title: Action brought on 8 December 1997 by Messrs M. C. Lewis, M. A. Lewis and D. C. Lewis against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-306/97)

text:
C 94/26              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   28.3.98
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        The grounds and main arguments are the same as those
                                                                   raised in case T-304/97 Hilsdon v. Council and
                                                                   Commission.
Ð order the Council and/or the Commission to pay
    damages in accordance with Schedule 1 to the
    application,
Ð order the Council and/or Commission to pay the
    applicant's costs.                                             Action brought on 8 December 1997 by B. G. S.
                                                                   Rowlands and E. H. S. Rowlands against the Council of
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                the European Union and the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
                                                                                (Case T-307/97)
The applicant complains of the damaging consequences
arising from the fact that, unlike the position with respect                                (98/C 94/68)
to SLOM I and II milk producers, he, as a SLOM III milk
producer, has not been compensated for the absence of                             (Language of the case: English)
quota prior to the introduction of SLOM quota.
                                                                   An action against the Council of the European Union and
The pleas in law and main arguments raised by the                  the Commission of the European Communities was
applicant are the same as those raised in Case T-304/97            brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Hilsdon v. Council and Commission.                                 Communities on 8 December 1997 by B. G. S. Rowlands
                                                                   and E. H. S. Rowlands, represented by Rory Hutchings,
                                                                   Solicitor, of Messrs Dawson & Co., of 2 New Square,
                                                                   Lincoln's Inn, London WC2A 3RZ.
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
Action brought on 8 December 1997 by Messrs M. C.
Lewis, M. A. Lewis and D. C. Lewis against the Council             Ð order the Council and/or the Commission for damages
of the European Union and the Commission of the                        in accordance with Schedule 1 attached hereto,
                   European Communities
                       (Case T-306/97)                             Ð order the Council and/or the Commission to pay the
                         (98/C 94/67)                                  applicant's costs.
               (Language of the case: English)                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                   The applicant challenges the damaging consequences of
An action against the Council of the European Union and
                                                                   the fact that, unlike the position with respect to SLOM I
the Commission of the European Communities was
                                                                   and II, he, as a SLOM II milk producer, has not been
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                   compensated for the absence of quota prior to the
Communities on 8 December 1997 by Messrs M. C.
                                                                   introduction of SLOM quota.
Lewis, M. A. Lewis and D. C. Lewis, represented by Rory
Hutchings, Solicitor, of Messrs Dawson & Co., of 2 New
Square, Lincoln's Inn, London WC2A 3RZ.                            The grounds and main arguments are the same as those
                                                                   raised in case T-304/97 Hilsdon v. Council and
                                                                   Commission.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
Ð order the Council and/or the Commission for damages
    in accordance with Schedule 1 attached hereto,
Ð order the Council and/or the Commission to pay the               Action brought on 8 December 1997 by J. Ward, B. Ward
    applicant's costs.                                             and Mrs M. Lewis against the Council of the European
                                                                    Union and the Commission of the European Comunities
                                                                                (Case T-308/97)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                (98/C 94/69)
The applicant challenges the damaging consequences of
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
the fact that, unlike the position with respect to SLOM I
and II, he, as a SLOM II milk producer, has not been
compensated for the absence of quota prior to the                  An action against the Council of the European Union and
introduction of SLOM quota.                                        the Commission of the European Communities was


title: Case T-115/12: Judgment of the General Court of 30 May 2013 — Buzil-Werk Wagner v OHIM — Roca Sanitario (Roca) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark Roca — Earlier national figurative mark ROCA and earlier international figurative mark Roca — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of the goods — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/75

         Judgment of the General Court of 30 May 2013 — Buzil-Werk Wagner v OHIM — Roca Sanitario (Roca)
   (Case T-115/12) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark Roca - Earlier national figurative mark ROCA and earlier international figurative mark Roca - Relative ground for refusal - Similarity of the goods - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 225/168
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Buzil-Werk Wagner GmbH & Co. KG (Memmingen, Germany) (represented by: D. Waldhauser, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider and M. Lenz, agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Roca Sanitario, SA (Barcelona, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 January 2012 (Case R 1907/2010-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Roca Sanitario, SA and Buzil-Werk Wagner GmbH & Co. KG.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders Buzil-Werk Wagner GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 157, 2.6.2012.


