title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance, Saint Nazaire, by judgment of that court of 19 December 1994 in the case of Sàrl Polypièces v. Directeur des Services Fiscaux de Loire-Atlantique (Case C-33/95)

text:
No C 74/8               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   25 . 3 . 95
the future reutilization of such ground residue has not been                     permanently in a single unit from a financial and
established.                                                                     economic point of view ?
(!) OJ No L 78 , 26 . 3 . 1991 , p . 32 .                                  2.5 . Is an exchange of shares which is carried out in
(2 ) OJ No L 377, 31 . 12 . 1991 , p . 20 .                                      order to bring about a horizontal setting-off of tax
(3 ) OJ No L 30, 6 . 2 . 1993 , p . 1 .                                          losses between the participant undertakings
                                                                                within a fiscal unit as referred to in Article 15 of
                                                                                the Wet op de Vennootschapsbelasting ( Law on
                                                                                CorporationTax) 1969 a valid commercial reason
                                                                                for the exchange for the purposes of Article 1 1 of
                                                                                the Directive ?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te
Amsterdam, by judgment of that court of 26 January 1995
in the case of A. Leur-Bloem v. Inspecteur der
        Belastingdienst/Ondernemingen Amsterdam 2
                          ( Case C-28/95 )                             Action brought on 8 February 1995 by Société Commerciale
                             95/C 74/12 )                              des Potasses et de l'Azote and by Enterprise Minière et
                                                                       Chimique against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                                ( Case C-30/95 )
European Communities by a judgment of the Gerechtshof
(Regional Court of Appeal ), Amsterdam, of 26 January                                             95/C 74/13 )
1995, which was received at the Court Registry
on 6 February 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in                      An action originally brought before the Court of First
the case of A. Leur-Bloem v. Inspecteur der                           Instance by Societe Commerciale des Potasses et de l'Azote
Belastingdienst/Ondernemingen Amsterdam 2 on the                       and by Enterprise Miniere et Chimique was referred to the
following questions:                                                   Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                       8 February 1995 . The Cour^of First Instance made an order
1 . May questions be referred to the Court of Justice                 declining jurisdiction and transferred the action, originally
     concerning the interpretation of the provisions and              registered as Case T-88/94, to the Court of Justice for a
     scope of a directive of the Council of the European              ruling on the application for annulment.
     Communities even where the directive is not directly
     applicable to the specific circumstances of the case but it      The pleas in law and main arguments were published in a
     is the national legislature's intention that those               notice in Official Journal No C 103 of 11 April 1994,
     circumstances are to be treated in the same manner as a          p. 13 .
     situation to which the directive does apply?
2. If Question 1 above is answered in the affirmative:
     2.1 . Can there Be an exchange of shares within the
           meaning of Article 2 (d ) of Council Directive             Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de
           90/434/EEC of 23 July 1990 if the acquiring                Grande Instance, Saint Nazaire, by judgment of that court
           company within the meaning of Article 2 (h) does           of 19 December 1994 in the case of Sari Polypieces v.
           not itself carry on a business ?                                Directeur des Services Fiscaux de Loire-Atlantique
                                                                                (Case C-33/95 )
     2.2 . Is an exchange of shares within the meaning of
           Article 2 (d) precluded by the fact that the same                                    ( 95/C 74/14 )
           natural person who was the sole shareholder in,
           and director of, the acquired company before the           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
           exchange is the director of, and sole shareholder          European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal de
           in, the acquiring company after the exchange ?             Grande Instance ( Regional Court), Saint Nazaire, of
                                                                      19 December 1994, which was received at the Court
     2.3 . Is there an exchange of shares within the meaning          Registry on 13 February 1995 .
           of Article 2 ( d ) only if its effect is to merge the
           business of the acquiring company and that of
           another permanently in a single unit from a                The Regional Court asks the Court ofJustice to give a ruling
           financial and economic point of view?                      on the following question:
     2.4. Is there an exchange of shares within the meaning           is the present system for taxing motor vehicles under Article
           of Article 2 (d ) only if its effect is to merge the       1599 G of the French General Tax Code compatible with
           businesses of two or more acquired companies               Article 95 of the EEC Treaty, in that it provides for the
 ---pagebreak--- 25 . 3 . 95           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 74/9
application of a progressive weighting, not based on any                    Removal from the register of Case C-148/94 (*)
objective criterion, which is greater and increases more                                        ( 95/C 74/15 )
rapidly for the four tax bands from 19 CV (fiscal
horsepower) opwards, which apply only to cars imported
from other Member States, than for the tax bands from 12
to 14 CV, which cover three tax ratings, and the four tax           By order of 12 January 1995 the President pf the Court of
bands from 15 to 18 CV, in which its rate of progression is         Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
constant and which apply to French-made cars capable of             from the register of Case C-148/94: Commission of the
being considered similar to imported products of over               European Communities v. Ireland.
19 CV ?
                                                                    f 1 ) OJ No C 202 , 23 . 7. 1994.
                                                   COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            2 . the remainder of the application, in so far as it is based
                       ( Second Chamber)                                   on Article 1 75 of the Treaty, is dismissed;
                      of 24 January 1995
                                                                    3 . it is not necessary to rule on the application under
in Case T-74/92: Ladbroke Racing (Deutschland ) GmbH v.                    Article 173 of the Treaty in so far as it concerns
        Commission of the European Communities i 1 )                       Article 86 of the Treaty;
 (Competition — Action for failure to act and annulment —
Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty — Investigation of the
                                                                    4 . in so far as the application for annulment concerns
                            complaint)
                                                                           Article 85 of the Treaty it is dismissed as
                            95/C 74/16                                     inadmissible;
                (Language of the case: English)                     5 . the application seeking to have the Court issue
                                                                           directions   to   the    Commission   is  dismissed  as
                                                                           inadmissible;
In Case T-74/92 : Ladbroke Racing ( Deutschland) GmbH,
whose registered office is in Mainz (Germany), represented
by Jeremy Lever QC and Christopher Vajda, Barrister,                6 . the Commission shall pay its own costs and
members of the Bar of England and Wales, and by Stephen                    three-quarters of those of the applicant;
Kon, Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the Chambers of Winandy and Err, 60 Avenue Gaston                   7. the intervener shall pay its own costs.
Diderich v. Commission of the European Communities
 (Agents : J. Currall and F. E. Gonzalez-Diaz), supported by
Deutscher Sportverlag Kurt Stoof GmbH & Co.,                        (!) OJ No C 294, 10 . 11 . 1992 .
represented by Klaus-Jiirgen Michaeli and Ute Zinsmeister,
of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Bonn and Schmitt, 62
Avenue Guillaume — application under the third paragraph
of Article 175 of the EEC Treaty for a declaration that the
Commission failed to define its position on the applicant's          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
complaint based on Articles 85 and 86 of the EEC Treaty
 (IV/33.375 — Ladbroke GmbH/PMU-PMI-DSV), and                                              of 24 January 1995
alternatively under Article 173 of the EEC Treaty for the           in Case T-114/92: Bureau Européen des Médias de
annulment of the Commission's implicit decision to reject           l'Industrie Musicale (BEMIM) v. Commission of the
the complaint — the Court of First Instance ( Second                                    European Communities ( ! )
 Chamber), composed of: J. L. Cruz Vila^a, President, C. P.          (Competition — Copyright — Regulation (EEC) No 17 —
Briet, A. Kalogeropoulos, D. P. M. Barrington and J.                Rejection of a complaint — Obligations concerning the
Biancarelli, Judges, H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment             investigation of complaints — Community interest)
on 24 January 1995 , in which it declares that:
                                                                                95/C 74/17 )
 1 . in breach of the EEC Treaty the Commission has failed
     to define its position on the applicant's complaint (No                          (Language of the case: French)
     IV/33.375 — Ladbroke GmbH/PMU-PMI-DSV) in so
     far as the latter was based on Article 86 of the               In Case T-114/92: Bureau Européen des Médias de
     Treaty;                                                        l'Industrie Musicale ( BEMIM ), established in Paris,


