)  Council Directive 90/219/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms ‘GMMO’ (OJ 1990 L 117, p. 1).


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 31 October 2000 in Case T-84/00 R: Laboratórios Roussel, Limitada, and Laboratoires Roussel Diamant S.a.r.l. v Commission of the European Communities (Interlocutory proceedings — Withdrawal of marketing authorisation for medicinal products for human use containing clobenzorex — Directive 75/319/EEC — Urgency — Need to balance interests)

text:
C 118/38                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    21.4.2001
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                                                                                INSTANCE
                      of 12 December 2000
                                                                                of 31 October 2000
in Case T-201/99: Royal Olympic Cruises Ltd and Others
v Council of the European Union and Commission of the
                   European Communities (1)                               in Case T-84/00 R: Laboratórios Roussel, Limitada, and
                                                                          Laboratoires Roussel Diamant S.a.r.l. v Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities
(Non-contractual liability of the Community — Damage
caused by the military intervention in the Federal Republic
    of Yugoslavia — Action manifestly unfounded in law)                   (Interlocutory proceedings — Withdrawal of marketing
                                                                          authorisation for medicinal products for human use contain-
                                                                          ing clobenzorex — Directive 75/319/EEC — Urgency —
                                                                                Need to balance interests)
                         (2001/C 118/105)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/106)
                    (Language of the case: Greek)
In Case T-201/99: Royal Olympic Cruises Ltd, Valentine                                       (Language of the case: German)
Oceanic Trading Inc., Caroline Shipping Inc., Simpson Navi-
gation Ltd, Solar Navigation Corporation, Ocean Quest Sea
Carriers Ltd, Athena 2004 SA, Freewind Shipping Company,
established in Monrovia (Liberia), Elliniki Etaireia Diipeirotikon        In Case T-84/00 R: Laboratórios Roussel, Lda, of Mem
Grammon AE, established in Piraeus (Greece), represented by               Martins (Portugal), and Laboratoires Roussel Diamant S.a.r.l.,
N. Skandamis, of the Athens Bar, and A. Potamianaos, of the               of Puteaux (France), represented by B. Sträter, Rechtsanwalt,
Piraeus Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the             Bonn, Germany, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
Chambers of S. Le Goueff, 9 Avenue Guillaume, against                     the Chambers of Bonn and Schmidt, 7 Val Sainte-Croix,
Council of the European Union (Agents: M. Vitsentzatos                    against Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
and S. Kyriakopoulou) and Commission of the European                      H. Støvlbæk and B. Wägenbaur) — application for the
Communities (Agents: T. Christoforou and A. Van Solinge) —                suspension of application of the decision of the Commission
application for compensation to make good the damage                      of 9 March 2000 concerning the withdrawal of authorisations
allegedly caused to the applicants as a result of the conduct of          for placing on the market medicinal products for human
the European Community during the military intervention in                consumption containing, in particular, clobenzorex — the
Kosovo between 24 March and 9 June 1999 — the Court of                    President of the Court of First Instance made an order on
First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of A.W.H. Meij,                 31 October 2000, the operative part of which is as follows:
President, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
made an order on 12 December 2000, the operative part of
which is as follows:                                                      1.   The application to the applicants of the decision of the
                                                                               Commission of 9 March 2000 concerning the withdrawal of
                                                                               authorisations for placing on the market medicinal products
1.    The application is dismissed as manifestly unfounded in law.             for human consumption containing clobenzorex, fenbutrazat,
                                                                               fenproporex, mazindol, mefenorex, norpseudoephedrine, phen-
                                                                               metrazine, phendimetrazine and propylhexedrine (C(2000)
2.    The parties shall bear their own costs.                                  608) is suspended.
                                                                          2.   Costs are reserved.
(1) OJ C 366, 18.12.1999.