title: Case T-695/16: Judgment of the General Court of 18 July 2017 — Commission v RN (Appeal — Civil Service — Officials — Surviving spouse — Pensions — Survivor’s pension — Article 20 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Conditions for eligibility — Error of law)

text:
               28.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/46

         Judgment of the General Court of 18 July 2017 — Commission v RN
   (Case T-695/16) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil Service - Officials - Surviving spouse - Pensions - Survivor’s pension - Article 20 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Conditions for eligibility - Error of law))
   (2017/C 283/71)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: A.-C. Simon, F. Simonetti and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: RN (represented by: F. Moyse, lawyer) and European Parliament (represented by: M. Ecker and E. Taneva, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 20 July 2016, RN v Commission (F-104/15, EU:F:2016:163) seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 20 July 2016, RN v Commission (F-104/15;

               2.

               Refers the case back to a Chamber of the General Court other than that which has ruled on the present appeal;

               3.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 441, 28.11.2016.


title: Case T-486/11: Action brought on 2 September 2011 — Telekomunikacja Polska v Commission

text:
               19.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 340/27

         Action brought on 2 September 2011 — Telekomunikacja Polska v Commission
   (Case T-486/11)
   2011/C 340/56
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Telekomunikacja Polska SA (Warsaw, Republic of Poland) (represented by: M. Modzelewska de Raad, P. Paśnik, S. Hautbourg, lawyers, C. Vajda, QC, and A. Howard, barrister)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the Commission Decision C(2011) 4378 final, dated 22 June 2011, in its entirety; alternatively

               —

               annul Article 2 of the contested decision in its entirety; or in the alternative

               —

               reduce the fine there stated, as appropriate; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           an error of law and reasoning by failing to demonstrate any legitimate interest in pursuing an investigation and in adopting an infringement decision regarding historic conduct;

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that Article 2 of the contested decision contravenes Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights (‘ECHR’) and/or Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), by determining a criminal charge by an administrative body, namely the Commission, instead of an independent court complying with the guarantees of Article 6;

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that Article 2 is null and void as the Commission failed to respect the applicant’s rights of defence during the administrative procedure by failing to set out its position on aggravating and attenuating circumstances for the calculation of the fine;

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, seeking

                           —

                           reduction in the level of the fine on the grounds that the Commission erred in its assessment of the gravity of the infringement and breached the principle of proportionality when determining the basic amount of the fine:

                                       (a)

                                       failure to take account of the fact that the infringement involved different practices with different durations and intensities;

                                       (b)

                                       errors of assessment in the finding that the infringement had an actual negative impact on competition and consumers in the relevant market.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, seeking

                           —

                           a reduction in the level of the fine on the grounds that the Commission improperly and unfairly failed to take account of mitigating circumstances:

                                       (a)

                                       failure to give credit for the compensatory measures undertaken by the applicant in the way of substantial investments to improve the broadband infrastructure in Poland for the benefit of competitors and consumers;

                                       (b)

                                       failure to recognise the voluntary termination of the infringement;

                                       (c)

                                       failure to give credit for the commitments offer made by the applicant.


title: Case T-259/06: Action brought on 20 September 2006 — Torres v OHIM — Navisa Industrial Vinícola Española (MANSO DE VELASCO)

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/52

         Action brought on 20 September 2006 — Torres v OHIM — Navisa Industrial Vinícola Española (MANSO DE VELASCO)
   (Case T-259/06)
   (2006/C 294/108)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Miguel Torres SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri and A. Castán Pérez-Gómez, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Navisa Industrial Vinícola Española SA
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 June 2006 in Case R-865/2005-1;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Miguel Torres SA

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark MANSO DE VELASCO for goods in Class 33 — application No 2261527

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Navisa Industrial Vinícola Española SA

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish word mark VELASCO for goods in Class 33

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld and refusal of the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) given that there is no likelihood of confusion between the conflicting signs making them incompatible.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ L 11 of 14.1.1994, p. 1).


title: Case T-378/02: Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 May 2007 — Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau v Commission

text:
               4.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/41

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 May 2007 — Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau v Commission
   (Case T-378/02) (1)

   (2007/C 183/79)

