title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 November 2003 in Joined Cases T-331/00 and T-115/01: Laurence Bories and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Civil service — Temporary staff within the meaning of Article 2(d) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants — Vacancy notices for permanent posts paid from research and investment appropriations — Rejection of candidatures of temporary staff — Interest of the service — Limitation of the contracts of temporary staff to a maximum term of three years — Withdrawal of vacancy notices — Interest of the service — Misuse of powers — Claims for damages)

text:
7.2.2004                 EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 35/7
                                                        COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                —     in the alternative, annulment of those vacancy notices;
                                                                           —     compensation for the loss suffered by the applicants;
                      of 27 November 2003
                                                                           and, in Case T-115/01, for:
in Joined Cases T-331/00 and T-115/01: Laurence Bories
and Others v Commission of the European Communi-                           —     annulment of the decision of the authority authorised to
                               ties (1)                                          conclude contracts to annul the recruitment procedures
                                                                                initiated by the publication of post vacancy notices COM/
                                                                                R/5526/00 of 24 February 2000 (Mrs Bories’ case), COM/
(Civil service — Temporary staff within the meaning of                           R/5889/99 of 21 December 1999 (Mr Chemin’s case),
Article 2(d) of the Conditions of Employment of Other                            COM/R/5520/00 of 24 February 2000 (Miss Copes’ case),
Servants — Vacancy notices for permanent posts paid from                         COM/R/5863/99 of 26 November 1999 (Mr Mondini’s
research and investment appropriations — Rejection of                            case), COM/R/5521/00 of 24 February 2000 (Miss Preis-
candidatures of temporary staff — Interest of the service —                      sler’s case), COM/R/5638/00 and COM/R/5639/00 of
Limitation of the contracts of temporary staff to a maximum                      16 March 2000 (Mrs Bertolo’s case), COM/R/5645/00 of
term of three years — Withdrawal of vacancy notices —                            20 March 2000 (Mr Brovelli’s case), and COM/R/5646/
Interest of the service — Misuse of powers — Claims for                          00 of 20 March 2000 (Mrs D’Elia’s case);
                              damages)
                                                                           —     annulment of post vacancy notices COM/R/5734/00 of
                           (2004/C 35/10)                                        23 June 2000 (Mr Chemin’s case), and COM/R/5735/00
                                                                                (Mr Mondini’s case) and of the decisions made in the
                                                                                course of those two recruitment procedures;
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           —     compensation for the loss suffered by the applicants,
                                                                           the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of
                                                                           R. García-Valdecasas, President, P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke,
In Joined Cases T-331/00 and T-115/01: Laurence Bories,
                                                                           Judges; Registrar: I. Natsinas, Administrator, has given a
residing at Vallon-Pont-d’Arc (France), Philippe Chemin, resid-
                                                                           judgment on 27 November 2003, of which the operative part
ing at Gif-sur-Yvette (France), Laura Copes, residing at Ispra
                                                                           is as follows:
(Italy), Emanuele Mondini, residing at Gavirate (Italy), Helen
Preissler, residing at Siegsdorf (Germany), former temporary
staff of the Commission of the European Communities,                       1)    In Case T-331/00 the decisions of 16 March 2000 rejecting
represented by G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers, appli-                      Mrs Bories’ candidature, of 3 February 2000 rejecting Mr Che-
cants in Cases T-331/00 and T-115/01, Francesca Bertolo,                         min’s candidature, of 17 March 2000 rejecting Miss Copes’
residing at Varese (Italy), Lionello Brovelli, residing at Angera                candidature, of 17 January 2000 rejecting Mr Mondini’s
(Italy), Maria Gabriella D’Elia, residing at Taino (Italy), former               candidature and of 16 March 2000 rejecting Miss Preissler’s
temporary staff of the Commission of the European Commun-                        candidature, are annulled.
ites, represented by G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers,
applicants in Case T-115/01, against Commission of the                     2)    In Case T-115/01:
European Communites (Agents: in Case T-331/00, J. Currall
and in Case T-115/01, J. Currall and D. Waelbroeck) —
application, in Case T-331/00, for:                                              —     the decision of 30 May 2000 withdrawing vacancy notice
                                                                                COM/R/5526/00, for which Mrs Bories applied, is
                                                                                annulled;
—     annulment of the decisions of the authority authorised to
      conclude contracts, of 16 March 2000 (Mrs Bories’ case),
                                                                                —     the decision of 30 May 2000 withdrawing vacancy notice
      of 3 February 2000 (Mr Chemin’s case), of 17 March
                                                                                COM/R/5889/99, for which Mr Chemin applied, is
      2000 (Miss Copes’ case), of 17 January 2000 (Mr
                                                                                annulled.
      Mondini’s case), and of 16 March 2000 (Miss Preissler’s
      case), not to consider the applicants’ candidatures for the
      posts stated to be vacant by post vacancy notices COM/               3)    In Joined Cases T-331/00 and T-115/01:
      R/5526/00 of 24 February 2000 (Mrs Bories’ case), COM/
      R/5889/99 of 21 December 1999 (Mr Chemin’s case),                          —     the Commission shall pay Mrs Bories the sum of
      COM/R/5520/00 of 24 February 2000 (Miss Copes’ case),                            EUR 11 929 (eleven thousand nine hundred and twenty-
      COM/R/5863/99 of 26 November 1999 (Mr Mondini’s                                  nine) as compensation for the material damage and the
      case), and COM/R/5521/00 of 24 February 2000 (Miss                               sum of EUR 1 (one) as compensation for the non-
      Preissler’s case);                                                               material damage suffered;
 ---pagebreak--- C 35/8                   EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                              7.2.2004
      —     the Commission shall pay Mr Chemin the sum of                    (Luxembourg), represented by G. Bounéou and F. Frabetti,
            EUR 29 592 (twenty-nine thousand five hundred and                lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
            ninety-two) as compensation for the material damage and          Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall
            the sum of EUR 1 (one) as compensation for the non-              and C. Berardis-Kayser) — application for the annulment of
            material damage suffered;                                        the decision adopting the definitive staff report of the applicant
                                                                             for the period running from 1 July 1995 to 30 June 1997 —
      —     the Commission shall pay Miss Copes the sum of EUR 1             the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of
            (one) as compensation for the non-material damage                V. Tiili, President, P. Mengozzi and M. Vilaras, Judges; I. Natsin-
            suffered;                                                        as, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on
                                                                             5 November 2003, in which it:
      —     the Commission shall pay Mr Mondini the sum of
            EUR 5 000 (five thousand) as compensation for the
            material damage and the sum of EUR 1 (one) as                    1.    Dismisses the application.
            compensation for the non-material damage suffered;
      —     the Commission shall pay Miss Preissler the sum of               2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
            EUR 11 929 (eleven thousand nine hundred and twenty-
            nine) as compensation for the material damage and the
            sum of EUR 1 (one) as compensation for the non-                  (1) OJ C 84 of 6.4.02
            material damage suffered;
      —     the Commission shall pay Mrs Bertolo the sum of EUR 1
            (one) as compensation for the non-material damage
            suffered;
      —     the Commission shall pay Mr Brovelli the sum of EUR 1
            (one) as compensation for the non-material damage
            suffered;                                                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      —     the Commission shall pay Mrs D’Elia the sum of EUR 1
            (one) as compensation for the non-material damage                                      of 18 November 2003
            suffered.
4)    The remainder of the action in Case T-115/01 is dismissed.             in Case T-13/02: Falk-Ulrich von Hoff v European Parlia-
                                                                                ment (1)
5)    The Commission shall bear its own costs and pay the costs
      incurred by the applicants in Case T-331/00.
                                                                             (Officials — Temporary staff — Installation allowance —
6)    The Commission shall bear its own costs and pay three-quarters              Change in place of employment — Default interest)
      of the costs incurred by the applicants in Case T-115/01.
7)    The applicants in Case T-115/01 shall bear a quarter of their                                     (2004/C 35/12)
      own costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(1) OJ C 372 of 23.12.00 and OJ C 227 of 11.8.01.
                                                                             In Case T-13/02: Falk-Ulrich von Hoff, a member of the
                                                                             temporary staff of the European Parliament, residing in Berlin-
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  Wittenau (Germany), represented by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer,
                                                                             against European Parliament (Agents: J. de Wachter and
                        of 5 November 2003                                   U. Rösslein) — application for, first, annulment of the decision
                                                                             of the European Parliament of 17 April 2001, refusing to grant
in Case T-326/01: Giorgio Lebedef v Commission of the                        the applicant an installation allowance in connection with the
                    European Communities (1)                                 change in his place of employment and, second, an order that
                                                                             the European Parliament pay to the applicant an installation
(Officials — Staff report — Exercise of activities as staff                  allowance amounting to two months’ basic salary, together
representative and union activities — Action for annulment)                  with interest at 8 % from the date of the application — the
                                                                             Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. García-
                           (2004/C 35/11)                                    Valdecasas, President, J.D. Cooke and P. Lindh, Judges; I. Natsi-
                                                                             nas, administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on
                     (Language of the case: French)                          18 November 2003, in which it:
In Case T-326/01: Giorgio Lebedef, official of the Commission                1.    Annuls the decision of the Parliament of 17 April 2001
of the European Communities, residing in Senningerberg                             refusing to grant the applicant an installation allowance;


