title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 28 September 1995 in Case T-95/94: Chambre Syndicale Nationale des Entreprises de Transport de Fonds et Valeurs (Sytraval) and Brink's France SARL v. Commission of the European Communities (State aid - Complaint by a competitor - Failure to initiate the investigation procedure - Right to a fair hearing - Action for annulment)

text:
11 . 11 . 95          EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 299/ 19
The applicant submits that the Council 's refusal violates the               Removal from the register of Case T- 112/92 ( ] )
fundamental rights of access to the European Union                                                  ( 95 /C 299/33 )
Institutions ' documents, as well as the principle of
protection of legitimate expectations and Articles 4(1 ) and                          (Language of the case: English )
4 ( 2 ) of Council Decision 93/73 1 /EC inasmuch as it
wrongfully applies the criteria for refusal laid down in said         By order of 11 July 1995 the President of the Fourth
provisions . It considers furthermore that the Council 's             Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
refusal should be annulled on the ground of its failure to            Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
state reasons for the refusal .
                                                                      T- 1 1 2/92 : John Cooney v. Commission of the European
                                                                      Comm unities .
                                                                      (') Q | No C : 34 , 6 . 2 . 1 993 .
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                    of 28 September 1995                                     Removal from the register of Case T-425/93 (')
in Case T-95 /94 : Chambre Syndicale Nationale des                                                  ( 95 /C 299/34 )
Entreprises de Transport de Fonds et Valeurs ( Sytraval ) and
Brink's France SARL v. Commission of the European                                     (Language of the case: English )
                       Communities ( ' )
(State aid — Complaint by a competitor — Failure to initiate          By order of 9 August 1995 the President of the First
the investigation procedure — Right to a fair hearing —               Chamber ( extended composition ) of the Court of First
                    Action for annulment)                             Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
                          ( 95 /C 299/32 )                            from the register of Case T-425/93 : David Wilcox v.
                                                                      Council of the European Union and Commission of the
                                                                      European Communities .
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                      (') OJ No C : 2.38 , 2 . 9 . 1993 .
In Case T-95/94 : Chambre Syndicale Nationale des
Entreprises de Transport de Fonds et Valeurs ( Sytraval ) and
Brink 's France SARL, represented by Jean-Michel Payre, of
the Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grande-Rue , v.                            Removal from the register of Case T-430/93 ( )
Commission of the European Communities ( agents : Michel                                            ( 95 /C 299/35 )
Nolin and Ben Smulders ), supported by the French Republic
( agents : Catherine de Salins and Jean-Marc Belorgey ) —                              (Language of the case: Erench)
application for the annulment of the Commission decision
of 31 December 1993 rejecting the applicants ' request for a          By order of 11 August 1995 the President of the First
declaration by the Commission that the French Republic                Chamber ( extended composition ) of the Court of First
has infringed Articles 92 and 93 of the Treaty by granting            Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
aid to Securipost SA — the Court of First Instance                    from the register of Case T-430/93 : Jean Trelhu v. Council
( Fourth Chamber, extended composition ), composed of                 of the European Union and Commission of the European
K. Lenaerts , President, and R. Schintgen , C. P. Briet,              Communities .
R. Garcia-Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; H. Jung,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 September 1995 , in             (') OJ No C 54 , 25 . 5 . 1993 .
which it :
 1 . annuls the Commission decision of 31 December 1993
     rejecting the applicants ' request for a declaration by the
     Commission that the French Republic has infringed                                   Removal from the register of
     Articles 92 and 93 of the Treaty by granting aid to                         Joined Cases T-436/93 to T -441 /93 (')
     Securipost;                                                                                ( 95 /C 299/36 )
2 . orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay                             (Language of the case: English)
     the costs of the applicants;
                                                                      By order of 12 July 1995 the President of the Fourth
 3 . orders the Erench Republic to bear its own costs .               Chamber ( extended composition ) of the Court of First
                                                                      Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
 (') O J No C 103 , 11.4 . 1994 .
                                                                      from the register of Joined Cases T-436/93 to T-441 /93 :
                                                                      British Petroleum Company pic , Barclays Bank pic , Flanson
                                                                      pic , Lucas Industries Public Limited Company , Mars UK
                                                                       Limited , Mars G.B. Limited , Intercontinental Trading


title: Case T-262/08: Action brought on 8 July 2008 — Canon Communications v OHIM — Messe Düsseldorf (MEDTEC)

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/55

         Action brought on 8 July 2008 — Canon Communications v OHIM — Messe Düsseldorf (MEDTEC)
   (Case T-262/08)
   (2008/C 223/97)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Canon Communications LLC (Los Angles, United States) (represented by: M. Mak, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Messe Düsseldorf GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 April 2008 in case R 817/2005-1; and

               —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘MEDTEC’ for goods and services in classes 16, 35 and 41

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

      Mark or sign cited: German trade mark registration No 39 975 563 of the word mark ‘Metec’ for goods and services in classes 16, 35 and 41; international trade mark registration No 752 637 of the word mark ‘Metec’ for goods and services in classes 16, 35 and 41

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition with respect to all the contested goods and services

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: The decision of the Board of Appeal should be annulled on the ground that there is a considerable chance that the national trade marks cited in the opposition proceedings are void; alternatively, infringement of Article 8(1) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as there is no similarity between the services concerned and therefore no likelihood of confusion between the conflicting trade marks, or, in the alternative, that the services concerned are not sufficiently similar to conclude that there is a likelihood of confusion. In the alternative, it should be established that the Board of Appeal erred in not considering the fact that the public concerned is highly specialised and will therefore not confuse the conflicting trade marks. Finally, as an alternative plea in law, it should be established that the Board of Appeal erred in not taking into account the fact that the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal tolerated the use of the Community trade mark concerned by the applicant for more than five years.


title: Case T-387/05: Action brought on  13 October 2005  — Chatziioannidou v Commission

text:
               14.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 10/25