      Language of the case: German

   The President of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 8.3.2003.


title: Case F-79/09: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 14 September 2010 — AE v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Social security — Occupational sickness and accident insurance — Article 73 of the Staff Regulations — Refusal to recognise the occupational origin of a disease — Hypersensitivity to electro-magnetic fields)

text:
               20.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 317/48

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 14 September 2010 — AE v Commission
   (Case F-79/09)
   (Civil Service - Officials - Social security - Occupational sickness and accident insurance - Article 73 of the Staff Regulations - Refusal to recognise the occupational origin of a disease - Hypersensitivity to electro-magnetic fields)
   2010/C 317/84
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: AE (Muchamiel, Spain) (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, J. Currall and D. Martin, Agents, and, subsequently, J. Currall and J. Baquero Cruz, Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment, first, of the decision of the appointing authority dated 15 December 2008, received on 16 January 2009, rejecting the applicant’s request that his medical condition be recognised as an occupational disease within the meaning of Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and, second, so far as necessary action for annulment of the decision of 11 June 2009 rejecting the applicant’s complaint. Claim for EUR 12 000 damages in compensation for non-material damage suffered

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Orders the European Commission to pay AE the sum of EUR 2 000;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the claims in the action;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and pay a quarter of the applicant’s;

               4.

               Orders the applicant to bear three quarters of his or her own costs.


title: ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 21 October 1996 in Case T-107/96 R: Pantochim SA v. Commission of the European Communities (State aid - Administrative procedure pending - Application for an injunction requiring the Commission to direct a Member State to modify the conditions for the grant of aid - Injunction involving a measure beyond the Commission's powers - Dismissal of the application)

text:
7 . 12 . 96             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 370 / 13
Lille Bar, against Council of the European Union ( Agents:             1 . the action is dismissed as inadmissible;
Arthur Brautigam and Jan-Peter Hix), supported by
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: Gerard                  2 . the applicant is ordered to pay all the costs.
Rozet) — application for annulment of Council Regulation
( EC ) No 1868/94 of 27 July 1994 establishing a quota                 (') OJ No C 133 , 4 . 5 . 1996 .
system in relation to the production of potato starch ( OJ
No L 197, 30 . 7. 1994, p. 4 ) — the Court of First Instance
( Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President, and
P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
7 November 1996, in which it:                                                         ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
                                                                                OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
1 . dismisses the application as inadmissible;                                                  of 21 October 1996
                                                                       in Case T-107/96 R: Pantochim SA v. Commission of the
2 . orders the applicant to pay its own costs and those of                                   European Communities
     the Council;
                                                                       (State aid — Administrative procedure pending —
3.   orders the Commission to bear its own costs.                      Application for an injunction requiring the Commission to
                                                                       direct a Member State to modify the conditions for the
(!) OJ No C 331 , 26 . 11 . 1994 .
                                                                       grant of aid — Injunction involving a measure beyond the
                                                                           Commission 's powers — Dismissal of the application)
                                                                                ( 96/C 370/30 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        of 25 October 1996                             In Case T-107/96 R : Pantochim SA, established at Feluy
                                                                       ( Belgium ), represented by Jacques H. J. Bourgeois, of the
in Case T-26/96: Orlando Lopes v. Court of Justice of the              Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                  European Communities (^                              the Chambers of Marc Loesch, 11              rue Goethe, v.
(Officials — Action for annulment of measures — Act                    Commission of the European Communities ( Agents : Gerard
adversely affecting an official — Action for damages —                 Rozet and Herve Lehman ) — application for an interim
                             Inadmissible)                             measure requiring the Commission to direct France , in a
                                                                       procedure pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 93 ( 2 )
                            ( 96/C 370/29 )
                                                                       of the EC Treaty, to grant the applicant provisional
                                                                       exemption from duty on biodiesel for a quantity of 20 000
                (Language of the case: French)                         tonnes a year — the President of the Court of First Instance
                                                                       has made an order on 21 October 1996 , the operative part
In Case T-26/96 : Orlando Lopes, an official of the Court of           of which is as follows :
Justice of the European Communities, residing in
Luxembourg, represented by Marc Kleyr, of the                          1 . The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at his Chambers, 17 Rue Louvigny, v. Court                  1.   Costs are reserved.
of Justice of the European Communities (Agents: Timothy
Millett and Aloyse May ) — application for annulment of a
memorandum of the Head of the Portuguese Translation
Division of the Court of Justice of 21 January 1994 and of a
document entitled 'Analysis of sample I' dated 29 June
 1995 , both of which documents were submitted by the                                 ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
defendant in response to written questions put by the Court                      OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
of First Instance in Joined Cases T-547/93 and T-280/94                                         of 14 October 1996
Lopes v. Court of Justice; annulment of the decision of the
Registrar of the Court of Justice, communicated by                     in Case T-l 3 7/96 R: Valio Oy v. Commission of the
memorandum of 21 July 1995 , not to act on the applicant's                                   European Communities
request, submitted on 7 July 1995, seeking the cessation of             (Application for interim measures — Admissibility —
the alleged misuse of powers or authority; annulment of the             Common agricultural policy — Standards for spreadable
decision of the Court's complaints committee of 22 January             fats — Prohibition of the use of reserved sales descriptions
 1996 rejecting the complaint submitted by the applicant on            — Application — Division of powers between the
 3 October 1995 ; and compensation for the material and                           Commission and the national authorities)
non-material damage which the applicant claims to have
suffered as a result of the conduct of the servants of the                                          ( 96/C 370/31 )
 Court of Justice — the Court of First Instance ( Second
 Chamber), composed of C. W. Bellamy, President, and H.                                (Language of the case: English)
Kirschner and A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges; H. Jung,
 Registrar, made an order on 25 October 1996, the operative            In Case T-l 37/96 R: Valio Oy, established at Helsinki,
part of which is as follows :                                           represented by Francis Herbert and Daniel M. Tomasevic,