title: Case T-352/04: Action brought on 24 August 2004 by Bitburger Brauerei Th. Simon GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
               22.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/26

         Action brought on 24 August 2004 by Bitburger Brauerei Th. Simon GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case T-352/04)
   (2005/C 19/56)
   Language in which the application was submitted: German
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 24 August 2004 by Bitburger Brauerei Th. Simon GmbH, of Bitburg (Germany), represented by Michaela Huth-Dierig, lawyer. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., of St Louis (United States of America), was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 June 2004 in appeal R 451/2002-2;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               Anheuser-Busch, Inc.

               Community trade mark sought:

               Figurative mark Anheuser Busch Bud for goods in Classes 16, 25 and 32 (inter alia paper, clothing, beer, ale, porter, malted alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages) – Application No 398 867

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               The applicant

               Mark or sign cited in opposition:

               German word and figurative marks Bit, BIT and Bitte ein Bit for goods and services in Classes 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 28, 32, 34 and 42 (inter alia beer and non-alcoholic drinks)

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Opposition rejected

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Applicant's appeal dismissed

               Pleas in law:

               – There is considerable aural similarity between the marks
               Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 was applied incorrectly
               The BIT marks with earlier priority enjoy extended protection under Article 8(5) of the regulation


title: Case C-609/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — Centrotherm Systemtechnik GmbH v centrotherm Clean Solutions GmbH & Co. KG, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeals — Regulations (EC) Nos 207/2009 and 2868/95 — Revocation proceedings — Community word mark CENTROTHERM — Genuine use — Concept — Evidence — Sworn statement — Article 134(1) to (3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court — General Court’s powers of review — Scope of pleas in law and forms of order sought by an intervener)

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/15

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — Centrotherm Systemtechnik GmbH v centrotherm Clean Solutions GmbH & Co. KG, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-609/11 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Regulations (EC) Nos 207/2009 and 2868/95 - Revocation proceedings - Community word mark CENTROTHERM - Genuine use - Concept - Evidence - Sworn statement - Article 134(1) to (3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court - General Court’s powers of review - Scope of pleas in law and forms of order sought by an intervener)
   2013/C 344/23
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Centrotherm Systemtechnik GmbH (represented by: A. Schulz and C. Onken, Rechtsanwälte, and by F. Schmidt, Patentanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: centrotherm Clean Solutions GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: O. Löffel and P. Lange, Rechtsanwälte), Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 September 2011, in Case T-427/09 Centrotherm Systemtechnik v OHIM, in which the General Court dismissed the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 August 2009 (Case R 6/2008-4), in so far as it annulled in part the decision of the Cancellation Division of 30 October 2007 — Genuine use of the mark — Proof

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Centrotherm Systemtechnik GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Clean Solutions GmbH & Co. KG;

               3.

               Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 17.3.2012.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 28 May 1998 in Case C-213/97: Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directives 86/280/EEC and 88/347/EEC - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

text:
25.7.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 234/11
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       of 28 May 1998                                                        (Sixth Chamber)
in Case C-22/96: European Parliament, supported by the                                       of 28 May 1998
Commission of the European Communities, v Council of                 in    Case    C-213/97: Commission of the European
                    the European Union (1)                                       Communities v Portuguese Republic (1)
(Council Decision 95/468/EC Ð IDA Ð Telematic                        (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations Ð
                   networks Ð Legal basis)                           Directives 86/280/EEC and 88/347/EEC Ð Failure to
                                                                                transpose within the period prescribed)
                        (98/C 234/20)
                                                                                (98/C 234/21)
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                             published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                     In Case C-213/97: Commission of the European
In Case C-22/96: European Parliament (Agents: Johann                 Communities (represented by Francisco de Sousa Fialho) v
Schoo and JoseÂ Luis Rufas Quintana), supported by the               Portuguese Republic (Luís Fernandes et JoaÄo Lopes
Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                      Fernandes), application for a declaration, first, that by
Claudia Schmidt and Pieter van Nuffel), v Council of the             failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and
European Union (Agents: Antonio Sacchettini and                      administrative provisions necessary fully and properly to
Amadeu Lopes Sabino) Ð application for annulment of                  implement Council Directive 86/280/EEC of 12 June 1986
Council Decision 95/468/EC of 6 November 1995 on a                   on limit values and quality objectives for discharges of
Community contribution for telematic interchange of data             certain dangerous substances included in List I of the
between administrations in the Community (IDA) (OJ                   Annex to Directive 76/464/EEC (OJ L 181 of 4.7.1986,
L 269 of 11.11.1995, p. 23) Ð the Court, composed of:                p. 16), as amended by Council Directive 88/347/EEC of
G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann (President           16 June 1988 (OJ L 158 of 25.6.1988, p. 35) and, in the
of Chamber), G. F. Mancini, J. L. Murray, D. A. O.                   alternative, that by failing immediately to inform the
Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann and L. Sevón            Commission of those measures, the Portuguese Republic
(Rapporteur), Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate General;               has failed to fulfil its obligations under the third
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 May                  paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty and under
1998, in which it:                                                   Article 7(1) of Directive 86/280 and the first paragraph of
                                                                     Article 2 of Directive 88/347 respectively, the Court (Sixth
                                                                     Chamber), composed of: H. Ragnemalm, President of
1. Annuls Council Decision 95/468/EC of 6 November                   Chamber, G. F. Mancini, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray
     1995 on a Community contribution for telematic                  and K. M. Ioannou (Rapporteur), Judges; F. G. Jacobs,
     interchange of data between administrations in the              Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
     Community (IDA);                                                judgment on 28 May 1998, in which it:
                                                                     1. Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws,
2. Maintains the effects of the implementing measures                     regulations and administrative provisions necessary
     already taken by the Commission of the European                      fully and properly to implement Council Directive 86/
     Communities on the basis of that decision;                           280/EEC of 12 June 1986 on limit values and quality
                                                                          objectives for discharges of certain dangerous
                                                                          substances included in List I of the Annex to Directive
                                                                          76/464/EEC, as amended by Council Directive 88/
3. Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the                    347/EEC of 16 June 1988, the Portuguese Republic
     costs;                                                               has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(1) of
                                                                          Directive 86/280 and the first paragraph of Article 2
                                                                          of Directive 88/347 respectively;
4. Orders the Commission of the European Communities
     to bear its own costs.
                                                                     2. Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 95 of 30.3.1996.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 228 of 26.7.1997.