         Action brought on 13 October 2005 — Chatziioannidou v Commission
   (Case T-387/05)
   (2006/C 10/50)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Eleni Chatziioannidou (Auderghem, Belgium) (represented by: S.A. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of 8 July 2005 of the Appointing Authority rejecting the complaint brought by the applicant against a decision regarding the transfer of her pension rights to the Community scheme;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, an official of the Commission, applied for the transfer of her pension rights, acquired in Greece before she took up her post at the Commission, to the Community scheme. By her action, she criticises the method of calculation of the number of annuities to be taken into account according to the Community pension scheme, on the basis of the capital sum transferred. Specifically, the applicant submits that, before the introduction of the euro, the Commission converted the capital sum transferred in a currency other than the Belgian Franc not on the basis of the rate applicable on the date of calculation but at an average exchange rate which was intended to reflect the currency fluctuations over the period of payment of the contributions. However, following the transitional period for the definitive introduction of the euro, that is to say from 1 January 2002, the Commission no longer uses that method of calculation but takes into account the amount in euro transferred by the national funds.
   The applicant states that the discontinuation of the average exchange rate method leads, in her case, to a considerable reduction in the number of annuities with which she was credited. On that basis, she claims breach of Council Regulation No 1103/97, which provides that the introduction of the euro is not to have the effect of altering any term of a legal instrument. She also claims breach of the principle of non-discrimination, since, depending on whether the transfer request was made before or after the introduction of the euro, officials in exactly the same position are not awarded the same number of annuities under the Community scheme.


title: Case C-6/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof by order of that court of 16 December 1999 in the case of A.S.A Abfall Service AG against Federal Minister for the Environment, Youth and Family

text:
C 79/16                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      18.3.2000
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundespa-                          Regulation No 259/93 of waste to be transported for an
tentgericht by order of that court of 20 October 1999 in                     intended recovery operation under Annex II B to Directive
            the case of Merz & Krell GmbH & Co                               75/442/EEC (2) and, in the event that the classification is
                                                                             incorrect, prohibit the transport of such waste?
                         (Case C-517/99)
                                                                         2. In the reasoned objection to the transport of waste on the
                          (2000/C 79/29)                                     ground that the planned transport is not for purposes of
                                                                             recovery but for disposal, contrary to the classification
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       indicated by the notifier in the accompanying notification,
European Communities by order of the Bundespatentgericht                     may the competent authority at the place of dispatch rely
(Federal Patents Court) of 20 October 1999, received at the                  on the matters constituting grounds for an objection under
Court Registry on 31 December 1999, for a preliminary ruling                 the fifth indent of Article 7(4)(a) of Regulation No 259/93?
in the case of Merz & Krell GmbH & Co. on the following
question:                                                                3. Should the reply to Question 2 be in the negative:
Is Article 3(1)(d) of the First Council Directive of 21 December             On what provision of Regulation No 259/93 or other
1988 (1) to approximate the laws of the Member States relating               provisions of Community law may the competent auth-
to trade marks (89/104/EEC) to be interpreted restrictively,                 ority at the place of dispatch rely in refusing to authorise a
contrary to the wording thereof, as meaning that only signs or               transport of waste, where contrary to the information
indications which directly describe goods and services for                   given by the notifier, the transport is for purposes not of
which registration has specifically been applied, or the essential           recovery but of disposal?
characteristics or features thereof, are affected by the bar to
registration? Or is the provision to be construed as meaning
that, in addition to ‘free signs’ and generic names, signs or            4. Is any delivery of waste to a mine to be regarded,
indications which have become customary in the current                       irrespective of the actual circumstances of such delivery, as
language or in the bona fide and established practices of the                a disposal of waste within the meaning of Regulation
trade in the relevant or a similar sector as advertising slogans,            No 259/93 in conjunction with Annex II A (D 12) to
indications of quality or incitements to purchase etc., without              Directive 75/442/EEC?
directly describing the specific characteristics of the goods or
services for which registration has been applied, may likewise           5. If Question 4 is answered in the negative:
not be registered?
                                                                             According to what criteria is classification under the
(1) OJ 1989 L 40, p.1.                                                       operations listed in Annex II to Directive 75/442 to be
                                                                             carried out?
                                                                         (1) OJ 1993 L 30, p. 1.
                                                                         (2) OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-
richtshof by order of that court of 16 December 1999 in
the case of A.S.A Abfall Service AG against Federal
     Minister for the Environment, Youth and Family
                           (Case C-6/00)
                          (2000/C 79/30)                                 Action brought on 13 January 2000 by the Commission
                                                                         of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgerichtsh-
of (Supreme Administrative Court) of 16 December 1999,                                            (Case C-10/00)
received at the Court Registry on 11 January 2000, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of A.S.A Abfall Service AG                                         (2000/C 79/31)
against Federal Minister for the Environment, Youth and
Family on the following questions:
                                                                         An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
1. Is the competent authority at the place of dispatch under             Court of Justice of the European Communities on 13 January
    Council Regulation No 259/93 (1) on supervision and                  2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
    control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the            represented by Enrico Traversa and Hans Hartvig, Legal
    European Community (OJ 1993 L 30, p. 1) competent to                 Advisers, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
    verify the correctness of the classification by the notifier as      Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
    waste for recovery under the fifth indent of Article 6(5) of         Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.


title: Case C-327/10: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Okresní soud v Chebu — Czech Republic) — Hypoteční banka, a.s. v Udo Mike Lindner (Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Mortgage loan contract concluded by a consumer who is a national of one Member State with a bank established in another Member State — Legislation of a Member State making it possible, in the case where the exact domicile of the consumer is unknown, to bring an action against the latter before a court of that State)

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/12

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Okresní soud v Chebu — Czech Republic) — Hypoteční banka, a.s. v Udo Mike Lindner
      (Case C-327/10) (1)

      (Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Mortgage loan contract concluded by a consumer who is a national of one Member State with a bank established in another Member State - Legislation of a Member State making it possible, in the case where the exact domicile of the consumer is unknown, to bring an action against the latter before a court of that State)
      (2012/C 25/19)
      Language of the case: Czech

         Referring court

      Okresní soud v Chebu

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Hypoteční banka, a.s.

         Defendant: Udo Mike Lindner

         Re:

      Reference for a preliminary ruling — Okresní soud v Chebu — Interpretation of Article 81 TFEU and Articles 16(2), 17.3 and 24 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1), as well as of Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29) — Jurisdiction in respect of a mortgage loan contract concluded by a consumer who is a national of one Member State with a bank established in another Member State — Legislation of a Member State making it possible, in the case where the domicile of the consumer is unknown, to bring an action against the latter before a court of that State

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that the application of the rules of jurisdiction laid down by that regulation requires that the situation at issue in the proceedings of which the court of a Member State is seised is such as to raise questions relating to determination of the international jurisdiction of that court. Such a situation arises in a case such as that in the main proceedings, in which an action is brought before a court of a Member State against a national of another Member State whose domicile is unknown to that court.