title: Case T-395/05: Action lodged on  31 October 2005  — Multikauf v OHIM

text:
               25.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/34

         Action lodged on 31 October 2005 — Multikauf v OHIM
   (Case T-395/05)
   (2006/C 48/67)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Multikauf Warenhandelsgesellschaft mBH (Krailling, Germany) (represented by: M. Bahmann, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Demo Holding S.A. (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)
   Forms of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 June 2005 — served on the applicant's agent by DHL on 31 August 2005 — in appeal proceedings R 895/2004-1

               —

               dismiss the objection raised by the third party through its agent on 18 September 2001 to registration of the Community trade mark 1841121 ‘webmulti’.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark sought: The word mark ‘webmulti’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 7, 8, 9, 16, 20, 21, 25 and 30 — Registration application No 1 841 121

      Proprietor of mark or sign cited in opposition proceedings: Demo Holding S.A.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The Community, national and international word and figurative marks ‘WEB’ for goods in Classes 3, 9 and 25

      Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was allowed and the registration in respect of certain goods referred to in the application was refused

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: The applicant's appeal was dismissed

      Pleas in law: The opposing marks were not used for some of the goods.


title: Case T-423/07: Judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2011 — Ryanair v Commission (State aid — Competition — Abuse of a dominant position — Aviation sector — Exclusive use of Terminal 2 at Munich Airport — Action for failure to act — Adoption of a position by the Commission — No need to adjudicate — Obligation to act — None)

text:
               2.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/12

         Judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2011 — Ryanair v Commission
   (Case T-423/07) (1)

   (State aid - Competition - Abuse of a dominant position - Aviation sector - Exclusive use of Terminal 2 at Munich Airport - Action for failure to act - Adoption of a position by the Commission - No need to adjudicate - Obligation to act - None)
   2011/C 194/16
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Ryanair Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, S. Noë and E. Righini, Agents)

      Re:

   APPLICATION for a declaration that the Commission has failed to act in unlawfully failing to adopt a position on the applicant’s complaint concerning, first, aid allegedly granted by the Federal Republic of Germany to Lufthansa and its Star Alliance partners in the form of the exclusive use of Terminal 2 at Munich Airport (Germany) and, second, alleged abuse of a dominant position by Munich Airport

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that there is no need to give a ruling on the claim submitted by Ryanair Ltd that the Commission failed to act in relation to the alleged State aid to Lufthansa;

               2.

               Rejects the claim submitted by Ryanair that the Commission failed to act in relation to the alleged State aid to Lufthansa’s Star Alliance partners;

               3.