title: Case C-287/16: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça — Portugal) — Fidelidade-Companhia de Seguros SA v Caisse Suisse de Compensation, Fundo de Garantia Automóvel, Sandra Cristina Crystello Pinto Moreira Pereira, Sandra Manuela Teixeira Gomes Seemann, Catarina Ferreira Seemann, José Batista Pereira and Teresa Rosa Teixeira (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles — Directive 72/166/EEC — Article 3(1) — Second Directive 84/5/EEC — Article 2(1) — Insurance contract concluded on the basis of false statements concerning the ownership of the vehicle and the identity of its usual driver — Policyholder — No economic interest in the conclusion of that contract — Insurance contract null and void — Whether that nullity may be invoked against third-party victims)

text:
               9.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 338/2

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça — Portugal) — Fidelidade-Companhia de Seguros SA v Caisse Suisse de Compensation, Fundo de Garantia Automóvel, Sandra Cristina Crystello Pinto Moreira Pereira, Sandra Manuela Teixeira Gomes Seemann, Catarina Ferreira Seemann, José Batista Pereira and Teresa Rosa Teixeira
   (Case C-287/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Directive 72/166/EEC - Article 3(1) - Second Directive 84/5/EEC - Article 2(1) - Insurance contract concluded on the basis of false statements concerning the ownership of the vehicle and the identity of its usual driver - Policyholder - No economic interest in the conclusion of that contract - Insurance contract null and void - Whether that nullity may be invoked against third-party victims))
   (2017/C 338/02)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Supremo Tribunal de Justiça

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Fidelidade-Companhia de Seguros SA

      Defendants: Caisse Suisse de Compensation, Fundo de Garantia Automóvel, Sandra Cristina Crystello Pinto Moreira Pereira, Sandra Manuela Teixeira Gomes Seemann, Catarina Ferreira Seemann, José Batista Pereira and Teresa Rosa Teixeira

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 3(1) of Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, and Article 2(1) of Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which would have the effect of making it possible to invoke against third-party victims, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the nullity of a contract for motor vehicle insurance against civil liability arising as a result of the policyholder initially making false statements concerning the identity of the owner and of the usual driver of the vehicle concerned or from the fact that the person for whom or on whose behalf that insurance contract was concluded had no economic interest in the conclusion of that contract.

      (1)  OJ C 326, 6.9.2016.


title: Case T-190/07: Action brought on 31 May 2007 — KEK DIAVLOS v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/34

         Action brought on 31 May 2007 — KEK DIAVLOS v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-190/07)
   (2007/C 211/66)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: KEK DIAVLOS (Peristeri, Attiki (Greece)) (represented by: D. Khatsimikhalis, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annulment of Decision 23/II/2006 of the Commission of the European Communities and any other related act and/or decision of the Commission of the European Communities on the grounds set out;

               —

               an order that the Commission of the European Communities pay the costs and our lawyer's fees.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   This action is brought against Decision E(2006) 465 final of the Commission of the European Communities of 23 February 2006 requiring the applicant to pay the basic sum of EUR 71 981 in repayment of the advance received by KEK KSINI (1)in respect of funding under the PRINCE information programme for Europe's citizens, together with interest, on the ground of unjustified delay and lack of proof of completion of the project. The applicant maintains that the decision in question is unfounded, incorrect, improper and contains insufficient and incorrect reasoning.
   In contrast to the Commission's findings which, in the applicant's view are incorrect and unjustifiable, the applicant maintains that it complied fully with its obligations under the funding contract which it signed in order to participate in the programme in question and that, in the cases in which delays were recorded because of objective difficulties, the applicant informed the competent bodies of the European Union in good time.
   The applicant also claims that KEK KSINI never received the remainder of the amount of the funding after receipt of the original advance of EUR 71 981, although it considers that the work performed and the expenditure incurred in connection with the above programme exceed that sum.
   Accordingly the applicant maintains that the contested decision should be annulled; it was issued as a result of erroneous information given by the staff of the company to the bodies of the European Union which carried out on-the-spot checks, since, because of a change in the staff who were in charge of the programme, it was not initially possible for new employees to be fully briefed so as to gather all the required information and give full replies directly.

      (1)  Pursuant to the amendment to the company's articles on 12 April 2006, the company KEK KSINI was renamed KEK DIAVLOS.


5.9.98                EN              Official Journal of the European Communities                              C 278/33
       Removal from the register of Case C-21/98 (1)                   Removal from the register of Case C-123/96 (1)
                        (98/C 278/63)                                                    (98/C 278/67)
By order of 8 May 1998 the President of the Court of
                                                                 By order of 19 May 1998 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                 Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-21/98: Commission of
                                                                 removal from the register of Case C-123/96: Kingdom of
the European Communities v. Ireland.
                                                                 Spain v. Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 72, 7.3.1998.
                                                                 (1) OJ C 180, 22.6.1996.
      Removal from the register of Case C-277/96 (1)
                        (98/C 278/64)                                  Removal from the register of Case C-199/96 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 278/68)
By order of 14 May 1998 the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered
the removal from the register of Case C-277/96 (reference        By order of 19 May 1998 the President of the Court of
for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches Landes-             Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
arbeitsgericht): Hans-Jörg Dick v. EB-Schulungs-Gesell-          removal from the register of Case C-199/96: Kingdom of
schaft mbH (in liquidation).                                     Spain v. Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 318, 26.10.1996.                                        (1) OJ C 269, 14.9.1996.
       Removal from the register of Case C-40/97 (1)
                                                                       Removal from the register of Case C-299/97 (1)
                        (98/C 278/65)
                                                                                (98/C 278/69)
By order of 14 May 1998 the President of the Third
Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European                  By order of 20 May 1998 the President of the Court of
Communities has ordered the removal from the register            Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
of Case C-40/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling              removal from the register of Case C-299/97: Commission
from the Sozialgericht, Hamburg): Peter Michael Jordy            of the European Communities v. Portuguese Republic.
v. Techniker Krankenkasse and Techniker Krankenkasse
Pflegeversicherung.
                                                                 (1) OJ C 318, 18.10.1997.
(1) OJ C 94, 22.3.1997.
                                                                       Removal from the register of Case C-282/97 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case C-11/96 (1)                                     (98/C 278/70)
                        (98/C 278/66)
                                                                 By order of 25 May 1998 the President of the Court of
By order of 19 May 1998 the President of the Court of            Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the              removal from the register of Case C-282/97: Commission
removal from the register of Case C-11/96: Kingdom of            of the European Communities v. French Republic.
Spain v. Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                 (1) OJ C 295, 27.9.1997.
(1) OJ C 95, 30.3.1996.