                  2.

                  Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that:

                              —

                              in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, in which a consumer who is a party to a long-term mortgage loan contract, which includes the obligation to inform the other party to the contract of any change of address, renounces his domicile before proceedings against him for breach of his contractual obligations are brought, the courts of the Member State in which the consumer had his last known domicile have jurisdiction, pursuant to Article 16(2) of that regulation, to deal with proceedings in the case where they have been unable to determine, pursuant to Article 59 of that regulation, the defendant’s current domicile and also have no firm evidence allowing them to conclude that the defendant is in fact domiciled outside the European Union;

                              —

                              that regulation does not preclude the application of a provision of national procedural law of a Member State which, with a view to avoiding situations of denial of justice, enables proceedings to be brought against, and in the absence of, a person whose domicile is unknown, if the court seised of the matter is satisfied, before giving a ruling in those proceedings, that all investigations required by the principles of diligence and good faith have been undertaken with a view to tracing the defendant.

         (1)  OJ C 246, 11.9.2010.


title: Case F-23/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 18 March 2016 — Kerstens v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Obligations — Acts contrary to the dignity of the civil service — Dissemination of insulting remarks with regard to another official — Article 12 of the Staff Regulations — Disciplinary procedure — Enquiry in the form of an examination of the facts — Reprimand — Article 9(1)(b) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations — Consequences of the irregularity)

text:
               2.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/55

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 18 March 2016 — Kerstens v Commission
   (Case F-23/15) (1)

   ((Civil Service - Officials - Obligations - Acts contrary to the dignity of the civil service - Dissemination of insulting remarks with regard to another official - Article 12 of the Staff Regulations - Disciplinary procedure - Enquiry in the form of an examination of the facts - Reprimand - Article 9(1)(b) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations - Consequences of the irregularity))
   (2016/C 156/77)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Petrus Kerstens (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T.S. Bohr and C. Ehrbar, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision to impose a disciplinary penalty in the form of a reprimand on the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Petrus Kerstens to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 127, 20.4.2015, p. 42.


title: Case T-309/17: Action brought on 15 May 2017 — Optile v Commission

text:
               31.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/30

         Action brought on 15 May 2017 — Optile v Commission
   (Case T-309/17)
   (2017/C 249/46)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Organisation professionnelle des transports de l’Île de France (Optile) (Paris, France) (represented by: F. Thiriez and M. Dangibeaud, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Principally, annul in part Article 1 of European Commission Decision SA.26763 of 2 February 2017 concerning presumed aid granted to public transport undertakings by the Île-de-France region, but only insofar as it deems the aid scheme implemented by the Île-de-France region from 1979 until 2008 constituted a new aid scheme ‘unlawfully implemented’;

               —

               In the alternative, annul in part Article 1 of European Commission Decision SA.26763 of 2 February 2017 concerning presumed aid granted to public transport undertakings by the Île-de-France region in that it holds that the aid scheme was ‘unlawfully implemented’ between May 1994 and 25 December 2008.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that Commission Decision SA.26763 (ex 2012/NN) of 2 February 2017 concerning presumed aid granted to public transport undertakings by the Île-de-France region (C(2017) 439 final; ‘the contested decision’) held that the scheme examined constituted a new aid scheme. In that regard, the applicant puts forward the following complaints:

                           —

                           disregard of Article 1(b)(i) of Council Regulation (EU) No 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9; ‘Regulation No 2015/1589’), insofar as the legal basis of the scheme examined predates the Treaty of Rome;

                           —

                           insufficient reasoning in the light of Article 1(b)(v) of Regulation No 2015/1589;

                           —

                           error in fact and in law as regards the date of liberalisation of the market.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision classifies the scheme as a new aid scheme for the period of 1994 to 1998. In that context, the applicant alleges:

                           —

                           infringement of the procedural rights of the parties and of the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations in that the Commission extended the scope of its investigation beyond the framework laid down by the opening decision;

                           —

                           infringement of Article 17 of Regulation No 2015/1589, in that the Commission took the view that an application for repeal made by a private individual interrupted the limitation period.


title: Case T-517/10: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2012 — Pharmazeutische Fabrik Evers v OHIM — Ozone Laboratories Pharma (HYPOCHOL) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark HYPOCHOL — Earlier national figurative mark HITRECHOL — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               25.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 258/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2012 — Pharmazeutische Fabrik Evers v OHIM — Ozone Laboratories Pharma (HYPOCHOL)
   (Case T-517/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark HYPOCHOL - Earlier national figurative mark HITRECHOL - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2012/C 258/31
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Pharmazeutische Fabrik Evers GmbH & Co. KG (Pinneberg, Germany) (represented by: R. Kaase and R. Möller, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Ozone Laboratories Pharma SA (București, Romania)

      Re:

   ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 September 2010 (Case R 1332/2009-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Pharmazeutische Fabrik Evers GmbH & Co. KG and Ozone Laboratories Pharma SA

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Pharmazeutische Fabrik Evers GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2011.


               25.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 334/31

         Action brought on 17 July 2014 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland
   (Case E-11/14)
   (2014/C 334/12)
   An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 17 July 2014 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Markus Schneider and Janne Tysnes Kaasin, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, Rue Belliard 35, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

               1.

               Declare that by failing to adopt, and/or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority forthwith of, the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 2 of Annex XII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payments in commercial transactions), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12 of that Act and Article 7 of the EEA Agreement.

               2.

               Order Iceland to bear the costs of these proceedings.

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

               —

               The application addresses Iceland’s failure to comply, no later than on 18 February 2014, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 18 December 2013 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payments in commercial transactions (‘the Act’), as referred to at point 2 of Annex XII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as adapted to the EEA Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto.

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12 of the Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to adopt, and/or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority of, the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.


title: Case T-260/14: Action brought on 25 April 2014  — Vattenfall Europe Mining and Others v Commission

text:
               14.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/21

         Action brought on 25 April 2014 — Vattenfall Europe Mining and Others v Commission
   (Case T-260/14)
   2014/C 223/26
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Vattenfall Europe Mining AG (Cottbus, Germany), Vattenfall Europe Sales GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) and Vattenfall GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: R. Karpenstein and C. Johann, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul, in accordance with Article 264 TFEU, the decision of the European Commission of 18 December 2013 in the procedure State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) — Germany — Support for renewable electricity and reduced EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users, C(2013) 4424 final;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law: No State resources within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU
               By their first plea, the applicants claim that the Commission wrongly assumes a use of ‘State resources’ within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU in the context of the financing flows provided for under the Gesetz für den Vorrang erneuerbarer Energien (Law for the priority of renewable energy sources, hereinafter referred to as EEG).