               Rejects the claim submitted by Ryanair that the Commission failed to act in relation to the alleged abuse of a dominant position;

               4.

               Orders the European Commission to pay its own costs and half of those incurred by Ryanair;

               5.

               Orders Ryanair to pay half its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 8, 12.1.2008.


title: Case T-255/06: Action brought on 15 September 2006 — Budějovický Budvar v OHIM — Anheuser-Busch (BUD)

text:
               18.11.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/39

         Action brought on 15 September 2006 — Budějovický Budvar v OHIM — Anheuser-Busch (BUD)
   (Case T-255/06)
   (2006/C 281/69)
   Language in which the application was lodged: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik (České Budějovice, Czech Republic) (represented by: F. Fajgenbaum, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Anheuser-Busch, Incorporated
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the contested decision R 241/2005-2 of 28 June 2006 of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM;

               —

               reject application No 1 257 849 for registration of the Community trade mark ‘BUD’ for all of the goods which it designates in Classes 16, 21, 25 and 32;

               —

               send the decision of the Court of First Instance to OHIM;

               —

               order Anheuser-Busch to pay all the costs and expenses.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: Anheuser-Busch, Incorporated

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘BUD’ for goods in Classes 16, 21, 25 and 32 — Application No 1 257 849

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Protected designation of origin ‘BUD’ to designate beer

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 62(1) of Regulation No 40/94 (1)and Article 20 of implementing Regulation No 2868/95 (2) in that the Board of Appeal is not competent to rule on the validity of the designation of origin invoked by the applicant in the context of its opposition. It further submits that the sign ‘BUD’ constitutes a designation of origin, protected in both France and Austria. The applicant also invokes misapplication of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 40/94 in that, in its view, the designation of origin ‘BUD’ is indeed a sign used in the course of trade.

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

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1).


title: Case T-569/10: Action brought on 13 December 2010 — Bimbo v OHIM — Panrico (BIMBO DOUGHNUTS)

text:
               12.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/15

         Action brought on 13 December 2010 — Bimbo v OHIM — Panrico (BIMBO DOUGHNUTS)
   (Case T-569/10)
   2011/C 46/29
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Bimbo, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Panrico, SL (Barcelona, Spain)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Modify the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 October 2010 in case R 838/2009-4 and grant the Community trade mark application No 5096847;

               —

               In the alternative, annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 October 2010 in case R 838/2009-4; and

               —

               Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘BIMBO DOUGHNUTS’, for goods in class 30 — Community trade mark application No 5096847

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish trade mark registration No 399563 of the word mark ‘DONUT’ for goods in class 30; Spanish trade mark registration No 643273 of the figurative mark ‘donuts’ for goods in class 30; Spanish trade mark registration No 1288926 of the word mark ‘DOGHNUTS’ for goods in class 30; Spanish trade mark registration No 2518530 of the figurative mark ‘donuts’ for goods in class 30; Portuguese trade mark registration No 316988 of the word mark ‘DONUTS’ for goods in class 30; International trade mark registration No 355753 of the word mark ‘DONUT’ for goods in class 30; International trade mark registration No 814272 of the figurative trade mark ‘donuts’ for goods in class 30

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: The applicant considers that the contested decision infringes Articles 75 and 76 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal disregarded facts and evidences that were submitted in due time by the parties, and that the contested decision infringes Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in its assessment of likelihood of confusion.


title: Case C-170/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Peter Pinckney v KDG Mediatech AG (Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Jurisdiction — Matters relating to tort, delict and quasi-delict — Copyright — Material support reproducing a protected work — Placing on line — Determination of the place where the harmful event occurred)

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/27

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Peter Pinckney v KDG Mediatech AG
   (Case C-170/12) (1)

   (Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Jurisdiction - Matters relating to tort, delict and quasi-delict - Copyright - Material support reproducing a protected work - Placing on line - Determination of the place where the harmful event occurred)
   2013/C 344/45
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Peter Pinckney

      Defendant: KDG Mediatech AG

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation — Interpretation of Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Jurisdiction of the national court in matters of tort, delict and quasi-delict — Criteria for determining the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur — Infringement of copyright caused by the placing on-line of dematerialised content or a material carrier medium reproducing the content — Content directed at the public

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of alleged infringement of copyrights protected by the Member State of the court seised, the latter has jurisdiction to hear an action to establish liability brought by the author of a work against a company established in another Member State and which has, in the latter State, reproduced that work on a material support which is subsequently sold by companies established in a third Member State through an internet site also accessible with the jurisdiction of the court seised. That court has jurisdiction only to determine the damage caused in the Member State within which it is situated.