title: Action brought on 17 December 1997 by Euromin S.A. against the Council of the European Union (Case T-597/97)

text:
7.3.98                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 72/17
Action brought on 17 December 1997 by Euromin S.A.                   The applicant submits that the Council:
          against the Council of the European Union
                        (Case T-597/97)
                                                                     Ð infringed essential procedural requirements and in
                          (98/C 72/39)                                   particular the applicant's right to a fair hearing. This
                                                                         fundamental right of the applicant was violated by the
                                                                         Commission's refusal to grant it a hearing to which it
                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                         was legally entitled and by then granting it a sham
                                                                         hearing, and by the subsequent failure of the Council
                                                                         and the Commission to give proper consideration to
An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                         the applicant's representations,
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 17 December 1997 by Euromin S.A.,
represented by Dan Horovitz, Nicholas Robson and Johan
Bäverbrant, with an address for service in Luxembourg at             Ð acted beyond its competence and misused the powers
Fiduciaire Myson, 30 Rue de Cessange.                                    conferred on it by Article 1 of Council Regulation
                                                                         (EC) No 384/96 (1) (the basic anti-dumping
                                                                         Regulation') by imposing an anti-dumping duty on the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              supply of zinc refining or processing services,
Ð annul Articles 1 and 2 of Council Regulation (EC)
                                                                     Ð infringed the requirements of the basic anti-dumping
    No 1931/97 of 22 September 1997 imposing a
                                                                         regulation by failing to conclude its investigations
    definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of
                                                                         within a reasonable period,
    unwrought, unalloyed zinc originating in Poland and
    Russia and definitively collecting the provisional duty
    imposed (OJ L 272, 4.10.1997, p. 1, the contested
    regulation') in so far as they apply to the applicant,           Ð infringed the requirements of Article 2 of the basic
                                                                         anti-dumping regulation by its manifest error in
                                                                         treating HG grade zinc (the only grade of zinc
Ð declare the contested regulation void with regard to                   produced in Russia) as a like product to SHG and
    the applicant,                                                       GOB grade zinc (the only grades of zinc produced in
                                                                         the Community) and by imposing an anti-dumping
                                                                         duty without having established the existence of
Ð order the Council to take the necessary measures to                    dumping, in particular having incorrectly determined
    comply with this order, including by way of acting to                normal value and export price in respect of imports of
    ensure that all provisional and definitive duties which              zinc originating in Russia,
    have been collected or paid in relation to the applicant
    are fully reimbursed together with payment of legal
    interest on those amounts, and
                                                                     Ð infringed the requirements of Article 3 of the basic
                                                                         anti-dumping regulation in imposing an anti-dumping
                                                                         duty without having established the existence of injury
Ð order the Council to pay the costs.
                                                                         caused by imports of zinc originating in Russia, in
                                                                         particular     without     having     given     adequate
                                                                         consideration to the anti-competitive practices of the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                         complainant Community zinc producers, and misused
                                                                         its powers in its determination of the injury margin
                                                                         which served as the basis for the level of duty
The applicant (a Swiss legal entity) is an exporter of
                                                                         imposed,
Russian zinc to the EU. It moves zinc from Russia to ports
in the EC where the zinc is the cleared for customs
purposes by EC importers. The applicant also maintains
three branches in the Community (in Stockholm,                       Ð infringed the requirements of Article 21 of the basic
Rotterdam and London). These branches, all legally                       anti-dumping regulation by imposing an anti-dumping
dependent on the applicant, provide service and support                  duty without having established the existence of a
facilities to the applicant's core business.                             Community interest calling for intervention against
                                                                         imports of zinc originating in Russia, in particular
                                                                         failing to give proper consideration to relevant changes
By the contested regulation a definitive anti-dumping duty               in the market since the investigation period and to the
has been imposed on imports of unalloyed, unwrought                      representations of users.
zinc falling within CN codes 7901 11 00, 7901 12 10 and
7901 12 30 originating in Poland and Russia. For the
products originating in the Russian Federation, the rate of          (1) OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1.
the anti-dumping duty applicable to the net, free-at-
Community-frontier price, before duty, has been fixed at
5,2 %.


title: Case T-520/11: Action brought on 30 September 2011 — Genebre v OHIM — General Electric (GE)

text:
               14.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/15

         Action brought on 30 September 2011 — Genebre v OHIM — General Electric (GE)
   (Case T-520/11)
   2012/C 13/32
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Genebre, SA (Hospitalet de Llobregat, Spain) (represented by: D. Pellisé Urquiza, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: General Electric Company (Schenectady, United States of America)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the application admissible;

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 July 2011 in Case R 20/2009-4;

               —

               Order that Community trade mark No 5 006 325 be granted in respect of all the goods and services for which registration was sought.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘GE’ for goods in Classes 6, 7, 9, 11 and 17.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: General Electric Company.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: National and Community word marks ‘GE’ and Community figurative mark ‘GE’ for goods and services in Classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 25, 28, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43 and 44.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal upheld.

      Plea in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, since there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue and General Electric Company has not produced sufficient evidence to show that its marks had been put to genuine use.


title: Case T-36/12: Order of the General Court of 19 April 2016 — Athens Resort Casino v Commission (State aid — Annulment of the contested measure — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               27.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/22

         Order of the General Court of 19 April 2016 — Athens Resort Casino v Commission
   (Case T-36/12) (1)

   ((State aid - Annulment of the contested measure - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate))
   (2016/C 232/29)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Athens Resort Casino AE Symmetochon (Maroussi, Greece) (represented by: N. Niejahr, lawyer, F. Carlin, Barrister, Q. Azau, F. Spyropoulos, I. Dryllerakis, K. Spyropoulos, A. Komninos, K. Struckmann, lawyers, and M. Powell, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou, H. van Vliet and P. J. Loewenthal, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Koinopraxia Touristiki Loutrakiou AE OTA — Loutraki AE — Klab Otel Loutraki Kazino Touristikes kai Xenodocheiakes Epicheiriseis AE (Loutraki, Greece) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2011/716/EU of 24 May 2011 on State aid C 16/10 (ex NN 22/10, ex CP 318/09) implemented by Greece in favour of certain Greek casinos (OJ 2011 L 285, p. 25).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Athens Resort Casino AE Symmetochon

               3.