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 September 2003 in Case T-71/02: Classen Holding KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Admissibility of appeal before the Board of Appeal — Formal requirements — Filing of a written statement setting out the grounds of appeal — Time-limit for applying for restitutio in integrum — Articles 59 and 78 of Regulation No 40/94)

text:
C 275/44                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        15.11.2003
applicant in December 1996 and September 1997, the Court                    1.     Dismisses the application.
of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts,
President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; J. Plingers, Adminis-
                                                                            2.     Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 September
2003, in which it:
                                                                            (1) OJ C 156 of 29.6.2002.
1.    Annuls the Commission’s decision of 16 October 2001
      refusing the applications for co-financing made by the applicant
      in December 1996 and September 1997.
2.    Orders the Commission to pay the costs of the applicant in
      addition to its own costs.
(1) OJ C 56 of 2.3.2002.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 17 September 2003
                                                                            in Case T-76/02: Mara Messina v Commission of the
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                      European Communities (1)
                       of 17 September 2003                                 (Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Access to documents —
                                                                            Non-disclosure of a document originating from a Member
                                                                                State without the prior agreement of that State)
in Case T-71/02: Classen Holding KG v Office for Harmon-
isation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                             (OHIM) (1)                                                               (2003/C 275/73)
(Community trade mark — Admissibility of appeal before
the Board of Appeal — Formal requirements — Filing of a                                          (Language of the case: Italian)
written statement setting out the grounds of appeal — Time-
limit for applying for restitutio in integrum — Articles 59
                 and 78 of Regulation No 40/94)
                                                                            In Case T-76/02, Mara Messina, residing at Naples (Italy),
                          (2003/C 275/72)                                   represented by M. Calabrese, lawyer, v Commission of the
                                                                            European Communities (Agents: U. Wölker, V. Di Bucci and
                                                                            P. Aalto): Application for annulment of the Commission’s
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                            decision refusing the applicant access to certain documents
                                                                            relating to the State aid scheme which was the subject of the
                                                                            Commission’s Decision of 2 August 2000 (State Aid N 715/
                                                                            99 — Italy (SG 2000 D/10574), the Court of First Instance
In Case T-71/02, Classen Holding KG, established in Essen                   (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of: V. Tii-
(Germany), represented by S. von Petersdorff-Campen, lawyer,                li, President, J. Pirrung, P. Mengozzi, A.W.H. Meij and M. Vila-
with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Office for                     ras, Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and                       the Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 September 2003, in
Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: S. Laitinen), the intervener before                 which it:
the Court of First Instance being International Paper Co.,
established in New York, New York (United States of America),
represented by E. Armijo Chávarri, lawyer: Action brought                   1.     Dismisses the action.
against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
and Designs) of 14 December 2001 (Case R 810/1999-2)                        2.     Orders the applicant to bear half her own costs. Orders the
declaring inadmissible, following rejection of the application                     Commission to bear its own costs and to pay half of the
for restitutio in integrum, the appeal brought against the                         applicant’s costs.
decision of the Opposition Division in opposition proceedings
between Classen Holding KG and International Paper Co., the
Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili,            (1) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.
President, P. Mengozzi and M. Vilaras, Judges; J. Plingers,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
17 September 2003, in which it:


title: Case C-503/09: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (United Kingdom)) — Lucy Stewart v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Social security — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Articles 4, 10 and 10a — Short-term incapacity benefit in youth — Sickness benefit or invalidity benefit — Conditions of residence, presence on the date on which the claim is made and past presence — Citizenship of the Union — Proportionality)

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/6

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (United Kingdom)) — Lucy Stewart v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
   (Case C-503/09) (1)

   (Social security - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Articles 4, 10 and 10a - Short-term incapacity benefit in youth - Sickness benefit or invalidity benefit - Conditions of residence, presence on the date on which the claim is made and past presence - Citizenship of the Union - Proportionality)
   2011/C 269/09
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Upper Tribunal

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Lucy Stewart

      Respondent: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Upper Tribunal — Interpretation of Articles 10, 19, 28, 29 and 95a of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416) — Payments made to unemployed persons from 16 to 25 years of age who are resident in the United Kingdom and have been incapable of work for at least seven months (‘short-term incapacity benefit in youth’) — Classification as a sickness benefit or as an invalidity benefit — Benefit subject to a residence condition

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Short-term incapacity benefit in youth, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, is an invalidity benefit within the meaning of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 647/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005, if it is clear that, on the date on which the claim is made, the claimant has a permanent or long-term disability.

               2.

               The first subparagraph of Article 10(1) of Regulation No 1408/71, in that version, as amended by Regulation No 647/2005, precludes a Member State from making the award of short-term incapacity benefit in youth, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, subject to a condition of ordinary residence by the claimant in that State.
               Article 21(1) TFEU precludes a Member State from making the award of such a benefit subject:

                           —

                           to a condition of past presence of the claimant in that State to the exclusion of any other element enabling the existence of a genuine link between the claimant and that Member State to be established, or

                           —

                           to a condition of presence of the claimant in that State on the date on which the claim is made.

      (1)  OJ C 37, 13.2.2010.


title: Joined Cases C-628/10 P and C-14/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 July 2012 — Alliance One International Inc., Standard Commercial Tobacco Co. Inc v Trans-Continental Tobacco Leaf Corp. Ltd, European Commission and European Commission v Alliance One International Inc., Standard Commercial Tobacco Co. Inc., Trans-Continental Leaf Tobacco Corp. Ltd (Appeals — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Spanish market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco — Price-fixing and market-sharing — Infringement of Article 81 EC — Attributability of unlawful conduct of subsidiaries to their parent companies — Presumption of innocence — Rights of the defence — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based — Equal treatment)

text:
               29.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 295/6

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 July 2012 — Alliance One International Inc., Standard Commercial Tobacco Co. Inc v Trans-Continental Tobacco Leaf Corp. Ltd, European Commission and European Commission v Alliance One International Inc., Standard Commercial Tobacco Co. Inc., Trans-Continental Leaf Tobacco Corp. Ltd
   (Joined Cases C-628/10 P and C-14/11 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Spanish market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco - Price-fixing and market-sharing - Infringement of Article 81 EC - Attributability of unlawful conduct of subsidiaries to their parent companies - Presumption of innocence - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Equal treatment)
   2012/C 295/08
   Language of the cases: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Alliance One International Inc., Standard Commercial Tobacco Co. Inc. (represented by: M. Odriozola Alén and A. João Vide, abogados)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Trans-Continental Leaf Tobacco Corp. Ltd, European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, E. Gippini Fournier and R. Sauer, acting as Agents)
   and

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by F. Castillo de la Torre, E. Gippini Fournier and R. Sauer, acting as Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Alliance One International Inc., Standard Commercial Tobacco Co. Inc., Trans-Continental Leaf Tobacco Corp. Ltd (represented by M. Odriozola Alén and A. João Vide, abogados)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 October 2010 in Case T-24/05 Alliance One International and Others v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed, as regards Alliance One International, Inc. and Standard Commercial Tobacco Co., Inc., an action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2004) 4030 final of 20 October 2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/C.38.238/B.2 — Raw tobacco — Spain) concerning a cartel relating to the fixing of prices paid to producers and of quantities bought from them on the Spanish raw tobacco market

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeals;

               2.