title: Removal from the register of C-18/96

text:
No C 40/ 14           1 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       8 . 2 . 97
the cover capital of the pension less the accrued rights ) or                     Removal from the register of C-290/95 (')
only to the subrogation as such ?                                                                    ( 97/C 40/30 )
(') Offical Journal, English Special Edition 1971 ( II ), p. 416 .
                                                                        By order of 2 October 1996 the President of the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                        removal from the register of Case C-290/95 : Commission
                                                                        of the European Communities v. Italian Republic .
                                                                        (') OJ No C 286 , 28 . 10 . 1995 .
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour du Travail
( Fourth Chamber), Brussels, by judgment of that court of
11 December 1996 in the case of Europieces SA against
Wilfried Sanders and Automotive Industries Holding
                             Company SA
                          ( Case C-399/96 )                                       Removal from the register of C-3 19/95 (')
                              97/C 40/28 )                                                           ( 97/C 40/31 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  By order of 23 September 1 996 the President of the Court
European Communities by judgment of the Cour du                         of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Travail (Higher Labour Court ) ( Fourth Chamber ),                      removal from the register of Case C-319/95 : Commission
Brussels, of 11 December 1996 , which was received at the               of the European Communities v. Ireland .
 Court Registry on 17 December 1996 , for a preliminary
 ruling in the case of Europieces SA against Wilfried                   (') OJ No C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .
 Sanders and Automotive Industries Holding Company SA
 on the following question :
 Does Council Directive 77/ 187/EEC (') of 14 February
 1977 on the approximation of the laws of the Member
 States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in                      Removal from the register of C-4 10/95 (')
 the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts                                          ( 97/C 40/32 )
 of businesses apply where a company in liquidation
 transfers all or part of its assets to another company                  By order of 27 September 1996 the President of the Court
 which then issues orders to a worker which the company                  of Justice of the Fluropean Communities has ordered the
 in liquidation says must be carried out ?                               removal from the register of Case C-410/95 ( reference for
                                                                         a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Commerce de
 O O J No L 61 , 5 . 3 . 1977, p . 26 .                                  Nice ): SA Societe des Grands Garages Mediterraneens ,
                                                                         Societe Nissan France v. Societe Nice Ouest Automobiles .
                                                                         (") OJ No C 46 , 17 . 2 . 1996 .
 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal
 Correctionnel, Charleroi, by judgment of that court of
  21 October 1996 in the case of Ministere Public v. Jean
                                Harpegnies                                         Removal from the register of C- 18/96 (')
                           ( Case C-400/96 )                                                           ( 97/C 40/33 )
                              ( 97/C 40/29 )
                                                                          By order of 8 October 1 996 the President of the Court of
  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                         from the register of Case C- 18/96 : Commission of the
  European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal
  Correctionnel ( Criminal Court ), Charleroi , of 21 October            European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium .
  1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on
                                                                          (■) OJ No C 77, 16 . 3 . 1996 .
  17 December 1996, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
  Ministere Public ( Public Prosecutor ) v. Jean Harpegnies on
  the following question :
  Is Belgian legislation, in so far so it still requires approval
  by the Belgian authorities of plant-protection products                          Removal from the register of C-l 34/96 ( 1 )
  marketed in another Member State, in ' breach of the rules
  on the free movement of goods in the Community, as laid                                               ( 97/ C 40/34 )
  down in Article 30 of the EEC Treaty ?
                                                                          By order of 3 October 1996 the President of the Court of
                                                                          Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal


title: Case C-48/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 28 January 2013 — Nordea Bank Danmark A/S v Skatteministeriet (Ministry of Taxation)

text:
               6.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 101/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 28 January 2013 — Nordea Bank Danmark A/S v Skatteministeriet (Ministry of Taxation)
   (Case C-48/13)
   2013/C 101/24
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Østre Landsret

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Nordea Bank Danmark A/S

      Defendant: Skatteministeriet (Ministry of Taxation)

      Question referred

   Are Article 49 TFEU, read together with Article 54 (formerly Article 43 EC, read together with Article 48) and Article 31 of the EEA Agreement, read together with Article 34, to be interpreted as precluding a Member State, which allows a company situated in that State to deduct losses on an ongoing basis from a permanent establishment situated in another Member State, from making full recapture from the company of the losses arising from the permanent establishment (in so far as they are not matched with profits in future years) in the event of the permanent establishment closing down, in connection with which part of the establishment’s business is transferred to an affiliated company within the group which is resident in the same State as the permanent establishment, and where it must be assumed that the possibilities for applying the losses in question have been exhausted?