               Koinopraxia Touristiki Loutrakiou AE OTA — Loutraki AE — Klab Otel Loutraki Kazino Touristikes kai Xenodocheiakes Epicheiriseis AE shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 17.3.2012.


title: Appeal brought on 8 September 1995 by Odigitria AAE against the judgment delivered on 6 July 1995 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-572/93 between Odigitria AAE and the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communties (Case C-293/95 P)

text:
11 . 11 . 95          EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                         No C 299/9
  Action brought on 1 September 1995 by the Kingdom                       them with retroactive effect, allowing it to fix
     of Spain against the Commission of the European                      unilaterally the period of validity of the obligation
                          Communities                                     incumbent on the Member States .
                       ( Case C-2 92/95 )
                         ( 95/C 299/ 14 )                             — Retroactivity of measures : the Commission itself
                                                                          acknowledges that there are no retroactive effects in
                                                                          respect of the application of appropriate measures
An action against the Commission of the European                          which have not been accepted by a Member State and
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the                which give rise to the procedure provided for in
                                                                          Article 93 ( 2 ).
European Communities on 1 September 1995 by the
Kingdom of Spain , represented by Alberto Navarro
Gonzalez, Director-General for Community Legal and                        In the view of the Spanish Government, there is an
Institutional Coordination , and by Miguel Bravo-Ferrer                   obligation to cooperate regularly and periodically with
Delgado, Abogado del Estado , of the State Legal                          which      unilateral      measures   as  onerous       as those
Department dealing with matters before the Court of                       conferring retroactive effect to the directives , which is
Justice , acting as Agents , with an address for service in               tantamount to their innovatory introduction, are not in
Luxembourg at the Spanish Embassy , 4-6 Boulevard                         keeping.
E. Servais .
                                                                      — Exceptional circumstances justifying retroactive effect
The applicant claims that the Court should :                              In the view of the Spanish Government, there can be no
                                                                          justification whatsoever for conferring retroactive effect
1 . annul the decision of the Commission of 6 July 1995                   to measures, provided for in Article 93 ( 1 ) of the Treaty,
     retroactively extending the decision of 23 December                  which have been taken unilaterally and with the
     1992 as from 1 January 1995 ;                                        intention of departing from the procedure and the
                                                                          system of regular, periodic cooperation provided for by
                                                                          that provision of the Treaty, in particular when it is
2 . order the Commission to pay the costs .                               contrary to the principle of the non-retroactivity of
                                                                          measures laid down in the case-law, specifically in
                                                                          respect of the legal basis relied upon by the Commission
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                        ( Article 93 ( 1 )), even where it is imposed by way of a
                                                                          decision adopted pursuant to the procedure laid down in
                                                                           Article 93 ( 2 ).
— Impossible to extend that which has expired : there may
     be an extension in respect of a legal instrument subject to
     a timelimit only before the expiry thereof.                      (') Application : OJ No C 139 , 18 . 5 . 1993 , p . 1 1 ;
                                                                          Judgment : O J No C 229 , 2 . 9 . 199.5 .
— Such retroactive extension in fact constitutes a means of
     reintroducing the directives without complying with the
     requirement of consulting the Member States : the fact
     that the original directives were removed from the legal
     order means that fresh introduction thereof would be
     innovatory . However, those ' new' directives should be
     understood as being ' appropriate measures' proposed             Appeal brought on 8 September 1995 by Odigitria AAE
     by the Commission within the meaning of Article 93 (1 )          against the judgment delivered on 6 July 1995 by the First
     of the Treaty . According to the judgment in Case                Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
     C- 135/93 ('), that Article imposes the 'obligation of           Communities in Case T-5 72/93 between Odigitria AAE and
     regular, periodic cooperation ' between the Commission           the Council of the European Union and the Commission of
     and the Member States .                                                              the European Communties
                                                                                ( Case C-293/95 P)
     The Commission claims, in the sixth paragraph of its                                          ( 95/C 299/ 15 )
     decision of 6 July 1995 , that it complied with the
     abovementioned requirement by means of the                       An appeal against the judgment delivered on 6 July 1995 by
     multilateral meeting of 4 July 1995 . At that meeting the        the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
     delegations had available to them the document which             European Communities in Case T-572/93 between
     was to be discussed only shortly before the meeting or           Odigitria AAE and the Council of the European Union and
     were unaware of the existence of the document which
                                                                      the Commission of the European Communities was brought
     was the basis of the meeting ( the abovementioned                before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
     judgment ).                                                       8 September 19 95 by Odigitria AAE, represented by
                                                                      E. Marias , G. Stefanaki and A. Chatzitzani , of the Athens
     In the 'context of collaboration', the Commission may             Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
      not arrogate to itself the power to act unilaterally in          Chambers of E. Thill-Kamitaki , 15 Avenue du Bois,
      order to introduce certain measures or to reintroduce            L-1251 .
 ---pagebreak--- No C 299/ 10          EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                      11 . 11 . 95
The appellant claims that the Court should :                       Notwithstanding the fact that the Court of First Instance
                                                                   recognized that the border dispute in question created a
— declare the appeal admissible ,                                  situation of uncertainty and that the Commission ought to
                                                                   have informed and was in a position to inform the operators
— set aside the jugdment of the Court of First Instance            in question of the dangers involved in fishing in the disputed
     appealed against,                                             waters , it misdirected itself in holding that the principles of
                                                                   legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations
— declare admissible the action brought at first instance          had not been infringed .
     and hold the respondents liable under the second
     paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty ,                   VI .    Procedural and substantive defects in the Court of First
                                                                   Instance judgment appealed against as regards performance
— hold the respondents liable for restitution and order            of the Commission 's duty to provide diplomatic
     them to pay compensation in the amount of                     protection
     Dr 102 446,183 , together with interest as from the date
     of lodgement of the action with the Court of First            In the context of the urgent consultations provided for the
     Instance at the rate of 24 % per annum ,                      Commission ought to have sought the immediate creation of
                                                                   a special committee , ought to have required the immediate
— order the respondents to pay the whole of the legal costs ,      lifting of the unlawful arrest of the appellant's boat, and
     including the lawyers ' fees .                                should have submitted a request for the provision of a bank
                                                                   guarantee . Owing to the failure to order the production of
                                                                   proof,          the   Court of First Instance arrived
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                at the erroneous and unjustified assessment that the
                                                                   Commission had not infringed its duty to provide
I. Infringement of the general procedural principle that the       diplomatic protection for the appellant .
party making allegations and raising objections must bear
the burden of proof
Although it ought to have ordered the production of proof
in the presence of doubts, the Court of First Instance
accepted the respondents' objection , placed on the appellant      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal
the burden of proving the Commission 's allegation ,               ( England ), by order of that court of 31 July 1995 , in the case
subsequently considering the appellant's negative reply to its     of The Queen against Commissioners of Customs and
questions to be erroneous and the Commission 's allegation         Excise , ex-parte: EMU Tabac Sari , The Man in Black Ltd
relevant to the outcome of the case to be proven, thereby          and John Anthony Cunningham , Intervener: Imperial
infringing the procedural principle of actore non probante                                       Tobacco Ltd
reus absolvitur, and providing grounds of appeal against the
contested decision .
                                                                                ( Case C-296/95 )
                                                                                ( 95 /C 299/ 16 )
II . Severe legal defects in the judgment
                                                                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                   European Communities by an order of the Court of Appeal
By relying on hypothetical and doubtful grounds , the              ( England ) of 31 July 1995 , which was received at the Court
judgment of the Court of First Instance does not carry             Registry on 18 September 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in
conviction from a judicial point of view .
                                                                   the case of The Queen against Commissioners of Customs
                                                                   and Excise, ex-parte : EMU Tabac Sari , The Man in Black
III . Inadequate statement of reasons on which the                 Ltd and John Anthony Cunningham , Intervener: Imperial
judgment is based                                                  Tobacco Ltd, on the following questions :
The conjectured factual circumstances and the unclear               1 . Does Directive 92/ 12/EEC ( 1 ) and in particular Article 8
formulation of the reasoning provide grounds for appeal                 have the effect of precluding the charging of excise duty
against the judgment.                                                   on goods in Member State A in circumstances where :
IV . Erroneous assessment of the appellant's allegations at                 ( i ) the goods were acquired for the use of a private
                                                                                individual in Member State A ;
first instance
                                                                          ( ii ) they were acquired in Member State B by an agent
The appellant alleges that the respondent Commission did                          acting on behalf of that private individual ;
not adopt the requisite protective measures based on the
principles of diligence and effective management and not                ( iii ) transportation of the goods from Member State B
that it did not take a position on the border dispute in                          to Member State A was arranged by the agent;
question .                                                                        and
V. Contradictions in the reasoning of the judgment                      ( iv ) the individual did not himself travel with the goods
appealed against                                                                  from Member State B to Member State A ?