               Orders Alliance One International Inc. and Standard Commercial Tobacco Co. Inc. to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in relation to the appeal in Case C-628/10 P;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Alliance One International Inc., Standard Commercial Tobacco Co. Inc. and Trans-Continental Leaf Tobacco Corp. Ltd in relation to the appeal in Case C-14/11 P.

      (1)  OJ C 72, 5.3.2011.

      OJ C 80, 12.3.2011.


title: Case T-149/06: Action brought on  17 May 2006  — Castellani v OHIM — Markant Handels und Service (CASTELLANI)

text:
               29.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/35

         Action brought on 17 May 2006 — Castellani v OHIM — Markant Handels und Service (CASTELLANI)
   (Case T-149/06)
   (2006/C 178/65)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Castellani SpA (Pontedera, Italy) (represented by: A. Di Maso, M. R. Di Maso, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Markant Handels und Service GmbH (Offemburg, 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 22 February 2006 in Case R 449/2005-1;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘CASTELLANI’ for goods in class 33 (alcoholic beverages except beer, liqueur, sparkling wine and Champagne) — application No 2 387 272

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: MARKANT Handels- und Service GmbH

      Mark or sign cited: The national word marks ‘CASTELLUM’ for goods in class 33 (wines, with the exception of sparkling wine) and ‘CASTELLUCA’ for goods in class 33 (wines)

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the Opposition Division's decision and rejection of the application

      Pleas in law: Violation of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the conflicting marks are different and the applicant's mark can not cause confusion for German consumers.


title: Case T -530/93, T-531/93, T-533/93, T-1/94, T-3/94, T-4/94, T-11/94, T-53/94, T-71/94, T-73/94, T-87/94, T-91/94, T-102/94, T-103/94, T-106/94, T-120/94, T-121/94, T-123/94, T-124/94, T-253/94 and T-372/94: Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 October 2006 — Kat and Others v Council and Commission

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/82

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 October 2006 — Kat and Others v Council and Commission
   (Case T -530/93, T-531/93, T-533/93, T-1/94, T-3/94, T-4/94, T-11/94, T-53/94, T-71/94, T-73/94, T-87/94, T-91/94, T-102/94, T-103/94, T-106/94, T-120/94, T-121/94, T-123/94, T-124/94, T-253/94 and T-372/94) (1)

   (2006/C 326/166)

      Language of the case: Dutch

   The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 334, 9.12.2003.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber) of 13 March 1997 in Case C-109/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Polimeles Protodikio, Athens): Astir AE v. the Greek State (Export refunds for agricultural products - Loss of goods in transit by reason of force majeure - Variable refund)

text:
26 . 4 . 97                                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 131 /3
 1 . Dismisses the appeal.                                                                  ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Second Chamber )
2 . Orders the appellant to pay the costs.                                                      of 5 February 1997
                                                                         in Case C-51/95 P: Unifruit Hellas EPE v. Commission of
(') OJ No C 16, 20 . 1 . 1996 , p. 6 .                                                   the European Communities (')
                                                                         (Appeal — Non-contractual liability — Special
                                                                         surveillance measures concerning imports of apples —
                                                                         Countervailing charge — Applied concurrently —
                                                                         Products in transit to the Community — Principle of the
                                                                                protection of legitimate expectations)
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                                 ( 97/C 131 /06 )
                         ( Second Chamber)
                        of 13 March 1997                                                  (Language of the case: Greek)
in Case C-109/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling made
by the Polimeles Protodikio, Athens ): Astir AE v. the                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                            Greek State ( 1 )                                     published in the European Court Reports)
(Export refunds for agricultural products — Loss of goods
   in transit by reason of force majeure — Variable refund)              In Case C-51/95 P: Unifruit Hellas EPE, a company
                                                                         governed by Greek law, established in Athens, represented
                            ( 97/C 131 /05 )                             by Ilias Soufleros, of the Athens Bar, with an address for
                                                                         service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May,
                                                                         31 Grand-rue — appeal against the judgment of the Court
                  (Language of the case: Greek)                          of First Instance of the European Communities (Third
                                                                         Chamber ) of 15 December 1994 in Case T-489/93
                                                                         Unifruit Hellas v. Commission [ 1994] ECR 11-1201 ,
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be          seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other party to
          published in the European Court Reports)                       the proceedings being Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities (Agents: Xenophon Yataganas and
                                                                         Theofanis Christoforou ) — the Court ( Second Chamber ),
In Case C-109/95 : reference to the Court pursuant to
Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the Polimeles Protodikio,                composed of G. F. Mancini , President of the Chamber, G.
Athens, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                      Hirsch ( Rapporteur ) and R. Schintgen, Judges; A. La
pending before that court between Astir AE and the Greek                 Pergola, Advocate-General ; R. Grass, Registrar, made an
State — on the interpretation of Articles 10 (4 ), 20 and 21             order on 5 February 1997, the operative part of which is
                                                                         as follows :
of Commission Regulation (EEC ) No 2730/79 of
29 November 1979 laying down common detailed rules
for the application of the system of export refunds on                   1 . The appeal is dismissed.
agricultural products (2) — the Court ( Second Chamber),
composed of: G. F. Mancini, President of the Chamber, G.                 2 . The applicant shall bear the costs.
Hirsch ( Rapporteur) and J. L. Murray, Judges; M. B.
Elmer,       Advocate-General;            D.  Louterman-Hubeau,
                                                                         (') OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 , p . 5 .
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 13 March 1997, the operative part of which
is as follows :
Articles 10 (4), 20 and 21 of Commission Regulation
(EEC) No 2730179 of 29 November 1979 laying down                         Action on 14 February 1997 by the Commission of the
common detailed rules for the application of the system of               European Communities against Cascina Laura SAS di
export refunds on agricultural products must be                          Aldo Delbo e C. and Gariboldi Engineering Company SRL
interpreted as meaning that a trader is not entitled to an
                                                                                ( Case C-65/97)
export refund where the product concerned has perished
in transit as a result of force majeure, after leaving the                                            ( 97/C 131 /07 )
geographical territory of the Community, and where the
same rate of refund has been fixed for all non-member
countries, with the exception of one single country, for                 An action against Cascina Laura SAS Aldo Delbo e C. ,
which no refund has been fixed.                                          whose registered office is in Novara ( Italy), and Gariboldi
                                                                         Engineering Company SRL, whose registered office is in
                                                                         Milan (Italy ), was brought before the Court of Justice of
H OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 , p . 14 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 317, 12 . 12 . 1979 , p . 1 .                              the European Communities on 14 February 1997 by the
                                                                         Commission of the European Communities, represented
                                                                         by Paolo Stancanelli of its Legal Service and Jean-Francis
                                                                         Pasquier, a national civil servant on detachment to that


title: Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 190, 24.7.2004

text:
               7.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 201/25

         (2004/C 201/49)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the
         Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 190, 24.7.2004