title: Case C-505/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Münster — Germany) — Klausner Holz Niedersachsen GmbH v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU — State aid — Aid granted in breach of Article 108(3) TFEU — Decision of a Member State court establishing the validity of the contract granting that aid — Res judicata — Interpretation in conformity with EU law — Principle of effectiveness)

text:
               18.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/12

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Münster — Germany) — Klausner Holz Niedersachsen GmbH v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen
   (Case C-505/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU - State aid - Aid granted in breach of Article 108(3) TFEU - Decision of a Member State court establishing the validity of the contract granting that aid - Res judicata - Interpretation in conformity with EU law - Principle of effectiveness))
   (2016/C 016/14)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Münster

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Klausner Holz Niedersachsen GmbH

      Defendant: Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

      Operative part of the judgment

   EU law precludes, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the application of a rule of national law enshrining the principle of res judicata from preventing a national court which has held that contracts forming the subject-matter of the dispute before it constitute State aid, within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, implemented in breach of the third sentence of Article 108(3) TFEU, from drawing all the consequences of that breach because of a national judicial decision which has become definitive, which court, without examining whether those contracts constitute State aid, has held that the contracts remain in force.

      (1)  OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.


5.4.2003               EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 83/17
        Removal from the register of Case C-444/01 ( 1)                from the register of Case C-215/02 (Reference for a preliminary
                                                                       ruling by the Sozialgericht Stuttgart): Karin Müller v Postbeam-
                         (2003/C 83/35)                                tenkrankenkasse.
                                                                       (1 ) OJ C 202 of 24.8.2002.
By order of 12 December 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-444/01 (Reference for a preliminary
ruling by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht): Stadt Villingen-
Schwenningen v Ophilia Akosua Owusu.
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-241/02 P ( 1)
( 1) OJ C 84 of 06.4.2002.
                                                                                (2003/C 83/39)
                                                                       By order of 6 January 2003 the President of the Court of
                                                                       Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
        Removal from the register of Case   C-61/02 (1)
                                                                       from the register of Case C-241/02 P: International and
                                                                       European Public Services Organisation (IPSO) v European
                         (2003/C 83/36)
                                                                       Central Bank.
By order of 19 December 2002 the President of the Court of             (1 ) OJ C 191 of 10.8.2002.
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-61/02: Commission of the
European Communities v Republic of Austria.
( 1) OJ C 97 of 20.4.2002.
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case C-337/02 ( 1)
                                                                                (2003/C 83/40)
        Removal from the register of Case C-191/02 ( 1)                By order of 4 February 2003 the President of the Court of
                                                                       Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                         (2003/C 83/37)                                from the register of Case C-337/02: Commission of the
                                                                       European Communities v Italian Republic.
By order of 16 December 2002 the President of the Court of             (1 ) OJ C 274 of 9.11.2002.
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-191/02: Commission of the
European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
( 1) OJ C 180 of 27.7.2002.
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case C-368/02 ( 1)
                                                                                (2003/C 83/41)
        Removal from the register of Case C-215/02 ( 1)
                                                                       By order of 23 January 2003 the President of the Court of
                         (2003/C 83/38)                                Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                       from the register of Case C-368/02: Commission of the
                                                                       European Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
By order of 16 December 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                (1 ) OJ C 305 of 7.12.2002.


title: Case T-297/10: Order of the General Court of 11 October 2011 — DBV v Commission (Action for annulment — Dumping — Imports of certain aluminium wheels originating in China — Rights of defence — Calculation of normal value — Proportionality — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               26.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/32