title: Action brought on 26 November 1996 by Christophe Palma, Gérard Palma and SA Palma against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-190/96)

text:
22 . 2 . 97             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 54/25
Action brought on 26 November 1996 by Garage des                        Action brought on 26 November 1996 by Christophe
Quatre Vallees and Joseph Tosi against the Commission of                Palma, Gerard Palma and SA Palma against the
                   the European Communities                                      Commission of the European Communities
                          ( Case T-l 89/96 )                                                      ( Case T-190/96 )
                             ( 97/C 54/40 )                                                          ( 97/C 54/41 )
                (Language of the case: French)                                          (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European                        An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                       Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 26 November                     Instance of the European Communities on 26 November
1996 by Garage des Quatre Vallees, whose registered                     1996 by Christophe Palma , residing at Bedeau ( Algeria ),
office is at Albertville ( France ), and by Joseph Tosi ,               Gerard Palma , residing in Oran ( Algeria ), and SA Palma ,
residing at Albertville, represented by Remi Saint Pierre ,             whose registered office is at Salon de Provence ( France ),
judicial administrator appointed by judgment of                         represented by Dominique Rafoni , judicial administrator
5 November 1991 by the Tribunal de Grande Instance,                     appointed by judgment of 8 April 1994 by the Tribunal de
Albertville, and by Jean-Louis Portolano , of the Aix en                Commerce , Salon de Provence , and by Jean-Louis
Provence Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg                 Portolano, of the Aix en Provence Bar, with an address for
at the Chambers of Roy Nathan , 18 rue des Glacis .                     service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Roy Nathan ,
                                                                        1 8 rue des Glacis .
The applicants claim that the Court should :
                                                                        The applicants claim that the Court should :
— annul the decision of the Commission notified to
     Garage des Quatre Vallees ( GQV) on 23 September                   — annul the decision of the Commission notified to SA
     1996 inasmuch as it is manifestly wrong in law and                      Palma on 23 September 1996 inasmuch as it is
     fact,                                                                   manifestly wrong in law and fact,
— dispose of GQV's case and complaint, ruling that the                  — dispose of Palma 's case and complaint, ruling that the
     V.A.G. framework contract, as referred to in the                        V.A.G. framework contract, as referred to in the
     complaint, falls within the scope of Article 85 ( 1 ) and               complaint, falls within the scope of Article 85 ( 1 ) and
     that it fulfils neither the conditions required in order                that it fulfils neither the conditions required in order
     to be entitled to the categorical exemption under                       to be entitled to the categorial exemption under
     Regulation ( EEC ) No 123/85 authorizing certain                        Regulation ( EEC ) No 123/85 authorizing certain
     categories of agreements in the motor vehicle sector,                   categories of agreements in the motor vehicle sector,
     nor the conditions for an individual exemption under                    nor the conditions for an individual exemption under
     Article 85 ( 3 ) of the Treaty — in view, in particular, of             Article 85 ( 3 ) of the Treaty — in view, in particular, of
     the situation of the sector in question in the                          the situation of the sector in question in the
     Community, which is characterized by a bundle of                        Community, which is characterized by a bundle of
     similar agreements among all manufacturers,                             similar agreements among all manufacturers,
— find the Commission non-contractually liable and rule                 — find the Commission non-contractually liable and rule
     that it must make good the damage in the amount of                      that it must make good the damage in the amount of
     ECU 540 000, corresponding to 10% of the estimated                      ECU 540 000 , corresponding to 10% of the estimated
     losses to which the Commission 's inaction gave rise,                   losses to which the Commission's inaction gave rise,
— order the Commission to pay the costs incurred in the                 — order the Commission to pay the costs incurred in the
     sum of FF 100 000 .                                                     sum of FF 100 000 .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The pleas in law and main arguments are identical with                  The pleas in law and main arguments are identical with
those relied upon in Case T-l 85/96 .                                   those relied upon in Case T-l 89/96 .


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 April 2000 in Case C-292/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsrätten): Proceedings brought by Kjell Karlsson and Others (Additional levy on milk — Milk quota scheme in Sweden — Initial allocation of milk quotas — National rules — Interpretation of Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 — Principle of equal treatment)

text:
C 192/4                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                             8.7.2000
Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39 EC)          Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of
precludes the application of rules laid down in a Member State by          Sweden and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European
sporting associations which prohibit a basketball club from fielding       Union is founded, and the principle of equal treatment enshrined
players from other Member States in matches in the national                more specifically in the second subparagraph of Article 40(3) of the
championship, where they have been transferred after a specified date,     EC Treaty (now, after amendment, the second subparagraph of
if that date is earlier than the date which applies to transfers of        Article 34(2) EC), are to be interpreted as not precluding national
players from certain non-member countries, unless objective reasons        legislation governing the initial allocation of individual reference
concerning only sport as such or relating to differences between the       quantities and adopted by a Member State which acceded to the
position of players from a federation in the European zone and that        European Communities on 1 January 1995, whereby:
of players from a federation not in that zone justify such different
treatment.                                                                 — individual reference quantities for producers who did not alter
                                                                                their production between 1 January 1991 and 31 December
                                                                                1994 are determined on the basis of the average quantities
(1) OJ C 197 of 6.7.1996.                                                       delivered between 1991 and 1993;
                                                                           — new producers who commenced production between 1 January
                                                                                1991 and 31 December 1994 and producers who increased
                                                                                their production during the same period, but not producers who
                                                                                did not alter their production between 1 January 1991 and
                                                                                31 December 1994 and ecological milk producers, have a
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                          reduction applied (and at different rates) in the calculation of
                                                                                their milk quotas;
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                   — an individual reference quantity is granted only to producers who
                                                                                can show that their production was continuous between 1 March
                         of 13 April 2000                                       1994 and 1 January 1995, unless a producer who was
                                                                                compelled to interrupt delivery during that period can show
in Case C-292/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling                            special circumstances justifying the grant of a reference quantity.
from the Regeringsrätten): Proceedings brought by Kjell
                      Karlsson and Others (1)                              (1) OJ C 295 of 27.9.1997.
(Additional levy on milk — Milk quota scheme in Sweden
— Initial allocation of milk quotas — National rules —
Interpretation of Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 — Principle
                        of equal treatment)
                          (2000/C 192/07)                                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                   (Language of the case: Swedish)
                                                                                of 13 April 2000
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                           in Case C-251/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           the Gerechtshof te ’s-Gravenhage): C. Baars v Inspecteur
                                                                           der Belastingen Particulieren/Ondernemingen Gorin-
In Case C-292/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                                              chem (1)
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Regeringsrätten
(Sweden) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings brought               (Freedom of establishment — Assets invested in shares in
before that court by Kjell Karlsson and Others — on the                    companies established in the taxing Member State —
interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of                   Exemption from wealth tax — Assets invested in shares in
28 December 1992 establishing an additional levy in the milk               companies established in another Member State — No
and milk products sector (OJ 1992 L 405, p. 1), Article 5 of                                             exemption)
the EC Treaty (now Article 10 EC), Article 40(3) of the EC
Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 34(2) EC) and the
principle of equal treatment — the Court (Sixth Chamber),                                             (2000/C 192/08)
composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn, acting for the President of the
Sixth Chamber, G. Hirsch (Rapporteur) and H. Ragnemalm,                                         (Language of the case: Dutch)
Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
13 April 2000, in which it has ruled:                                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December 1992
establishing an additional levy in the milk and milk products sector,      In Case C-251/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
as amended by the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the        the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Gerechtshof te