   Past publications

      OJ C 179, 10.7.2004

      OJ C 168, 26.6.2004

      OJ C 156, 12.6.2004

      OJ C 146, 29.5.2004

      OJ C 106, 30.4.2004

      OJ C 94, 17.4.2004

   These texts are available on:

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

               CELEX:http://europa.eu.int/celex


Avis juridique important

|

E1996J0001(01)

Removal from the Register of Case E-1/96

Official Journal C 090 , 20/03/1997 P. 0023 - 0023

Removal from the Register of Case E-1/96 (97/C 90/09)By order of 31 October 1996 the President of the EFTA Court ordered the removal from the Register of Case E-1/96 (an action brought by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Republic of


title: Case T-351/13: Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2016 — Crown Equipment (Suzhou) and Crown Gabelstapler v Council (Dumping — Importation of hand pallet trucks and their essential parts originating in China — Definitive anti-dumping duty — Action for annulment — Direct concern — Individual concern — Admissibility — Determination of normal value — Article 2(7)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — ‘Lesser duty’ rule — Article 9(4) of Regulation No 1225/2009 — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               28.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 441/15

      Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2016 — Crown Equipment (Suzhou) and Crown Gabelstapler v Council
      (Case T-351/13) (1)

      ((Dumping - Importation of hand pallet trucks and their essential parts originating in China - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Action for annulment - Direct concern - Individual concern - Admissibility - Determination of normal value - Article 2(7)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - ‘Lesser duty’ rule - Article 9(4) of Regulation No 1225/2009 - Obligation to state reasons))
      (2016/C 441/18)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: Crown Equipment (Suzhou) Co. Ltd (Suzhou, China) and Crown Gabelstapler GmbH & Co. KG (Roding, Germany) (represented by: K. Neuhaus, H.-J. Freund and B. Ecker, lawyers)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert and B. Driessen, acting as Agents, B. O’Connor, Solicitor, and S. Gubel, lawyer)

         Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. França and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 372/2013 of 22 April 2013 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1008/2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of hand pallet trucks and their essential parts originating in the People’s Republic of China following a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (OJ 2013 L 112, p. 1).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Crown Equipment (Suzhou) Co. Ltd and Crown Gabelstapler GmbH & Co. KG to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

                  3.

                  Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 252, 31.8.2013.


title: Case C-347/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratif de Montreuil (France) lodged on 4 July 2011 — Generali Investments Deutschland Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH, on behalf of AMB Generali Aktien Euroland v Ministre du budget, des comptes publics, de la fonction publique et de la réforme de l’Etat

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/35

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratif de Montreuil (France) lodged on 4 July 2011 — Generali Investments Deutschland Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH, on behalf of AMB Generali Aktien Euroland v Ministre du budget, des comptes publics, de la fonction publique et de la réforme de l’Etat
   (Case C-347/11)
   2011/C 269/73
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal Administratif de Montreuil

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Generali Investments Deutschland Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH, on behalf of AMB Generali Aktien Euroland

      Defendant: Ministre du budget, des comptes publics, de la fonction publique et de la réforme de l’Etat

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the situation of the shareholders be taken into account together with that of undertakings for collective investments in transferable securities (UCITS)?

               2.

               If so, what are the conditions under which the withholding tax at issue may be regarded as consistent with the principle of free movement of capital?


title: Case C-15/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 10 January 2013 — Datenlotsen Informationssysteme GmbH v Technische Universität Hamburg-Harburg

text:
               20.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 114/23

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 10 January 2013 — Datenlotsen Informationssysteme GmbH v Technische Universität Hamburg-Harburg
   (Case C-15/13)
   2013/C 114/36
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Datenlotsen Informationssysteme GmbH

      Defendant: Technische Universität Hamburg-Harburg

      Intervener: Hochschul-Informations-System GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must a ‘public contract’ within the meaning of Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 2004/18/EC (1) 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 be interpreted as also meaning a contract in the case of which, although the contracting authority does not exercise over the contractor a control similar to that which it exercises over its own departments, both the contracting authority and the contractor are controlled by the same body, which is itself a public contracting authority within the meaning of Directive 2004/18 and the contracting authority and the contractor carry out the essential part of their activities with that common body (horizontal in-house transaction)?
               If the first question is answered in the affirmative:

               2.

               Must the control similar to that which the contracting authority exercises over its own departments extend to all aspects of the contractor’s activity or is it sufficient for it to be confined to the area of procurement?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 134, p.114


title: Case C-605/11P: Appeal brought on 29 November 2011 by Republic of Finland against the judgment delivered on 9 September 2011 in Case T-29/08 Liga para Protecção da Natureza (LPN) v European Commission

text:
               25.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 58/4

         Appeal brought on 29 November 2011 by Republic of Finland against the judgment delivered on 9 September 2011 in Case T-29/08 Liga para Protecção da Natureza (LPN) v European Commission
   (Case C-605/11P)
   2012/C 58/04
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Appellant: Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski and M. Pere)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Liga para Protecção da Natureza (LPN), European Commission, Kingdom of Denmark, Kingdom of Sweden

      Form of order sought

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as the General Court rejected the LPN’s application;

               —

               annul the contested decision of the Commission and order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by Finland in the present appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In Case T-29/08 Liga para Protecção da Natureza (LPN) v European Commission, the General Court infringed Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice because it did not annul the contested decision of the Commission of 22 November 2007 in so far as the LPN was refused access to documents and parts of documents by the Commission decision of 24 October 2008.

               1.

               The General Court erred in law when it interpreted the third indent of Article 4(2) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (1) (‘the Openness Regulation’) as meaning that all the documents relating to the case in the main proceedings are protected as a class of documents so that the institution may refuse access to all the documentary material concerning the infringement proceedings based on the general presumption according to which the disclosure of the information contained in such documents in principle undermines the protection of the purpose of investigations.

               2.

               The General Court incorrectly interpreted the last part of Article 4(2) of the Openness Regulation and Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (2) when assessing whether the Commission took into consideration any overriding reasons of public interest before refusing the request for access. The General Court incorrectly interpreted the relevant rules because it failed to verify properly whether the Commission had balanced, in accordance with the requirements set out in those rules, the interest protected in the third indent of Article 4(2) of the Openness Regulation and the possible overriding public interest in the disclosure of the requested documents.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13).


title: Case C-286/10: Order of the President of the Court of 11 January 2011 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

text:
               16.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 120/9

         Order of the President of the Court of 11 January 2011 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-286/10) (1)

   2011/C 120/21
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 221, 14.8.2010.