                           —

                           An advantage without the use of State resources is not sufficient to operate as a legal basis fulfilling the definition of aid. The required use of State resources is lacking in relation to the EEG-surcharge because that surcharge is paid solely by private parties and the resources raised cannot be attributed to the State in the absence of a permanent control and the associated possibility of access.

                           —

                           State control over the EEG-surcharge itself is ruled out simply because the amount of the surcharge is not determined by State authorities, but by the price of electricity on the electricity exchange and the amount of renewable electricity fed into it. In addition, there are no opportunities for the State to influence the relationship between the energy supplier and the ultimate consumer at the fifth stage of the EEG compensation mechanism. The passing-on of the costs takes place here in a relationship governed purely by private law.

                           —

                           Consequently, the required State control is also lacking in relation to the so-called special compensation regime of the EEG due to the essential link between the qualification of the EEG-surcharge and the surcharge reduction for energy-intensive users. It cannot be said that control exists by virtue of the fact that the decision on the control is made by the Bundesamt für Wirtschaft und Ausfuhrkontrolle (Federal Office of Economics and Export Control) because that office is assigned a purely reconstructive or declaratory task.

                           —

                           In addition, by means of the surcharge reduction for energy-intensive users, the State did not waive resources which it normally could have expected to obtain. No reduction of the total revenue from the EEG-surcharge is associated with the surcharge reduction because of the particular construction of the EEG compensation mechanism. On the contrary, the surcharge reductions for energy-intensive users were compensated for by higher surcharges imposed on each kilowatt-hour of electricity supplied to non-privileged end-consumers.

               2.

               Second plea in law: No selective advantage for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU
               By their second plea, the applicants claim that the so-called special compensation regime of the EEG — contrary to the view taken by the Commission — does not provide for any selective advantage for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU. The distinction between energy-intensive and non-energy-intensive consumers is grounded in the logic of the surcharge system and is thereby a priori not selective. The surcharge reduction for energy-intensive users merely compensates for the particular disadvantages which, for those users, were associated with the EEG-surcharge raised according to consumption.

               3.

               Third plea in law: No (threatening) distortion of competition or effect on trade
               By their third plea, the applicants allege that the special compensation regime does not distort or threaten to distort competition and that trade between the Member States is not affected.


title: Case T-353/07: Action brought on 13 September 2007 — Ester v OHIM — Coloris Global Coloring Concept (COLORIS)

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/63

         Action brought on 13 September 2007 — Ester v OHIM — Coloris Global Coloring Concept (COLORIS)
   (Case T-353/07)
   (2007/C 269/114)
   Language in which the application has been drafted: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Esber, S.A. (Vizcaya, Spain) (Represented by: J.A. Calderón Chavero and T. Villate Consonni and A. Yañez Manglano, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Coloris Global Coloring Concept, S.A.S.
   Forms of order sought

               —

               Annul the Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM issued on 28 June 2007 in Case R-1060/2006-1;

               —

               Consequently, upholding the decision of the Board of Appeal, dismiss the opposition filed and proceed to grant the contested trade mark;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs of the present proceedings if it contests them and reject its claims.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community Trade Mark: The applicant.

      Community trade mark concerned: figurative mark containing the word ‘COLORIS’ (application no 2.817.732) for goods in Class 2.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in opposition proceedings: COLORIS GLOBAL COLORING CONCEPT, S.A.S.

      Mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: French national word mark ‘COLORIS’ for goods in Class 2 (no 98/717642).

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejected the appeal.

      Pleas in law: Incorrect application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark.


title: Case C-295/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 July 2014  — Telefónica SA Telefónica de España SAU v European Commission, France Telecom España, SA, Asociación de Usuarios de Servicios Bancarios (Ausbanc Consumo), European Competitive Telecommunications Association (Article 102 TFEU — Abuse of dominant position — Spanish markets for access to broadband internet — Margin squeeze — Article 263 TFEU — Review of legality — Article 261 TFEU — Unlimited jurisdiction — Article 47 of the Charter — Principle of effective judicial protection — Review exercising powers of unlimited jurisdiction — Amount of the fine — Principle of proportionality — Principle of non-discrimination)

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/3

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 July 2014 — Telefónica SA Telefónica de España SAU v European Commission, France Telecom España, SA, Asociación de Usuarios de Servicios Bancarios (Ausbanc Consumo), European Competitive Telecommunications Association
   (Case C-295/12 P) (1)

   ((Article 102 TFEU - Abuse of dominant position - Spanish markets for access to broadband internet - Margin squeeze - Article 263 TFEU - Review of legality - Article 261 TFEU - Unlimited jurisdiction - Article 47 of the Charter - Principle of effective judicial protection - Review exercising powers of unlimited jurisdiction - Amount of the fine - Principle of proportionality - Principle of non-discrimination))
   2014/C 315/03
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellants: Telefónica SA, Telefónica de España SAU (represented by: F. González Díaz and B. Holles, abogados)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, É. Gippini Fournier and C. Urraca Caviedes, Agents), France Telecom España, SA (represented by: H. Brokelmann and M. Ganino, abogados), Asociación de Usuarios de Servicios Bancarios (Ausbanc Consumo), (represented by: L. Pineda Salido and I. Cámara Rubio, abogados), European Competitive Telecommunications Association, (represented by: A. Salerno and B. Cortese, avvocati)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Telefónica SA and Telefónica de España SAU to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders France Telecom España, SA, Asociación de Usuarios de Servicios Bancarios (Ausbanc Consumo) and the European Competitive Telecommunications Association to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.


title: Case C-207/13: Order of the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of 13 May 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — Wagenborg Passagiersdiensten BV, Eigen Veerdienst Terschelling BV, MPS Stortemelk BV, MPS Willem Barentsz BV, Ms Spathoek NV, GAF Lakeman trading as Rederij Waddentransport v Minister van Infrastructuur en Milieu, in the presence of: Wagenborg Passagiersdiensten BV, Terschellinger Stoombootmaatschappij BV

text:
               11.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/18

         Order of the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of 13 May 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — Wagenborg Passagiersdiensten BV, Eigen Veerdienst Terschelling BV, MPS Stortemelk BV, MPS Willem Barentsz BV, Ms Spathoek NV, GAF Lakeman trading as Rederij Waddentransport v Minister van Infrastructuur en Milieu, in the presence of: Wagenborg Passagiersdiensten BV, Terschellinger Stoombootmaatschappij BV
   (Case C-207/13) (1)