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 1, Santiago de Compostela, by order of that court of 21 September 1995 in the case of José Ferreiro Alvite v. Instituto Nacional de Empleo and Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (Case C-320/95)

text:
No C 315/ 12              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     25 . 11 . 95
State to which it is addressed, places Member States under               IV . Where the infringement referred to in III above consists
an obligation to comply with the time limits prescribed in                      in the submission of samples with a view to the
directives for their transposition. In the case of Directives                   registration of a medicinal product, as referred to in I
93/48/EEC, 93/49/EEC and 93/61 /EEC, the periods                                above, and in consequence thereof a judicial
prescribed expired on 31 December 1993 , in respect of                          prohibition of the kind referred to in III above is
Directive 93/52/EEC, on 1 January 1994 and, in the case of                      imposed for a period which exceeds the maximum
Directive 93/85/EEC, on 15 November 1993 ; in each case ,                       period prescribed by Directives 65/65/EEC ( j ) and
the Italian Republic had failed to adopt the provisions                         75/319/EEC ( 2) for the registration of medicinal
necessary to comply with the Directive in question by the                       products, does the fact that the duration of the
required date .                                                                 prohibition exceeds that maximum render the
                                                                                prohibition incompatible to that extent with
(1)  OJ No  L  250 , 7 . 10 . 1993 , p . 1 .                                    Community law and, if so, does that mean that the
(2)  OJ No  L  250,  7 . 10, 1993 , p . 9 .                                     person on whom the prohibition is imposed can invoke
(■') OJ No  L  175 , 19 . 7 . 1993 , p . 21 .                                   that incompatibility, by virtue of Community law, as
(4)  OJ No  L  250,  7. 10 . 1993 , p . 19 .
(s)  OJ No  L  259 , 18 . 10 . 1993 , p . 1 .
                                                                                against the former proprietor of the patent ?
                                                                         (') OJ , English Special Edition 1965— 1966 , p. 20 .
                                                                         ( 2 ) OJ No L 147, p . 13 .
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 29 September
1995 in the case of Generics BV v. Smith Kline & French
                        Laboratories Limited                             Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo
                                                                         Social No 1 , Santiago de Compostela, by order of that court
                           ( Case C-3 16/95 )                            of 21 September 1995 in the case of Jose Ferreiro Alvite v.
                             ( 95/C 315 /23 )                            Instituto Nacional de Empleo and Instituto Nacional de la
                                                                                Seguridad Social
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                                ( Case C-320/95 )
European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden ( Supreme Court of the Netherlands ) of                                                  ( 95/C 315/24 )
29 September 1995 , which was received at the Court
Registry on 5 October 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
case of Generics BV v. Smith Kline & French Laboratories                 European Communities by an order of the Juzgado de lo
Limited on the following questions :                                     Social ( Social Court ) No 1 , Santiago de Compostela, of
                                                                         21 September 1995 , which was received at the Court
   I. Does a rule of national law which confers on the                   Registry on 16 October 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the
      proprietor of a patent in respect of certain medicinal             case of Jose Ferreiro Alvite v. Instituto Nacional de Empleo
      products the right to oppose, during the currency of               and Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social on three
      that patent, the submission by another person of                   questions, which are identical to those referred in Case
      samples of the patented medicinal products ( or of                 C-88/95 ( OJ No C 137 of 3 June 1995 , p. 12 ).
      medicinal products produced in accordance with the
      patented process ) to the authority responsible for the
      registration of medicinal products, have to be regarded
      as a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative
      restriction on imports within the meaning of Article 30            Appeal brought on 16 October 1995 by Stichting
      of the EC Treaty ?                                                 Greenpeace Council ( Greenpeace International ), Domingo
                                                                         Viera González, Pablo Guedes García, José Ignacio Trojaola
 II . If so, is that measure covered by the exception laid               Chávez, Aurora González González, Pedro Melián Castro,
      down in Article 36 of the EC Treaty in respect of                  Caridad Sánchez Artiles, José Juan Melián Melián, Carmen
      restrictions which are justified on the ground of the              Guadalupe Gómez Castro, Clara Donate Hernández,
      protection of industrial property ?                                Balbina Martín Espinóla, José Hernández Morín, Germán
                                                                         Peña Hernández, Antonio Cabrera Expósito, Valentín
III. Where, during the currency of a patent, an                          Hernández Vaquero, Peter Reinhard, Julio González
      infringement of that patent is committed under                     Domínguez, Tagorar Ecologista Alternativo and Comisíon
      national law and the person committing that                        Canaria contra la Contaminácion against the order made on
      infringement or a third person is liable to profit from            9 August 1995 by the First Chamber of the Court of First
      the infringement following the expiry of the patent, or            Instance of the European Communities in Case T-5 85/93
      the proprietor of the patent is liable to suffer some              between Stichting Greenpeace Council ( Greenpeace
      disadvantage as a result of the infringement following             International ) and 18 others and the Commission of the
      the expiry of the patent, does a judicial prohibition              European Communities, supported by the Kingdom of
      imposed in order to prevent that potential harm which                                                Spain
      restrains, for a specified period after the expiry of the
      patent, the placing on the market of products which                                        ( Case C-321 /95 P )
      were protected by the patent during its currency,                                               ( 95/C 315/25 )
      constitute a measure which is prohibited by Article 30
      of the EC Treaty and which is not covered by the                   An appeal against the order made on 9 August 1995 by the
      exception contained in Article 36 of the EC Treaty ?               First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European


title: Case C-406/02: Action brought on 13 November 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