title: Case T-205/01: Action brought on 6 September 2001 by André Ronsse against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 317/32               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                    10.11.2001
In support of her claims, the applicant submits:                          principle of equal treatment and freedom of movement for
                                                                          workers. The conversion to the Community pension system of
—     Arbitrariness and failure to state reasons, in that, first, the     the pension rights acquired by the applicant in Austria before
      administration changed its mind as to whether certain               her entry into service constitutes, in her view, discrimination
      medicines were reimbursable and, secondly, the principle            based on grade, sex, age and nationality.
      of the doctor’s free choice of medicines was disregarded
      in this case;
—     Breach of the principle of legitimate expectation and of
      the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials.
                                                                          Action brought on 6 September 2001 by André Ronsse
                                                                            against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-205/01)
Action brought on 5 September 2001 by Maria-Luise
   Lindorfer against the Council of the European Union
                                                                                (2001/C 317/64)
                         (Case T-204/01)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                         (2001/C 317/63)
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                    (Language of the case: French)                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 6 September 2001 by André
                                                                          Ronsse, resident in Brussels, represented by Eric Boigelot,
An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                          lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 5 September 2001 by Maria-Luise Lindorfer,
resident in Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersanden,
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
Laure Levi and Dominique Dugois, lawyers.
                                                                          —      annul the decision taken on 9 November 2000 by the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                      Appointing Authority concerning the reimbursement of
                                                                                the household allowance considered by the Appointing
—     annul the defendant’s decision of 3 November 2000                          Authority to have been overpaid since 1 January 1994;
      fixing at 5 years, 5 months and 8 days the number of
      years of pensionable service to be taken into account for           —      annul the decision, taken by the Appointing Authority on
      the applicant’s Community pension following the transfer                   23 November 2000, to recover the household allowance
      of her pension rights acquired in Austria prior to her                     previously overpaid since 1 January 1994
      entry into the service of the European Communities and,                    (22 433,07 Euros) from the applicant’s monthly pension,
      in so far as necessary, annul the Council decision, dated                  in 30 monthly payments of 770 Euros from December
      31 May 2001, to reject the applicant’s complaint of                        2000 to May 2003 inclusive and a monthly payment of
      2 February 2001;                                                           15,89 Euros in June 2003;
—     order the defendant to fix again, on an amended legal               —      in any event, whatever the decision on the substance of
      basis devoid of all illegality, the years of pensionable                   the case, authorise his repayment arrangements to be
      service to be taken into account for the applicant’s                       made more flexible than those presently imposed on him,
      Community pension following the transfer of her pension                    with average monthly payments of a maximum of
      rights acquired in Austria;                                                385 Euros;
—     order the defendant to pay all the costs.                           —      order, in any event, the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of her action, the applicant raises an objection to
the legality of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff                  The applicant in the present case, a retired official, states that,
Regulations and Articles 10.3 and 10.4 of the Council decision            according to the Appointing Authority, he unduly received
fixing the general provisions for giving effect to Article 11(2).         household allowance from 1 January 1994 to 31 October
According to the applicant, those articles, which form the legal          2000 and that, on the basis of Article 85, the Staff Regulations,
basis of the contested measure, constitute a breach of the                it is seeking to recover the amount overpaid.
 ---pagebreak--- 10.11.2001             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 317/33
Since the complaint through official channels was unsuccess-            3.    order the Commission to pay the costs.
ful, the applicant brought the present action, in which he
submits:
—     Breach of the Staff Regulations, and in particular                Pleas in law and main arguments
      Articles 25, paragraph 2, 62, paragraph 3, and 85 of
      Article 1(3) of Annex VII to those Regulations and
      Article 46 of Annex VIII;                                         The applicant produces sugar and sugar/cocoa mixtures in
                                                                        Aruba. Aruba is part of the Overseas Countries and Territories
—     Failure to take account of general principles of law, such        (OCT). The sugar and the sugar/cocoa mixtures produced by
      as the principle of sound administration, protection of           the applicant have OCT originating status as a result of the
      legitimate expectations, legal certainty, and the principles      EC/OCT and ACP/OCT accumulation and can be imported
      which require the Appointing Authority to take a decision         free of duty into the EC.
      only on the basis of relevant reasons which are not
      marred by errors of fact or law.
                                                                        By virtue of Commission Regulation 1325/2001 of 29 June
                                                                        2001 (1) as amended by Commission Regulation
                                                                        No 1476/2001 of 18 July 2001, (2) a quota of 4 848 tonnes of
                                                                        sugar was introduced for the period from 1 July to 1 December
                                                                        2001.
                                                                        The applicant submits that the contested regulation infringes
Action brought on the 17 September 2001 by Rica Foods                   Article 109 of the OCT Decision. When considering whether
(Free Zone) N.V. against Commission of the European                     to take the safeguard measures the Commission relied on
                          Communities                                   incorrect facts. The difficulties to which the Commission refers
                                                                        are not difficulties within the meaning of Article 109 of the
                                                                        OCT Decision. Moreover, the Commission has failed to
                        (Case T-211/01)
                                                                        demonstrate the causal link between those difficulties and the
                                                                        deterioration in the situation of an economic sector in the
                        (2001/C 317/65)                                 Community. The applicant states, further, that the import of
                                                                        sugar and sugar/cocoa mixtures from the OCT has no effect
                                                                        on those difficulties.
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                        The applicant also alleges infringement of the principle of
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        proportionality, infringement of Articles 3 and 182 to 184 of
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        the EC Treaty. The contested regulation does not take into
European Communities on 17 September 2001 by Rica Foods
                                                                        account the privileged position which those articles accord to
(Free Zone) N.V., of Oranjestad (Aruba), represented by Gerard
                                                                        the OCT.
van der Wal, lawyer, The Hague (Netherlands).
                                                                        The applicant also submits that Regulation 2553/97, to the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             which the contested regulation refers is unlawful. Finally, the
                                                                        applicant alleges abuse of discretion by the Commission and
1.    annul Regulation 1325/2001;                                       failure to state reasons for the contested regulation.
2.    hold the Community liable for the damage caused to the
      applicant by virtue of the fact that since 1 July 2001            (1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1325/2001 of 29 June 2001
      the import of the products referred to in Regulation                  providing for the continued application of safeguard measures
                                                                            with regard to imports of sugar sector products with EC/OCT
      1325/2001 has been prevented or restricted as a conse-
                                                                            originating status from the Overseas Countries and Territories for
      quence of that regulation and order that the parties shall            the period 1 July to 1 December 2001 (OJ L 177, 30.6.2001,
      agree on the extent of the damage suffered by the                     p. 57 to 59).
      applicant and that, failing agreement thereon, the pro-           (2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1476/2001 of 18 July 2001
      ceedings shall be resumed within a period to be specified             amending Regulation (EC) No 1325/2001 as regards safeguard
      by the Court in order to determine the extent of the                  measures with regard to imports from the Overseas Countries and
      damage, and order the Community to pay the interim                    Territories of mixtures of sugar and cocoa with ACP/OCT
      estimated damage and damage yet to be estimated; in the               originating status for the period 1 July to 1 December 2001 (OJ
      further alternative order the Community to pay the                    L 195, 19.7.2001, p. 29 to 30).
      damages to be determined by the Court, plus interest of
      8 % per annum from the date of the application until the
      date of payment in full;


title: Case T-831/14: Action brought on 24 December 2014 — Alfamicro v Commission

text:
               2.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/42

      Action brought on 24 December 2014 — Alfamicro v Commission
      (Case T-831/14)
      (2015/C 073/54)
      Language of the case: Portuguese

         Parties

         Applicant: Alfamicro — Sistemas de Computadores, Sociedade Unipessoal, Lda (Cascais, Portugal) (represented by: G. Gentil Anastácio and D. Pirra Xarepe, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the General Court should:

                  —

                  Annul the Commission’s decision of 28 October 2014, adopted in the context of the implementation of Financial Audit 12-DAS-03, concerning Grant Agreement No 238882, with all legal consequences arising therefrom, in particular annulling the debit note included in it, for the amount of EUR 467 131, and issuing credit for the same amount in favour of the applicant.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality. In the context of the Save Energy project, the applicant and the Commission concluded a Grant Agreement for the purpose of co-financing that project. The applicant claims that it met all the objectives of that the project and that the Commission, in the abovementioned decision of 28 October 2014 (‘the contested decision’), only considered formal aspects of a purely accounting and documentary nature, without taking into account the results obtained. Returning the amount demanded constitutes an excessive burden, having regard to the fact that the applicant is an SME, and limits the applicant’s freedom of action, thereby clearly breaching the principle of proportionality.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of legitimate expectations and good administration. First, the Commission never objected to the working method adopted by the applicant during the 32 months that the project was carried out. The applicant inferred from this behaviour that the Commission approved of the elements that were provided to it, so that the contested decision seriously undermines legal certainty. Secondly, by failing to detect in time the irregularities alleged in the contested decision, the Commission led the applicant to believe that its behaviour was correct. The conviction thus engendered should be protected under the principle of legitimate expectations, so that the Commission failed to fulfil its duty of supervision and, therefore, its duty of good administration.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging breach of contract, due to serious errors of assessment made by the Commission, since it disregarded the clarifications and arguments put forward by the applicant and made an incorrect assessment of the documentation and information duly submitted by it. By adopting the contested decision, the Commission infringed the terms agreed in the Grant Agreement. The applicant considers that it was demonstrated, throughout its communications with the Commission, that the contractual provisions had been fulfilled and that the requirements for obtaining financing under the Save Energy project had been met.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the duty to state reasons, given that the reasoning set out in the Commission’s decision is extremely succinct and neither describes nor lists the facts or actions that were the subject of investigation and analysis.


title: Case C-140/14: Action brought on 24 March 2014  — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

text:
               16.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/13

         Action brought on 24 March 2014 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-140/14)
   2014/C 184/17
   Language of the case: Slovene

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Sanfrutos and M. Žebre)

      Defendant: Republic of Slovenia

      Form of order sought

   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that the Republic of Slovenia, by failing since April 2009 to adopt sufficient measures to prevent and remove the deposit of 13 600 m3 of excavated earth including 7 605.73 m3 classifiable as waste under number 17 05 06 (excavation material not falling under number 17 05 05) and some 6 000 m3 classifiable as waste under number 17 05 05* (excavation material containing hazardous substances) at the site of construction work on the municipal infrastructure for the commercial area at Gaberje-jug, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 12, 13, 15(1), 17 and 36 of Directive 2008/98/EC, (1) and under Articles 5(3)(e), 6 (in conjunction with Council Decision 2003/33/EC (2)), 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12 of Directive 1999/31/EC (3) and Annexes I, II and III to the latter;

               —

               declare that the Republic of Slovenia, by authorising the deposit of excavated earth, that is to say, activity that takes the form of the recovery of waste, on plot No 115/1 in the municipal land register of Teharje, without ensuring that other waste had not previously or at the same time been deposited at that site, and by failing to adopt measures for the removal of waste not covered by the site permit, classifiable as illegal landfilling, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 13 and 36(1) of Directive 2008/98/EC on waste and under Articles 5(3)(e), 6 (in conjunction with Council Decision 2003/33/EC), 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12 of Directive 1999/31/EC and Annexes I, II and III to the latter;

               —

               order the Republic of Slovenia to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Republic of Slovenia, by failing since April 2009 to adopt sufficient measures to prevent and remove the deposit of 13 600 m3 of excavated earth including 7 605.73 m3 classifiable as waste under number 17 05 06 (excavation material not falling under number 17 05 05) and some 6 000 m3 classifiable as waste under number 17 05 05* (excavation material containing hazardous substances) at the site of construction work on the municipal infrastructure for the commercial area at Gaberje-jug, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 12, 13, 15(1), 17 and 36 of Directive 2008/98/EC, and under Articles 5(3)(e), 6 (in conjunction with Council Decision 2003/33/EC), 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12 of Directive 1999/31/EC and Annexes I, II and III to the latter. In addition, the Republic of Slovenia, by authorising the deposit of excavated earth, that is to say, activity that takes the form of the recovery of waste, on plot No 115/1 in the municipal land register of Teharje, without ensuring that other waste had not previously or at the same time been deposited at that site, and by failing to adopt measures for the removal of waste not covered by the site permit, classifiable as illegal landfilling, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 13 and 36(1) of Directive 2008/98/EC on waste and under Articles 5(3)(e), 6 (in conjunction with Council Decision 2003/33/EC), 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12 of Directive 1999/31/EC and Annexes I, II and III to the latter.

      (1)  OJ 2008 L 312, p. 3.

      (2)  OJ 2003 L 11.

      (3)  OJ 1999 L 182, p. 1.


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 30 April 2004 in Case T-439/03 R, Ulrike Eppe v European Parliament (Interim measures — Competition procedure — Application for provisional measures — Admissibility)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/42

      ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 30 April 2004
   in Case T-439/03 R, Ulrike Eppe v European Parliament (1)

   (Interim measures - Competition procedure - Application for provisional measures - Admissibility)
   (2004/C 118/93)
   Language of the Case: German
   In Case T-439/03 R, Ulrike Eppe, residing in Hanover (Germany), represented by D. Rogalla, lawyer, against the European Parliament (Agents: J. de Wachter and N. Lorenz), APPLICATION: (1) for the annulment of the procedure in Competition EUR/A/167/02 and its resumption with the participation of the applicant; and (2) for an order prohibiting the European Parliament from drawing up an aptitude list and recruiting staff on the strength of the results of that competition – the President of the Court of First Instance; Registrar: H. Jung, made an order on 30 April 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1)

               The application for interim measures is dismissed;

               2)

               Costs are reserved.