   2014/C 261/29
   Language of the case: Dutch
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 189, 29.6.2013.


title: Case T-388/10: Order of the General Court of 10 December 2014  — Productos Derivados del Acero v Commission (Action for annulment — Representation of the parties — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               16.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/16

         Order of the General Court of 10 December 2014 — Productos Derivados del Acero v Commission
   (Case T-388/10) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Representation of the parties - No need to adjudicate))
   (2015/C 056/21)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Productos Derivados del Acero, SA (Catarroja, Spain) (represented initially by M. Escuder Tella, F. Palau-Ramírez and J. Viciano Pastor, lawyers, subsequently by M. Escuder Tella and J. Viciano Pastor, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, F. Castilla Contreras and V. Bottka, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C (2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38344 — Prestressing steel), amended by Commission Decision C (2010) 6676 final of 30 September 2010 and Commission Decision C (2011) 2269 final of 4 April 2011.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               Productos Derivados del Acero, SA shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.


title: Case T-529/11: Judgment of the General Court of 14 November 2012 — Evonik Industries v OHIM — Impulso Industrial Alternativo (Impulso creador) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark Impulso creador — Earlier figurative Community mark IMPULSO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               22.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 November 2012 — Evonik Industries v OHIM — Impulso Industrial Alternativo (Impulso creador)
   (Case T-529/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark Impulso creador - Earlier figurative Community mark IMPULSO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2012/C 399/36
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Evonik Industries AG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: J. Albrecht, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Impulso Industrial Alternativo, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by F. Brandolini Kujman and J. Devaureix, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 June 2011 (Case R 1101/2010-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Impulso Industrial Alternativo, SA and Evonik Industries AG.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Evonik Industries AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 362, 10.12.2011.


title: Case T-276/12: Action brought on 15 June 2012 — Chyzh and Others v Council

text:
               18.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 250/18

         Action brought on 15 June 2012 — Chyzh and Others v Council
   (Case T-276/12)
   2012/C 250/33
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Yury Aleksandrovich Chyzh (Minsk, Belarus); Triple TAA (Minsk, Belarus); NefteKhimTrading STAA (Minsk, Belarus); Askargoterminal ZAT (Minsk, Belarus); Bereza Silicate Products Plant AAT (Bereza District, Belarus); Variant TAA (Berezovsky District, Belarus); Triple-Dekor STAA (Minsk, Belarus); KvartsMelProm SZAT (Khotislav, Belarus); Altersolutions SZAT (Minsk, Belarus); Prostoremarket SZAT (Minsk, Belarus); AquaTriple STAA (Minsk, Belarus); Rakovsky brovar TAA (Minsk, Belarus); TriplePharm STAA (Logoysk, Belarus); and Triple-Veles TAA (Molodechno, Belarus) (represented by: D. O’Keeffe, Solicitor, and B. Evtimov, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Council implementing Regulation (EU) No 265/2012 of 23 March 2012 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ L 87, p. 37), in so far as it concerns the applicants;

               —

               Annul Council implementing Decision 2012/171/CFSP of 23 March 2012 implementing Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus (JO L 87, p. 95), in so far as it concerns the applicants; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of their action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that the contested Council measures breach the obligation to state adequate reasons for the inclusion of the applicants on the list of persons to whom restrictive measures apply, or, in the alternative, that the Council’s reasoning is vitiated by manifest errors of assessment;

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that the contested Council measures infringe rights of the defence and the right to a fair hearing in that they do not provide the applicants with the possibility to effectively exercise their rights, in particular the right to be heard. Given the close relationship between the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial review, the applicants’ right to effective judicial remedy has also been infringed.


title: Case C-566/08: Order of the President of the Court of 25 February 2010 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/30

         Order of the President of the Court of 25 February 2010 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-566/08) (1)

   ()
   2010/C 234/49
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.


title: Case T-548/17: Action brought on 16 August 2017 — VF International v EUIPO — Virmani (ANOKHI)

text:
               16.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/41

         Action brought on 16 August 2017 — VF International v EUIPO — Virmani (ANOKHI)
   (Case T-548/17)
   (2017/C 347/54)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: VF International Sagl (Stabio, Switzerland) (represented by: T. van Innis, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ken Virmani (Munich, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘ANOKHI’ — Application for registration No 13 025 382

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 May 2017 in Case R 2307/2015-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order the Office to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicant.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Articles 85 Regulation No 207/2009 and 94 of Regulation No 2868/95.


title: Case T-133/06: Action brought on  12 May 2006  — International Music and TTV 2000 v OHIM — Past Perfect (PAST PERFECT)

text:
               1.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 154/21

         Action brought on 12 May 2006 — International Music and TTV 2000 v OHIM — Past Perfect (PAST PERFECT)
   (Case T-133/06)
   (2006/C 154/52)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicants: The International Music Company AG (Hamburg, Germany) and TTV 2000 GmbH Tonträger Vertrieb (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: G. Kukuk, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Past Perfect Limited
   Forms of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 February 2006, Reference No R 150/2005-1, and remove the registered Community trade mark ‘Past Perfect’, Mark No 1 984 269, from the register;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark the annulment of which has been sought: The word mark ‘PAST PERFECT’ for goods in Class 9 (Community trade mark No 1 984 269).