         Order of the General Court of 11 October 2011 — DBV v Commission
   (Case T-297/10) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Dumping - Imports of certain aluminium wheels originating in China - Rights of defence - Calculation of normal value - Proportionality - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
   2011/C 347/54
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: DBV Deutscher Brennstoffvertrieb Würzburg GmbH (Würzburg, Germany) (represented by: C. Rudolph and A. Günther, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet and T. Maxian Rusche, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) No 404/2010 of 10 May 2010 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain aluminium wheels originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2010 L 117, p. 64).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               DBV Deutscher Brennstoffvertrieb Würzburg GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 246, 11.9.2010.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 June 1999 in Case C-334/97: Commission of the European Communities v Comune di Montorio al Vomano (Article 238 EC (ex Article 181) - Arbitration clause - Non-performance of two contracts)

text:
7.8.1999                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 226/3
2. Dismisses the remainder of the application;                                 — the sum of ITL 246 000 000, together with interest at the
                                                                                rate of 14.2 % calculated from 1 December 1986 until the
                                                                                day on which repayment is fully effected;
3. Orders SIVU du plan d’eau de la Vallée du Lot, otherwise
     known as SIVU du pays d’accueil de la Vallée du Lot, and
                                                                               — the sum of ITL 49 200 000, together with interest at the
     Hydro-Réalisations SARL jointly and severally to pay the costs.
                                                                                rate of 14.2 % calculated from 1 March 1988 until the day
                                                                                on which repayment is fully effected;
(1) OJ C 199 of 28.6.1997.                                                     — the sum of ITL 110 800 000, together with interest at the
                                                                                rate of 14.2 % calculated from 1 June 1988 until the day
                                                                                on which repayment is fully effected;
                                                                               — the sum of ITL 49 200 000, together with interest at the
                                                                                rate of 14.2 % calculated from 1 August 1988 until the
                                                                                day on which repayment is fully effected;
                                                                               — the sum of ITL 158 400 000, together with interest at the
                                                                                rate of 14.2 % calculated from 1 November 1986 until the
                                                                                day on which repayment is fully effected;
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                           2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;
                         (Third Chamber)                                   3. Orders Comune di Montorio al Vomano to pay the costs.
                          of 10 June 1999                                  (1) OJ C 357 of 22.11.1997.
in Case C-334/97: Commission of the European Communi-
          ties v Comune di Montorio al Vomano(1)
(Article 238 EC (ex Article 181) — Arbitration clause —                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
               Non-performance of two contracts)
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                          (1999/C 226/04)
                                                                                of 10 June 1999
                                                                           in Case C-346/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                        the Länsrätten i Dalarnas län): Braathens Sverige AB,
                                                                             formerly Transwede Airways AB v Riksskatteverket (1)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     (Directive 92/81/EEC — Harmonisation of the structures of
                   in the European Court Reports)                          excise duties on mineral oils — Mineral oils supplied for use
                                                                           as aviation fuel for purposes other than private pleasure
                                                                                flying — Exemption from the harmonised duty)
In Case C-334/97: Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: Paolo Stancanelli assisted by Alberto Dal Ferro) v                                            (1999/C 226/05)
Comune di Montorio al Vomano acting through its legal
representative for the time being, represented by Paolo Scar-
pantoni, of the Teramo Bar — application under Article 238                                    (Language of the case: Swedish)
EC (ex Article 181) for an order requiring the defendant. first,
to reimburse advance payments made by the Commission to
the defendant in connection with two contracts for the                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
completion of a demonstration project relating to the exploi-                                  in the European Court Reports)
tation of alternative energy sources and, second, to pay the
Commission damages by way of compensation for the damage
suffered — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of:                         In Case C-346/97: Reference to the Court under Article 234
J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, J.C. Moitinho de               EC (ex Article 177 of the EC Treaty) by the Länsrätten i
Almeida and C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), Judges; N. Fennelly,                  Dalarnas län for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment                pending before that court between Braathens Sverige AB,
on 10 June 1999, in which it:                                              formerly Transwede Airways AB and Riksskatteverket — on
                                                                           the interpretation of Article 8(1) of Council Directive
                                                                           92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the
1. Orders Comune di Montorio al Vomano to pay to the Com-                  structures of excise duties on mineral oils (OJ 1992 L 316,
     mission, under Contracts Nos WE 147/85 and HY 149/85:                 p. 12) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann


title: Case C-202/13: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) made on 17 April 2013 — Sean Ambrose McCarthy, Helena Patricia McCarthy Rodriguez, Natasha Caley McCarthy Rodriguez v Secretary of State for the Home Department

text:
               29.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 189/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) made on 17 April 2013 — Sean Ambrose McCarthy, Helena Patricia McCarthy Rodriguez, Natasha Caley McCarthy Rodriguez v Secretary of State for the Home Department
   (Case C-202/13)
   2013/C 189/12
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Sean Ambrose McCarthy, Helena Patricia McCarthy Rodriguez, Natasha Caley McCarthy Rodriguez