      (1)  OJ C 94, 17. 4. 2004


title: Case T-420/03: Action brought on 17 December 2003 by El Corte Inglés against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
C 47/34               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          21.2.2004
Proprietor of mark or         Laboratoires Goëmar                         —     refuse to allow registration of the Community trade mark
sign cited in the oppo-                                                         No 1.160.050 ‘BOOMERANG TV’ in Class 41, and
sition proceedings:
Mark or sign cited in         The national and international              —     order the other party or parties opposing this action to
opposition:                   word marks ‘Laboratoires de la                    pay the costs.
                              mer’ for goods in classes 3, 5,
                              29 and 31 (in addition to other
                              things, cosmetics of a marine
                              products base)
Decision of the Oppo-         The opposition was upheld and
sition Division:              the application for registration            Pleas in law and main arguments
                              rejected in its entirety
Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of the appeal brought
Appeal:                       by La Mer Technology                        Applicant for Com-             José Matías Abril Sánchez and
                                                                          munity trade mark:             Pedro Ricote Saugar
Pleas in law:                 Violation of Article 43(2) and (3)
                              of Council regulation 40/94 (1)
                              and violation of Article 8(1) (b) of        Community trade mark           Figurative mark ‘BOOMERANG
                              Council Regulation 40/94.                   sought:                        TV’, with a semi-ellipse superim-
                                                                                posed         —         Application
                                                                                No 1.160.050 in respect of ser-
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the                                          vices included in Classes 38
    Community trade mark (OJ 11, p. 1).                                                                  and 41, although during the
                                                                                opposition proceedings the party
                                                                                applying for registration reduced
                                                                                the ambit of protection for the
                                                                                mark, excluding Class 38.
                                                                          Proprietor of mark or          Applicant.
Action brought on 17 December 2003 by El Corte Inglés                     sign cited in the oppo-
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                      sition proceedings:
         Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
                                                                          Mark or sign cited in          Spanish figurative marks Nos
                         (Case T-420/03)                                  opposition.                    2035514, 2163613, 2163616,
                                                                                2035507, 2035508, 2035505,
                                                                                2035509, 2035510, 2035511,
                          (2004/C 47/66)                                                                 2035512 and 2035513 (the word
                                                                                ‘BOOMERANG’ framed in a dia-
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)                                                        mond), 1236024, 1236025 and
                                                                                1282250, Irish mark No 153228,
                                                                                Greek mark No 109387 and
                                                                                Community          trade      mark
                                                                                No 448514 (the word ‘BOOMER-
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                                           ANG’ under a square containing
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the                                                  the letter B next to a boomerang),
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                                                   Spanish word mark ‘BOOMER-
17 December 2003 by El Corte Inglés S.A., established in                                                 ANG’ No 456466, Spanish figu-
Madrid, represented by Juan Luis Rivas Zurdo and Emilio                                                  rative marks ‘BOOMERANG La
López Leiva, lawyers.                                                                                base del deporte’ (No 2227731,
                                                                                2227732 and 2227734) and
                                                                                English       figurative      mark
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                              No 1494568 (small square
                                                                                enclosing the letter B next to a
—     annul the OHIM (Second Board of Appeal)’s decision of                                              boomerang), in respect of prod-
      1 October 2003 given in Case R088/2003-2, inasmuch                                                 ucts in Classes 18, 25, 38 and 41.
      as, by dismissing the appeal brought by the present
      applicant, it gives grounds for a future grant of Com-
      munity trade mark No 1.160.050 BOOMERANG TV in                      Decision of the Oppo-          Opposition rejected.
      Class 41;                                                           sition Division:
 ---pagebreak--- 21.2.2004            EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 47/35
Decision of the Board of     Action dismissed.                           —     order the Commission to pay all costs and expenses in
Appeal:                                                                        these proceedings.
Pleas in law:                Infringement of Article 8(1)(b),
                             (2)(c) and (5) of Regulation (EC)
                             No 40/94.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         The applicants seek the annulment of the Commission’s
                                                                         decisions rejecting the applicants’ request not to classify
                                                                         n-propyl bromide as a highly flammable substance (risk
                                                                         phrase R11) and reproductive toxicant category 2 (risk
                                                                         phrase R60) , but instead to classify it as a category 3/R62
                                                                         substance for reproductive toxicity and R18 substance for
Action brought on 23 December 2003 by Enviro Tech                        flammability. In the alternative, the applicants requested
Europe, Ltd., and Enviro Tech International Inc. against                 the Commission to exclude n-propyl bromide from the
      the Commission of the European Communities                         29th Adaptation to Technical Progress of Directive 67/548/
                                                                         EEC (1) until a proper and complete assessment of all the
                                                                         scientific data had been made by the Commission.
                       (Case T-422/03)
                        (2004/C 47/67)                                   In support of their application, the applicants claim that the
                                                                         Commission has violated the provision of Directive 67/
                                                                         548/EEC concerning the applicable testing methods and
                                                                         classification criteria for chemical substances. According to the
                 (Language of the case: English)                         applicant, the Commission has made a manifest error of
                                                                         assessment and an incorrect application of the testing methods
                                                                         for physico-chemical properties set forth in annex V, point A.9
                                                                         of Directive 67/548/EEC, the classification criteria for toxico-
                                                                         logical properties set forth in annex VI, point 4.2.3 of Directive
                                                                         67/548/EEC and the criterion of normal handling or use set
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                forth in annex VI, point 1.1 of Directive 67/548/EEC.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 23 December 2003 by Enviro Tech
Europe Ltd., Kingston-upon-Thames, United Kingdom and
Enviro tech International, Inc., Chicago, USA, represented by
Mr C. Mereu and Mr K. Van Maldegem, lawyers.                             The applicants also claim that the Commission has violated
                                                                         the applicants’ legitimate expectations that the Commission
                                                                         would assess the data submitted by the applicants in accord-
                                                                         ance with their obligations under Directive 67/548/EEC,
                                                                         diligently, impartially and by relevance to the relevant criteria
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         of Directive 67/548/EEC.
—    annul Commission Decisions D(2003) 430307 and
     D(2003) 430309 of 4 November 2003;
                                                                         The applicants invoke furthermore a violation of Article 95(3)
                                                                         EC Treaty. According to the applicants, the Commission failed
—    declare the Commission liable for damages suffered by               to consider and assess all the scientific data available as well as
     applicants to date and pending these proceedings as a               new developments based on scientific facts.
     result of the Commission’s unlawful conduct, including
     but not limited to its denial of applicant’s request
     and related adoption of the contested decision, and to
     compensate applicants for such damage in the provisional
     amount of EUR 350 000;                                              The applicants state that the contested decisions are based on
                                                                         the precautionary principle. According to the applicants, this
                                                                         principle only applies to risk assessment and cannot be used
—    declare the Commission liable for imminent losses and               in hazard assessments. Also, even if the principle should apply
     damages foreseeable with sufficient certainty, even if such         in this case, this would only be possible in the case of scientific
     losses and damages cannot be precisely assessed;                    uncertainty.


title: Case C-113/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgerichts Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 2 March 2010 — Zuckerfabrik Jülich AG v Hauptzollamt Aachen

text:
               22.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/21

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgerichts Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 2 March 2010 — Zuckerfabrik Jülich AG v Hauptzollamt Aachen
   (Case C-113/10)
   2010/C 134/32
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Zuckerfabrik Jülich AG

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Aachen

      Question referred

   Is Commission Regulation (EC) No 1193/2009 of 3 November 2009 correcting Regulations (EC) No 1762/2003, (EC) No 1775/2004, (EC) No 1686/2005, (EC) No 164/2007 and fixing the production levies in the sugar sector for marketing years 2002/2003, 2003/2004, 2004/2005, 2005/2006 (1) valid?

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 321, p. 1.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg by judgment of that court of 25 April 1996 in the case of Raymond Kohll v. Union des Caisses de Maladie (Case C-158/96)