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Past Perfect Limited

      Applicants for the declaration of annulment: The applicants

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal
   Pleas in law:

               —

               The registered trade mark is devoid of any actual distinctive character within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94, (1)

               —

               the contested decision infringes Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 since it is sufficient when the ground for refusal obtains in part of the Community,

               —

               in addition, the contested decision infringes Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 since the registered trade mark is not identifiable as a mark and is understood, in trade, as a product description,

               —

               finally, Article 7(1)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 has been infringed since the registered trade mark consists of indications which have become customary in the current language or in the bona fide and established practices of the trade.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).


title: Case T-565/17: Action brought on 18 August 2017 — CheapFlights International v EUIPO — Momondo Group (Cheapflights)

text:
               16.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/45

         Action brought on 18 August 2017 — CheapFlights International v EUIPO — Momondo Group (Cheapflights)
   (Case T-565/17)
   (2017/C 347/59)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: CheapFlights International Ltd (Speenoge, Ireland) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Momondo Group Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Cheapflights’ — Application for registration No 3 485 349

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Grand Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 June 2017 in Case R 1893/2011-G

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO and Momondo Group Limited, if it should intervene in these proceedings to bear the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 64(6) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 216/96;

               —

               The contested decision is replete with statements which question or directly negate the validity of the Applicant’s trademarks. The contested decision is detrimental to the interests of the Applicant as proprietor of validly registered trade mark which are not even subject to the jurisdiction of the Defendant.


title: Case T-287/15: Action brought on 1 June 2015 — Tayto Group v OHIM — MIP Metro (real)

text:
               24.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/39

         Action brought on 1 June 2015 — Tayto Group v OHIM — MIP Metro (real)
   (Case T-287/15)
   (2015/C 279/48)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Tayto Group Ltd (Corby, United Kingdom) (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark in red and blue containing the word element ‘real’ — Community trade mark No 38 968

      Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 March 2015 in Case R 2285/2013-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision in part;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 15, 51, 64, 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 19 August 1998 in Case T-160/97: Hans Gevaert v Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Judgment of the Court of First Instance - Application for reclassification in grade - Objection of inadmissibility - Material new fact - Admissibility)

text:
C 327/24              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   24.10.98
represented by Ramón MareÂs Salvador, of the Madrid Bar,           represented by Nicholas Forwood QC Ð application for
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                   annulment of a decision of the Committee of the Regions
Chambers of Lorang & AssocieÂs, 51 Rue Albert 1er, v               refusing to pay the applicant the daily subsistence
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Ana                allowance provided for in Article 10 of Annex VII to the
María Alves Vieira and Blanca VilaÂ Costa) Ð application           Staff Regulations for the entire period of his probation
under the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of the EC                plus one month Ð the Court of First Instance (Fourth
Treaty, first, for annulment of competition notices EUR/           Chamber), composed of P. Lindh, President, K. Lenaerts
LA/97 and EUR/LA/98 of 1 March 1996 (OJ C 62 AL,                   and J. D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an
1.3.1996) and, second, for an order requiring the                  order on 20 August 1998, the operative part of which is
Commission to modify its guides for candidates taking              as follows:
part in interinstitutional competitions or in open
competitions, in particular the guide annexed to the
notices of competition, and any other publication relating
to access to the Community public service, in such a way           1. The application is dismissed as manifestly lacking any
as to include ingenería teÂcnica' (technical engineering)              foundation in law.
amongst the national educational qualifications required
for admission to open competitions' Ð the Court of First
Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J. Azizi, President,
R. García-Valdecasas and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung,               2. The parties shall each bear their own expenses.
Registrar, made an order on 20 July 1998, the operative
part of which is as follows:
                                                                   (1) OJ C 199, 28.6.1997.
1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible;
2. The applicant is to pay the costs.
                                                                        ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
(1) OJ C 180, 22.6.1996.                                                                of 19 August 1998
                                                                   in Case T-160/97: Hans Gevaert v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
                                                                   (Officials Ð Judgment of the Court of First Instance Ð
                                                                   Application for reclassification in grade Ð Objection of
                                                                       inadmissibility Ð Material new fact Ð Admissibility)
                                                                                (98/C 327/45)
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                      of 20 August 1998
in Case T-132/97: Michael Collins v Committee of the                              (Language of the case: French)
              Regions of the European Union (1)
(Probationary officials Ð Daily subsistence allowance Ð
Period in respect of which granted Ð Case manifestly               In Case T-160/97: Hans Gevaert, an official of the
                   lacking any foundation)                         Commission of the European Communities, residing at
                                                                   Merelbeke (Belgium), represented by Nicolas LhoeÈst, of
                        (98/C 327/44)                              the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                   Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30
                                                                   Rue de Cessange, v Commission of the European
                                                                   Communities (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and Christine
               (Language of the case: English)                     Berardis-Kayser) Ð application for annulment of the
                                                                   decision of the Commission of 26 August 1996 rejecting
                                                                   the applicant's request for a review of his classification in
                                                                   grade Ð the Court of First Instance (First Chamber),
In Case T-132/97, Michael Collins, an official of the              composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, J. Pirrung and P.
Committee of the Regions of the European Union,                    Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
residing in Brussels, represented by Vassilis N. Akritidis, of     19 August 1998, the operative part of which is as follows:
the Athens Bar, and Jonathan R. Branton, Solicitor, with
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
ArseÁne Kronshagen, 12 Boulevard de la Foire, against
Committee of the Regions of the European Union,                    1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
 ---pagebreak--- 24.10.98             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 327/25
2. The parties are to bear their own costs.                                       ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
                                                                             OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
(1) OJ C 228, 26.7.1997.                                                                of 14 August 1998
                                                                        in Case T-44/98 R: Emesa Sugar (Free Zone) NV v
                                                                             Commission of the European Communities
                                                                   (Scheme of the association of the overseas countries and
                                                                   territories Ð Decisions 91/482/EEC and 97/803/EC Ð
                                                                   Regulation (EC) No 2553/97 Ð Proceedings for interim
               ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT                                      measures Ð Intervention Ð Urgency Ð None)
          OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (98/C 327/47)
                     of 14 August 1998
    in Case T-43/98 R: Emesa Sugar (Free Zone) NV v
               Council of the European Union                                       (Language of the case: Dutch)
(Scheme of the association of the overseas countries and
territories Ð Decisions 91/482/EEC and 97/803/EC Ð
Proceedings for interim measures Ð Intervention Ð
                      Urgency Ð None)                              In Case T-44/98 R: Emesa Sugar (Free Zone) NV,
                                                                   established at Oranjestad (Aruba), represented by Gerard
                         (98/C 327/46)                             van der Wal, Advocate with a right of audience before the
                                                                   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, with an address for service
                                                                   in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31
                                                                   Grand-Rue, v Commission of the European Communities
               (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                   (Agent: Thomas van Rijn), supported by the Council of
                                                                   the European Union (Agents: Jürgen Huber and Guus
                                                                   Houttuin), the Kingdom of Spain (Agents: Rosario Silva
In Case T-43/98 R: Emesa Sugar (Free Zone) NV,                     de Lapuerta and Monica Lopez-Monis Gallego) and the
established at Oranjestad (Aruba), represented by Gerard           French Republic (Agent: Claude Chavance) Ð application,
van der Wal, Advocate with a right of audience before the          first, for suspension of the operation of Decision VI/51329
Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, with an address for service             of the Commission of 23 December 1997 rejecting a
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31                    request by the applicant for the issue of import licences in
Grand-Rue, v Council of the European Union (Agents:                respect of sugar products and, second, for interim
Jürgen Huber and Guus Houttuin), supported by the                  measures prohibiting the Commission from applying
Commission of the European Communities (Agent:                     Article 108b of Council Decision 91/482/EEC of 25 July
Thomas van Rijn), the Kingdom of Spain (Agents: Rosario            1991 on the association of the overseas countries and
Silva de Lapuerta and Monica Lopez-Monis Gallego) and              territories with the European Economic Community (OJ
the French Republic (Agent: Claude Chavance) Ð                     L 263, 19.9.1991, p. 1), as amended, and/or Commission
application for partial suspension of the operation of             Regulation (EC) No 2553/97 of 17 December 1997 on
Council Decision 97/803/EC of 24 November 1997                     rules for issuing import licences for certain products
amending at mid-term Decision 91/482/EEC on the                    covered by CN codes 1701, 1702, 1703 and 1704 and
association of the overseas countries and territories with         qualifying as ACP/OCT originating products Ð the
the European Economic Community (OJ L 329,                         President of the Court of First Instance made an order on
29.11.1997, p. 50) Ð the President of the Court of First           14 August 1998, the operative part of which is as follows:
Instance made an order on 14 August 1998, the operative
part of which is as follows:
                                                                   1. The Government of Aruba is granted leave to
                                                                        intervene in the present proceedings for interim
1. The Government of Aruba is granted leave to                          measures in support of the form of order sought by
    intervene in the present proceedings for interim relief             the applicant.
    in support of the form of order sought by the
    applicant.
                                                                   2. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
2. The application for interim relief is dismissed.
                                                                   3. The costs are reserved.
3. The costs are reserved.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 September 2004 in Case C-292/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf): Meiland Azewijn BV v Hauptzollamt Duisburg (Excise duties — Mineral oils used in agricultural works — Directive 92/81/EEC — Article 8a — Marking in the Member State where released for consumption — Prohibition on marking in the Member State of use — Directive 95/60/EC)