      Defendant: Secretary of State for the Home Department

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 35 of Directive 2004/38/EC (1) on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States (‘the Directive’) entitle a Member State to adopt a measure of general application to refuse, terminate, or withdraw the right conferred by Article 5(2) of the Directive exempting non-national EU family members who are holders of residence cards issued pursuant to Article 10 of the Directive (‘residence card holders’) from visa requirements?

               2.

               Can Article 1 of Protocol No. 20 on the application of certain aspects of Article 26 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to the United Kingdom and to Ireland entitle the United Kingdom to require residence card holders to have an entry visa which must be obtained prior to arrival at the frontier?

               3.

               If the answer to question 1 or question 2 is yes, is the United Kingdom’s approach to residence card holders in the present case justifiable, having regard to the evidence summarized in the referring court’s judgment?

      (1)  Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC
   OJ L 158, p. 77


title: Case T-7/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 November 2008 — Shaker v OHIM — Limiñana y Botella (Limoncello della Costiera Amalfitana shaker) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for figurative Community trade mark Limoncello della Costiera Amalfitana shaker — Earlier national word mark LIMONCHELO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Appeal — Case referred back to the Court of First Instance)

text:
               10.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/19

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 November 2008 — Shaker v OHIM — Limiñana y Botella (Limoncello della Costiera Amalfitana shaker)
   (Case T-7/04) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for figurative Community trade mark Limoncello della Costiera Amalfitana shaker - Earlier national word mark LIMONCHELO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Appeal - Case referred back to the Court of First Instance)
   (2009/C 6/37)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Shaker di L. Laudato & C. Sas (Vietri sul Mare, Italy) (represented by: F. Sciaudone, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: O. Montalto and P. Bullock, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Limiñana y Botella, SL (Monforte del Cid, Spain)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 October 2003 (Case R 933/2002-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Limiñana y Botella, SL and Shaker di L. Laudato & C. Sas.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Shaker di L. Laudato & C. Sas to pay all the costs of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice.

      (1)  OJ C 59, 6.3.2004.


title: Case C-368/12: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 18 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Nantes — France) — Adiamix v Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances (Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure — Reference for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Commission Decision declaring an aid scheme incompatible with the common market — Recovery of aid — Assessment of the validity of an EU act — Lack of information on the reasons justifying the need for a reply to the questions referred — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/48

         Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 18 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Nantes — France) — Adiamix v Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances
   (Case C-368/12) (1)

   (Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure - Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Commission Decision declaring an aid scheme incompatible with the common market - Recovery of aid - Assessment of the validity of an EU act - Lack of information on the reasons justifying the need for a reply to the questions referred - Manifest inadmissibility)
   2013/C 225/84
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour administrative d’appel de Nantes

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Adiamix

      Defendant: Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Cour administrative d’appel de Nantes — Validity of Commission Decision 2004/343/EC of 16 December 2003 on the aid scheme implemented by France for the takeover of firms in difficulty (OJ 2004 L 108, p. 38)

      Operative part of the order

   The request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Nantes (France), by decision of 26 July 2012, is manifestly inadmissible.

      (1)  OJ C 295, 29.9.2012.


title: Case T-568/15: Action brought on 24 September 2015 — Morgese e.a. v OHIM — All Star

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/68

         Action brought on 24 September 2015 — Morgese e.a. v OHIM — All Star
   (Case T-568/15)
   (2015/C 398/82)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Giuseppe Morgese (Barletta, Italy), Pasquale Morgese (Barletta, Italy), Felice D’Onofrio (Barletta, Italy) (represented by: D. Russo, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: All Star CV (Hilversum, Netherlands)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicants

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘2 STAR 2S’ — Application for registration No 1 0 1 61  065

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1July 2015 in Case R 1906/2014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the Board’s Decision and Order;

               —

               the applicants seek an award of costs of this application and the proceedings before the Fifth Board of Appeal together with any further or other relief and/or Order that the Court may consider is appropriate.