text:
No C 180/26              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     22 . 6 . 96
Appeal brought on 7 May 1996 by C. Williams against the                 1 . Are Articles 59 and 60 of the Treaty establishing the
judgment delivered on 7 March 1996 by the Fifth Chamber                     EEC to be interpreted as precluding rules under which
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                  reimbursement of the cost of benefits is subject to
in Case T-146/94 between C. Williams and the Court of                       authorization from the insured person's social security
                                Auditors                                    institution if the benefits are provided in a Member State
                          Case C- 1 5 6/96 P                                other than the State in which that person resides ?
                            ( 96/C 180/59 )
                                                                        2 . Is the answer to the first question any different if the aim
                                                                            of the rules is to maintain a balanced medical and
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 7 March 1996
                                                                            hospital service accessible to everybody in a given
by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                            region ?
European Communities in Case T-146/94 between C.
Williams and the Court of Auditors was brought before the
 Court of Justice of the European Communities on 7 May
 1996 by C. Williams, represented by Eric Boigelot, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis
Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim .
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-3 27/93 ( )
The appellant claims that the Court should :                                                      ( 96/C 180/61 )
 1 , declare the appeal admissible and well founded;                    By order of 29 March 1996 , the President of the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
2 , consequently :                                                      from the register of Case C-327/93 ( reference for a
     ( a ) annul in its entirety the judgment delivered;                preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice, Queen's
                                                                        Bench Division ): The Queen v . Secretary of State for the
     ( b ) itself determine the case and, adjudicating on his           National Heritage, ex parte: ( 1 ) Continental Television
           initial application , annul the decision of 24 January       BVio, ( 2 ) Continental Television pic and ( 3 ) Mark Roy
                                                                        Garner .
           1994 , notified by bailiff service on the same day,
           and, in so far as may be necessary, annul the
           decision of 23 January 1994 implicitly rejecting the         (') OJ No C 211 , 5 . 8 . 1993 .
           complaint submitted by the appellant on
           23 September 1993 under Article 90 ( 2 ) of the Staff
           Regulations;
     ( c ) order the Court of Auditors to pay the costs of the
           appeal and of the proceedings at first instance .                  Removal from the register of Case C-120/94 ( 1 )
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                   ( 96/C 180/62 )
Infringement of Community law. The appellant maintains                  By order of 19 March 1996 , the President of the Court of
the pleas and claims advanced by him in the proceedings                 Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
before the Court of First Instance ( M.                                 from the register of Case C-120/94 : Commission of the
                                                                        European Communities v. Hellenic Republic .
0 ) OJ No C 146 , 28 . 5 . 1994 , p . 12 .
                                                                        (') OJ No C 174 , 25 . 6 . 1994 .
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de
Cassation of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg by judgment
of that court of 25 April 1996 in the case of Raymond Kohll                   Removal from the register of Case C-145/94 ( 1 )
                 v . Union des Caisses de Maladie                                                 ( 96/C 180/63 )
                          ( Case C-158/96 )
                            ( 96/C 180/60 )                             By order of 13 March 1996 , the President of the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                        from the register of Case C-145/94 ( reference for a
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Penal No 2 de
European Communities by a judgment of the Cour de
                                                                        Lleida ): criminal proceedings against José Antonio Alonso
Cassation ( Court of Cassation ) of the Grand Duchy of                  Rubio .
Luxembourg of 25 April 1996 , which was received at the
Court Registry on 9 May 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in
the case of Raymond Kohll v. Union des Caisses de Maladie               (') OJ No C 202 , 23 . 7. 1994 .
( Union of Health Insurance Funds ) on the following
questions :


title: Case C-555/08: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2005/56/EC — Cross-border mergers of limited liability companies — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/24

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden
   (Case C-555/08) (1)

   (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2005/56/EC - Cross-border mergers of limited liability companies - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   2009/C 180/40
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Dejmek and K. Nyberg, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk and A. Engman, Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2005/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on cross-border mergers of limited liability companies (OJ 2005 L 310, p. 1) — Financial institutions which require authorisation by a public body, in particular banks and insurance companies

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by not adopting, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on cross-border mergers of limited liability companies, with regard to financial institutions which require authorisation by a public authority, in particular certain banks and insurance companies, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 32, 7.2.2009.


title: Case F-63/09: Action brought on 26 June 2009 — Donati v ECB

text:
               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/50

         Action brought on 26 June 2009 — Donati v ECB
   (Case F-63/09)
   2009/C 205/93
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Paola Donati (Frankfurt on Main, Germany) (represented by: L. Levi, M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Central Bank

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the ECB’s decision not to take further action on the claims relating to alleged psychological harassment suffered by the applicant, and compensation for the non-material harm suffered.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Board of Directors of 16 December 2008 in so far as it involves a threat and an attempt to intimidate the applicant;

               —

               annul the decision of the Board of Directors of 16 December 2008 in so far as it does not contain a decision on the result of the administrative investigation and on the final outcome of the applicant’s complaint; in the alternative, annul the Board of Director’s decision of 16 December 2008 in so far as it contains an ‘implied’ decision to take no further action on the applicant’s complaint and not to adopt subsequent measures, in particular not to open disciplinary proceedings;

               —

               annul, so far as is necessary, the decision of 16 April 2008 rejecting the applicant’s ‘special appeal’;

               —

               order the defendant to pay compensation for the non-material harm suffered, assessed on equitable principles at EUR 10 000;

               —

               order the European Central Bank to pay the costs.


title: Case C-413/11: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 18 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln — Germany) — Germanwings GmbH v Thomas Amend (Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure — Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Passengers’ right to compensation in the event of long delay to a flight — Principle of the separation of powers in the European Union)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/41

         Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 18 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln — Germany) — Germanwings GmbH v Thomas Amend
   (Case C-413/11) (1)

   (Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Passengers’ right to compensation in the event of long delay to a flight - Principle of the separation of powers in the European Union)
   2013/C 225/69
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Köln

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Germanwings GmbH

      Defendant: Thomas Amend

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Landgericht Köln — Interpretation of Articles 5, 6, 7, 8(1)(a) and 9 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1) — Right to compensation in the event of delay — Limits of the jurisdiction of the Court — Scope of the interpretation given in the judgment of the Court of 19 November 2009 in Joined Cases C-402/07 and C-432/07 Sturgeon and Others, extending, by analogy, the right to compensation to delay to a flight

      Operative part of the order

   The interpretation given by the Court to Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, to the effect that passengers whose flights are delayed have a right to compensation where they reach their final destination three hours or more after the arrival time initially scheduled, even though, first, Article 6 of that regulation, relating to delay, provides only for the application of measures of assistance and of care and, secondly, reference is made to Article 7 of that regulation, relating to the right to compensation, only in situations of denied boarding and flight cancellation, has no bearing on the principle of the separation of powers in the European Union.

      (1)  OJ C 319, 29.10.2011, p. 9.


title: Case T-1/10 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 26 March 2010 — SNF v ECHA (Proceedings for interim measures — REACH — Identification of acrylamide as a substance of very high concern — Application for suspension of operation of the measure and for interim relief — No urgency)

text:
               22.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/36

         Order of the President of the General Court of 26 March 2010 — SNF v ECHA
   (Case T-1/10 R)
   (Proceedings for interim measures - REACH - Identification of acrylamide as a substance of very high concern - Application for suspension of operation of the measure and for interim relief - No urgency)
   2010/C 134/62
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: SNF SAS (Andrézieux-Bouthéon, France) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and R. Cana, lawyers, and P. Sellar, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: M. Heikkila and W. Broere, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for suspension of operation of the decision identifying acrylamide as a substance of very high concern stated to have been adopted by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) on 7 December 2009 pursuant to Article 59 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case C-520/16: Order of the President of the Court of 15 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover — Germany) — Andrea Witzel, Jannis Witzel, Jazz Witzel v Germanwings GmbH

text:
               24.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/14

         Order of the President of the Court of 15 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover — Germany) — Andrea Witzel, Jannis Witzel, Jazz Witzel v Germanwings GmbH
   (Case C-520/16) (1)

   (2017/C 129/22)
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 30, 30.1.2017.


title: Case T-352/12: Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2014  — Grupo Flexi de León v OHIM (FLEXI) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark FLEXI — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               28.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/10

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2014 — Grupo Flexi de León v OHIM (FLEXI)
   (Case T-352/12) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark FLEXI - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2014/C 245/13
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Grupo Flexi de León, SA de CV (León, Mexico) (represented by: M. Zarobe, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 May 2012 (Case R 1335/2011-2) concerning an application for registration of the word sign FLEXI as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Grupo Flexi de León, SA de CV to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 331, 27.10.2012.