text:
11.1.2003              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 7/15
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of                      practice, deceiving the public by the use of his own name
Justice (England and Wales) (Chancery Division) by order                     or (ii) the Defendant is merely causing unintentional
of that court dated 3 September 2002, in the case of                         confusion thereby?
     Nichols plc against the Registrar of Trade Marks
                                                                      (1 ) First Council Directive, of 21 December 1988, to approximate
                                                                           the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ L 40,
                        (Case C-404/02)                                    11.02.1989, p. 1).
                          (2003/C 7/27)
                                                                      Action brought on 13 November 2002 by the Com-
                                                                      mission of the European Communities against the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                        Kingdom of Belgium
European Communities by an order of the High Court
of Justice (England and Wales) (Chancery Division) dated
3 September 2002, which was received at the Court Registry                                       (Case C-406/02)
on 12 November 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Nichols plc and the Registrar of Trade Marks on the following                                     (2003/C 7/28)
questions:
1.   In what circumstances, if any, must a trade mark (i.e. a         An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
     ‘sign’ which complies with the requirements of Article 2         before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
     of the Trade Marks Directive 89/104/EC ( 1) consisting of        13 November 2002 by the Commission of the European
     a single surname be refused registration as being in itself      Communities, represented by Bruno Stromsky, acting as
     ‘devoid of any distinctive character’ within the meaning         Agent.
     of Article 3(1) (b) of the Directive?
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
2.   In particular (a) must or (b) may such a sign, before it
     has acquired distinctive character by use, be refused
     registration if it is a common surname in the Member             1.     Declare that, by failing to send, within the prescribed
                                                                             period, the reports relating to Directives 76/464/EEC (1),
     State in which the trade mark is sought to be registered
     or if it is a common surname in one or more of the other                78/659/EEC (2) and 80/68/EEC (3) in respect of the Brux-
     Member States?                                                          elles-Capitale Region, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed
                                                                             to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 91/692/
                                                                             EEC of 23 December 1991 standardizing and rationaliz-
                                                                             ing reports on the implementation of certain Directives
3.   If the answer to either Question 2 (a) or (b) is in the
                                                                             relating to the environment (4);
     affirmative, is it appropriate for national authorities to
     determine the matter by reference to the presumed
     expectations of an average customer in relation to the           2.     Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
     goods/services in question in the Member State, taking
     into account the commonness of the surname, the nature
     of the goods/services at issue, and the prevalence (or
     otherwise) of the use of surnames in the relevant trade?         Pleas in law and main arguments
4.   Is it of significance for the purpose of determining             Under Article 2 of Directive 91/692/EEC, Belgium should have
     whether a surname is ‘devoid of any distinctive character’       sent to the Commission a report covering the period from
     within Article 3(1) (b) of the Directive that the effects        1993 to 1995 inclusive, drawn up on the basis of a question-
     of registration of the trade mark are restricted under           naire laid down in Decision 92/446/EEC and sent to Belgium
     Article 6(1) (a)?                                                in good time. Belgium was to have sent the report in question
                                                                      by 30 September 1996 at the latest. However, not all of
                                                                      those data were forwarded to the Commission within the
5.   If so, (a) is the word ‘person’ in Article 6(1) (a) of the       abovementioned period so far as concerns the Bruxelles-
     Directive to be understood as including a corporation or         Capitale Region:
     a business and (b) what amounts to ‘honest practices in
     industrial or commercial matters’; in particular, does that      —      As regards amended Directive 76/464/EEC, no data was
     expression apply where (i) the Defendant is not, in                     forwarded in respect of the years 1993 to 1995;
 ---pagebreak--- C 7/16                    EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        11.1.2003
—       As regards amended Directive 78/659/EEC, not all of               another Member State, rely on the directive in order to obtain
        the requisite information was forwarded — thus, the               from the State of residence recognition of the licence issued in
        Commission had no information regarding the total                 the State of origin and thereby escape being charged with
        surface or length of water supporting fish life, nor              driving without a valid licence?
        whether the waters complied with the parameters laid
        down in that directive;
                                                                          (1 ) Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences
                                                                               (OJ L 237 of 24.08.1991, p. 1).
—       As regards amended Directive 80/68/EEC, not all of
        the requisite information was forwarded — thus, the
        Commission did not receive the requested information
        relating to authorisations, the measuring system and
        ground water.
The Commission points out that at the expiry of the period
                                                                          Action brought on 18 November 2002 by the Com-
granted to the Kingdom of Belgium by the reasoned opinion,
the missing information had still not been received by the                    mission of the European Communities against Ireland
Commission, the explanation for such absence of information
being that the competent authorities did not ensure collection                                      (Case C-410/02)
of the data necessary for the drawing up of the reports in
question.
                                                                                (2003/C 7/30)
( 1) Council Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused
     by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic
     environment of the Community (OJ 1976 L 129, p. 23).                 An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
( 2) Council Directive 78/659/EEC of 18 July 1978 on the quality of       Justice of the European Communities on 18 November 2002
     fresh waters needing protection or improvement in order to           by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
     support fish life (OJ 1978 L 222, p. 1).                             by L. Ström and X. Lewis, acting as agents, with an address for
( 3) Council Directive 80/68/EEC of 17 December 1979 on the               service in Luxembourg.
     protection of groundwater against pollution caused by certain
     dangerous substances OJ 1980 L 20, p. 43).
( 4) OJ 1991 L 377, p. 48
                                                                          The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          1)     declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                                                                or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                                Commission Directive 2001/8/EC ( 1) of 8 February 2001
                                                                                replacing Annex I to Council Directive 92/109/EEC on
                                                                                the manufacture and placing on the market of certain
                                                                                substances used in the illicit manufacture of narcotic
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour de                                drugs and psychotropic substances or, in any event, by
Cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg by judgment                               failing to notify such provisions to the Commission,
of that Court of 31 October 2002 in the case of José                             Ireland has failed to fully fulfil its obligations under
     Antonio Da Silva Carvalho against Ministère Public                          Article 2 of this directive;
                            (Case C-408/02)                               2)     order Ireland to pay the costs.
                             (2003/C 7/29)
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    Article 249 EC, under which a directive shall be binding as to
European Communities by judgment of the Cour de Cassation                 the result to be achieved, upon each Member State, carries by
du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg of 31 October 2002, received                 implication an obligation on the Member States to observe the
at the Court Registry on 15 November 2002, for a preliminary              period for compliance laid down in the directive. That period
ruling in the case of José Antonio Da Silva Carvalho against              expired on 1 March 2001 without Ireland having enacted the
Ministère Public on the following question:                               provisions necessary to comply with the directive referred to
                                                                          in the conclusions of the Commission.
On a proper interpretation of Article 1(2) and (3) of Council
                                                                          (1 ) OJ L 39, 09.02.2001, p. 31.
Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 (1), may a person who
has obtained a driving licence during a brief stay in his country
of origin, at a time when he was already normally resident in


title: Case C-22/17 P: Appeal brought on 16 January 2017 by Neonart svetlobni in reklamni napisi Krevh d.o.o. against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 14 November 2016 in Case T-221/16: Neonart svetlobni in reklamni napisi Krevh v EUIPO (NEONART)

text:
               14.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/2

         Appeal brought on 16 January 2017 by Neonart svetlobni in reklamni napisi Krevh d.o.o. against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 14 November 2016 in Case T-221/16: Neonart svetlobni in reklamni napisi Krevh v EUIPO (NEONART)
   (Case C-22/17 P)
   (2017/C 269/02)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Neonart svetlobni in reklamni napisi Krevh d.o.o. (represented by: J. Marn, Non avocat)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
   By order of 11 May 2017 the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


title: Case F-6/14: Action brought on 28 January 2014 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               22.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 85/28

         Action brought on 28 January 2014 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-6/14)
   2014/C 85/48
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: F. Van der Schueren, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision refusing to grant the applicant a survivor’s pension following the death of her former spouse.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the European Commission of 29 October 2013 in response to the claim of the applicant (No R/485/13) refusing to grant her a survivor’s maintenance pension following the death of her former spouse;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.