      (1)  OJ C 174, 16.6.2012.


title: Judgment of the Court of 30 September 2003 In Joined Cases C-57/00 P and C-61/00 P: Freistaat Sachsen, Volkswagen AG and Volkswagen Sachsen GmbH v Commission of the European Communities (State aid — Compensation for the economic disadvantages caused by the division of Germany — Serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State — Regional economic development — Community framework for State aid in the motor vehicle industry)

text:
C 275/4                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                            15.11.2003
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European                    1.    Dismisses the appeal;
Communities (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) of
11 March 1999 in Case T-157/94 Ensidesa v Commission                       2.    Orders Corus UK Ltd to pay the costs.
[1999] ECR II-707, seeking to have that judgment set aside,
the other party to the proceedings being: Commission of the
                                                                           (1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.
European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and W. Wils),
assisted by J. Rivas de Andrés), the Court (Fifth Chamber),
composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber,
D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and S. von
Bahr, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
on 2 October 2003, in which it:                                                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 30 September 2003
1.    Dismisses the appeal;
                                                                           In Joined Cases C-57/00 P and C-61/00 P: Freistaat Sachsen,
2.    Orders Empresa Siderúrgica SA (Ensidesa) to pay the costs.
                                                                           Volkswagen AG and Volkswagen Sachsen GmbH v Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities (1)
(1) OJ C 299 of 16.10.1999.
                                                                           (State aid — Compensation for the economic disadvantages
                                                                           caused by the division of Germany — Serious disturbance in
                                                                           the economy of a Member State — Regional economic
                                                                           development — Community framework for State aid in the
                                                                                motor vehicle industry)
                                                                                (2003/C 275/09)
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                         (Fifth Chamber)                                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                       of 2 October 2003
                                                                           In Joined Cases C-57/00 P and C-61/00 P, Freistaat Sachsen
in Case C-199/99 P: Corus UK Ltd v Commission of the                       (represented by J. Sedemund) with an address for service in
                  European Communities (1)                                 Luxembourg (C-57/00 P), Volkswagen AG and Volkswagen
                                                                           Sachsen GmbH (represented by M. Schütte) with an address
(Appeal — Agreements and concerted practices — European                    for service in Luxembourg (C-61/00 P): Appeals against the
                       producers of beams)                                 judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                           Communities (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) of
                                                                           15 December 1999 in Joined Cases T-132/96 and T-143/96
                        (2003/C 275/08)                                    Freistaat Sachsen and Others v Commission [1999] ECR II-
                                                                           3663, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other parties
                                                                           to the proceedings being: Commission of the European
                   (Language of the case: English)                         Communities (Agent: K.-D. Borchardt, assisted by M. Núñez-
                                                                           Müller) with an address for service in Luxembourg, Federal
                                                                           Republic of Germany (Agent: T. Oppermann) and United
                                                                           Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Court,
In Case C-199/99 P, Corus UK Ltd, formerly British Steel plc,              composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissoch-
established in London (United Kingdom), (represented by                    et, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen and C.W.A. Timmermans
P. Collins and M. Levitt, solicitors): Appeal against the judg-            (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann, V. Skouris,
ment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communi-               F. Macken (Rapporteur), S. von Bahr and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues,
ties (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) of 11 March                    Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal
1999 in Case T-151/94 British Steel v Commission [1999]                    Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
ECR II-629, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other             30 September 2003, in which it:
party to the proceedings being: Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: J. Currall and W. Wils, assisted by                   1.    Dismisses the appeals;
J. Flynn, barrister), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, A. La                2.    Orders the Freistaat Sachsen to pay the costs in Case C-57/
Pergola, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr, Judges; C. Stix-                  00 P;
Hackl, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Adminis-
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 2 October               3.    Orders Volkswagen AG and Volkswagen Sachsen GmbH to
2003, in which it:                                                               pay the costs in Case C-61/00 P;
 ---pagebreak--- 15.11.2003              EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                C 275/5