text:
               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/4

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 9 September 2004
   in Case C-292/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf): Meiland Azewijn BV v Hauptzollamt Duisburg (1)

   (Excise duties - Mineral oils used in agricultural works - Directive 92/81/EEC - Article 8a - Marking in the Member State where released for consumption - Prohibition on marking in the Member State of use - Directive 95/60/EC)
   (2004/C 262/06)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-292/02: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany), by decision of 6 August 2002, received on 13 August 2002, in the proceedings Meiland Azewijn BV v Hauptzollamt Duisburg — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur) and R. Silva de Lapuerta, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 9 September 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               Article 8a(1) of Council Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils, as amended by Council Directive 94/74/EC of 22 December 1994, is to be interpreted as prohibiting Member States from subjecting to excise duty mineral oil, whether marked or unmarked, contained in the standard tank of a commercial motor vehicle, such as agricultural machinery, and used as fuel not only to move the vehicle but also in order to utilise it for other purposes, such as agricultural work, when that mineral oil has been lawfully released for consumption in another Member State.

               2.

               The prohibition in Article 8a(1) of Directive 92/81 as amended may be relied on by individuals in proceedings before national courts in order to contest national rules that are incompatible with that prohibition.

      (1)  OJ C 261 of 26.10.2002.


title: Case T-534/08: Judgment of the General Court of 30 September 2010 — Granuband v OHIM — Granuflex (GRANUflex) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community figurative mark GRANUflex — Previous company name and business name GRANUFLEX — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(4) and Article 52(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(4) and Article 53(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               20.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 317/28

         Judgment of the General Court of 30 September 2010 — Granuband v OHIM — Granuflex (GRANUflex)
   (Case T-534/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community figurative mark GRANUflex - Previous company name and business name GRANUFLEX - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(4) and Article 52(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(4) and Article 53(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2010/C 317/50
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Granuband BV (Krommenie, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Ellens, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Granuflex Ipari és Kereskedelmi Kft (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: K. Szamosi, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 September 2008 (Case R 1277/2007-2) relating to invalidity proceedings between Granuflex Ipari és Kereskedelmi Kft and Granuband BV.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Granuband BV to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 44 of 21.2.2009.


title: Joined Cases T-252/07, 271/07, 272/07: Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 20 January 2010 — Sungro and Others v Council and Commission (Non-contractual liability — Common agricultural policy — Amendment of the Community support scheme for cotton — Chapter 10a of Title IV of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003, inserted by Article 1(20) of Regulation (EC) No 864/2004 — Annulment of the provisions in question by a judgment of the Court — Causal link)

text:
               27.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/30

         Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 20 January 2010 — Sungro and Others v Council and Commission
   (Joined Cases T-252/07, 271/07, 272/07) (1)

   (Non-contractual liability - Common agricultural policy - Amendment of the Community support scheme for cotton - Chapter 10a of Title IV of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003, inserted by Article 1(20) of Regulation (EC) No 864/2004 - Annulment of the provisions in question by a judgment of the Court - Causal link)
   2010/C 51/58
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Sungro, SA (Córdoba, Spain) (T-252/07); Eurosemillas, SA (Córdoba, Spain) (T-271/07); and Surcotton, SA (Córdoba, Spain) (T-272/07) (represented by: L. Ortiz Blanco, lawyer)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union, (represented by: M. Moore, A. De Gregorio Merino and A. Westerhof Löfflerova, Agents); and European Commission (represented by: L. Parpala and F. Jimeno Fernández, Agents, assisted by E. Díaz-Bastien Lopez, L. Divar Bilbao and J. Magdalena Anda, lawyers)

      Re:

   Actions for compensation, under Article 235 EC and the second paragraph of Article 288 EC, for losses allegedly suffered by the applicants as a result of the adoption and application, during the 2006/07 marketing campaign, of Chapter 10a of Title IV of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001 (OJ 2003 L 270, p. 1), as inserted by Article 1(20) of Council Regulation (EC) No 864/2004 of 29 April 2004 amending Regulation No 1782/2003 and adapting it by reason of the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia to the European Union (OJ 2004 L 161, p. 48), and annulled by the Court’s judgment in Case C-310/04 Spain v Council [2006] ECR I-7285

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Joins Cases T-252/07, T-271/07 and T-272/07 for the purposes of judgment;

               2.