      Plea in law

               —

               The contested decision reached an erroneous conclusion as to the nature of the marks and the elements thereof, which could impact to a significant degree the relevant consumers.


8.3.2003               EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 55/19
        Removal from the register of Case C-489/99 ( 1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-492/99 ( 1)
                         (2003/C 55/40)                                                         (2003/C 55/43)
By order of 19 November 2002 the President of the Court of             By order of 19 November 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-489/99 (Reference for a preliminary        from the register of Case C-492/99 (Reference for a preliminary
ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Immobiliare Flavia Srl, in        ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Colleoni Giacomo e Figli
liquidation, v Ministero delle Finanze.                                Srl v Ministero delle Finanze.
( 1) OJ C 79 of 18.03.2000.                                            (1 ) OJ C 79 of 18.03.2000.
        Removal from the register of Case C-490/99 ( 1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-134/00 ( 1)
                         (2003/C 55/41)                                                         (2003/C 55/44)
By order of 19 November 2002 the President of the Court of             By order of 11 December 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-490/99 (Reference for a preliminary        from the register of Case C-134/00 (Reference for a preliminary
ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Azzini SpA v Ministero            ruling by the Tribunale di Trento): Ministry of Finance v
delle Finanze.                                                         Merkur Chemical s.r.l..
( 1) OJ C 79 of 18.03.2000.                                            (1 ) OJ C 176 of 24.06.2000.
        Removal from the register of Case C-491/99 ( 1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-88/01 (1)
                         (2003/C 55/42)                                                         (2003/C 55/45)
By order of 19 November 2002 the President of the Court of             By order of 15 November 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-491/99 (Reference for a preliminary        from the register of Case C-88/01 (Reference for a preliminary
ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Falegnameria Carminati di         ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Agricola Torriani Sas v
Franco e Domenico Carminati Snc v Ministero delle Finanze.             Ministero delle Finanze.
( 1) OJ C 79 of 18.03.2000.                                            (1 ) OJ C 118 of 21.04.2001.


title: Case C-331/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 8 July 2014  — Petar Kezić, s.p., Trgovina Prizma v Republic of Slovenia — Ministry of Finance

text:
               8.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/30

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 8 July 2014 — Petar Kezić, s.p., Trgovina Prizma v Republic of Slovenia — Ministry of Finance
   (Case C-331/14)
   2014/C 303/38
   Language of the case: Slovenian

      Referring court

   Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Petar Kezić, s.p., Trgovina Prizma

      Defendant: Republic of Slovenia — Ministry of Finance

      Question referred

   Are Articles 2(1) and 4(1) of the Sixth Directive (1) to be interpreted to the effect that, in circumstances such as those of this case (in which a person buys plots of land acting as a natural person, without being charged any input VAT, then acting as a sole trader builds on those plots a shopping centre, enters as assets of his business on the basis of national accounting rules only some of the plots on which he built the shopping centre and then sells the centre together with all the plots of land to the developer), such a person must, because he has not entered certain plots of land as assets of his business or included those plots in the VAT system, be considered not to be obliged to calculate and pay output VAT?

      (1)  Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (77/388/EEC) (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).


title: Case T-589/10: Order of the General Court of 4 July 2013 — Just Music Fernsehbetriebs GmbH v OHIM — France Télécom (Jukebox) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Revocation of the earlier Community mark — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               7.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/41

         Order of the General Court of 4 July 2013 — Just Music Fernsehbetriebs GmbH v OHIM — France Télécom (Jukebox)
   (Case T-589/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Revocation of the earlier Community mark - No need to adjudicate)
   2013/C 260/72
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Just Music Fernsehbetriebs GmbH (Landshut, Germany) (represented by: T. Kaus, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: France Télécom (Paris, France) (represented by: C. Bertheux Scotte, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 October 2010 (Case R 1408/2009-1), concerning opposition proceedings between France Télécom and Just Music Fernsehbetriebs GmbH.

      Operative part

               1.

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

               2.

               Just Music Fernsehbetriebs GmbH and France Télécom shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

      (1)  OJ C 72, 5.3.2011.