               Dismisses the actions;

               3.

               Orders Sungro, SA, Eurosemillas, SA, and Surcotton, SA to bear their own costs and to pay, jointly and severally, those incurred by the Council of the European Union and by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.


title: Case T-549/17: Action brought on 14 August 2017 — Duym v Council

text:
               16.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/42

         Action brought on 14 August 2017 — Duym v Council
   (Case T-549/17)
   (2017/C 347/55)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Frederik Duym (Ostend, Belgium) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision underlying the letter of 7 October 2016 definitively excluding him from the procedure for appointing a Head of Unit for DGA 3B Unit NL and the subsequent decision appointing Ms [X] as Head of the Dutch Translation Unit (‘the contested decision’);

               —

               secondly, order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons, in so far as the Council refused to provide the applicant with a written statement of the reasons, including figures, for his being unsuccessful in the procedure for the appointment of a Head of Unit for the Dutch Translation Unit.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of sound administration and a manifest error of assessment, inasmuch as not only did the selection board fail to carry out a comparative assessment of the candidates on the basis of numerical marking, but also there is no other document in the file, such as a summary comment, indicating that the selection board was in agreement on the appointment of Ms [X] instead of the applicant.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the internal vacancy notice, inasmuch as the applicant’s assessment also concerned the political role played by the head of a translation unit, whereas the vacancy notice made no reference to such an element and it is also not apparent from the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) that the head of a translation unit has a political role.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging disregard of the interests of the service and a manifest error of assessment, in so far as there was no test of candidates’ knowledge of Dutch even though the unit was a Dutch-speaking unit. In this connection, the applicant raises an objection of illegality pursuant to Article 277 TFEU vis-à-vis the internal vacancy notice in the light of Article 7 of the Staff Regulations. As that notice does not require a perfect command of Dutch, it is contrary to Article 7 of the Staff Regulations. Consequently, the applicant requests that the unlawfulness of that notice be acknowledged incidenter tantum in the present proceedings. Lastly, he argues that, whereas the other translation services within the institutions may rely on a Head of Unit having a perfect command of the language of translation, this is not the case for Dutch. Therefore, that language will be treated differently in relation to other languages, in breach of Article 1 of Regulation No 1/1958, which accords the same dignity to all languages.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment and, in particular, infringement of Article 1d of the Staff Regulations on the grounds of gender and language discrimination and infringement of the principle of proportionality. The applicant considers that restricting the languages which may be used during the interview to English constitutes a clear infringement of Article 1d of the Staff Regulations, as Ms [X] had English as her second language, whereas English was only the applicant’s third language. Furthermore, he had significantly more management experience than Ms [X], with the result that discrimination on the grounds of gender cannot be ruled out, given that other elements in the file indicate that, in internal selection procedures, the Council has a tendency to choose women in order to compensate for appointing men in external selection procedures. Lastly, the applicant submits that an irrational choice has thus been made, since it gives a single language both an advantage and a preferential status, contrary to the principle of proportionality.


title: Case C-555/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 13 December 2007 — Seda Kücükdeveci v Swedex GmbH & Co. KG

text:
               29.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 13 December 2007 — Seda Kücükdeveci v Swedex GmbH & Co. KG
   (Case C-555/07)
   (2008/C 79/21)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Landesarbeitsgericht Düsseldorf
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Seda Kücükdeveci

      Defendant: Swedex GmbH & Co. KG
   Questions referred

               1.

                           (a)

                           Is a national provision which provides for the periods of notice on termination which employers are required to observe to be increased incrementally with the length of service, but which disregards periods of the employee's employment before the age of 25, incompatible with the Community law prohibition against discrimination on the ground of age, and specifically with primary Community law or with Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 (1)?

                           (b)

                           Can the fact that employers are required to observe only a basic period of notice when terminating the employment of younger employees be justified on the grounds that employers are recognised as having a commercial interest in flexibility as regards staffing — an interest which would be adversely affected by longer periods of notice — and that younger employees are not recognised as having the protection available to older employees (in the form of longer notice periods) with respect to their employment status or arrangements, for example because, having regard to their age and/or their lesser social, family and private obligations they are assumed to have greater professional and personal flexibility and mobility?

               2.

               If Question 1(a) is answered in the affirmative and Question 1(b) is answered in the negative:
               In legal proceedings between private individuals, must a national court disapply a statutory provision which is clearly incompatible with Community law, or is the legitimate expectation of persons subject to the law — that national laws which are in force will be applied — to be taken into account so that a national law is disapplied only after the Court of Justice has ruled on the provision at issue or on a substantially similar provision?

      (1)  OJ L 303, p. 16.


title: Case C-582/11 P: Appeal brought on 24 November 2011 by Rügen Fisch AG against the Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 21 September 2011 in Case T-201/09 Rügen Fisch AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs); other party to the proceedings: Schwaaner Fischwaren GmbH

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/38

      Appeal brought on 24 November 2011 by Rügen Fisch AG against the Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 21 September 2011 in Case T-201/09 Rügen Fisch AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs); other party to the proceedings: Schwaaner Fischwaren GmbH
      (Case C-582/11 P)
      (2012/C 25/73)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Appellant: Rügen Fisch AG (represented by: O. Spuhler and M. Geitz, Rechtanwälte)
      Other parties to the proceedings:

                  —

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

                  —

                  Schwaaner Fischwaren GmbH

         Form of order sought

      The appellant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 21 September 2011 in Case T-201/09 and annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 March 2009 in appeal case R 230/2007-4;

                  —

                  in the alternative, set aside the judgment referred to above and refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

                  —

                  order the respondent to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Grounds of appeal and main arguments

      The appellant basis its appeal on the following grounds:

                  In the judgment under appeal, the General Court wrongly assumed that the registration of the word sign SCOMBER MIX as a Community trade mark was precluded by the absolute ground for refusal in Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 (1) as a result of the descriptive character of the mark in dispute.

                  The General Court's assumption constitutes an infringement of Article 7(1)(c) in conjunction with Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009. The word sign SCOMBER MIX is not descriptive since, from the point of view of the relevant consumer, it is a purely fanciful name, which is clearly understood to be a trade mark.

                  The goods and services covered by the trade mark application at issue were determined with the average consumer in mind. However, the average consumer is not familiar with the Latin language or the zoological term ‘scomber’. The word sign SCOMBER MIX therefore satisfies the minimum level of distinctiveness required under European Union law for the registration of a Community trade mark.

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