4.   Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.           1.    Declares that by failing to adopt the necessary laws, regulations
                                                                                and administrative provisions laid down in:
(1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.
                                                                                —    Article 5(4)(a) of Council Directive 91/676/EEC of
                                                                                12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters
                                                                                against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural
                                                                                sources, in conjunction with paragraph 1(2) and (3) and
                                                                                paragraph 2 of Annex III thereto;
                                                                                —    Article 5(4)(b) of the Directive, in conjunction with
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                  Article 4(1)(a) thereof and paragraphs A(1), (2), (4)
                                                                                and (6) of Annex II thereto; and
                         (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                —    Article 5(5) of the Directive,
                        of 2 October 2003
                                                                                the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its
                                                                                obligations under the Directive;
in Case C-322/00: Commission of the European Communi-
             ties v Kingdom of the Netherlands (1)
                                                                             2.    Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Directive 91/676/EEC — Protection of waters against pol-                     (1) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2002.
lution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources —
Article 5(4) and (5), paragraphs A(1), (2), (4) and (6) of
Annex II and paragraph 1(2) and (3) and paragraph 2 of
Annex III — Capacity of storage vessels for livestock manure
— Limitation of the land application of fertilisers based on
a balance between the foreseeable nitrogen requirements of
crops and the nitrogen supply to crops from the soil and
from fertilisation — Ensuring that the amount of livestock
manure applied to land each year does not exceed a specified                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
amount per hectare — Provisions contained in a code of good
agricultural practice and covering periods, conditions and                                        of 23 September 2003
procedures for the land application of fertilisers — Obli-
gation to adopt any additional measures or reinforced actions
                             necessary)                                      in Case C-30/01: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                             ties v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
                                                                                Ireland (1)
                         (2003/C 275/10)
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                            (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure
                                                                             to implement, in respect of Gibraltar, Directives 67/548/EEC
                                                                             and 87/18/EEC (concerning dangerous chemical substances);
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       93/12/EEC (concerning liquid fuels); 79/113/EEC, 84/533/
                   in the European Court Reports)                            EEC, 84/534/EEC, 84/535/EEC, 84/536/EEC, 84/537/EEC,
                                                                             84/538/EEC, 86/594/EEC and 86/662/EEC (concerning
                                                                             noise emission); 94/62/EC (concerning packaging waste)
                                                                             and 97/35/EC (concerning the deliberate release into the
In Case C-322/00, Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                environment of genetically modified organisms))
(Agents: G. Valero Jordana and C. van Hauwaert) v Kingdom
of the Netherlands (Agent: J. G. M. van Bakel): Application for
a declaration that, by failing to adopt the necessary legislative                                      (2003/C 275/11)
and administrative provisions laid down in Article 4 and
Article 5(4) and (5) of Council Directive 91/676/EEC of
12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters                                            (Language of the case: English)
against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources
(OJ 1991 L 375, p. 1) and in paragraphs A(1), (2), (4) and (6)
of Annex II and paragraph 1(2) and (3) and paragraph 2 of
Annex III thereto, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed                 In Case C-30/01, Commission of the European Communities
to fulfil its obligations under that directive, the Court (Sixth             (Agent: R.B. Wainwright) supported by Kingdom of Spain
Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the                    (Agent: R. Silva de Lapuerta) v United Kingdom of Great
Chamber, C. Gulmann, V. Skouris, F. Macken (Rapporteur)                      Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: R. Magrill, assisted by
and N. Colneric, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,              D. Wyatt QC): Application for a declaration that by failing,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment             in respect of Gibraltar, to adopt the laws, regulations or
on 2 October 2003, in which it:                                              administrative provisions necessary to comply with


title: Case T-12/12: Action brought on 12 January 2012 — Laboratoires CTRS v Commission

text:
               25.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 58/15

         Action brought on 12 January 2012 — Laboratoires CTRS v Commission
   (Case T-12/12)
   2012/C 58/29
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Laboratoires CTRS (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: K. Bacon, Barrister, M. Utges Manley, Solicitor, and M. Barnden, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare, pursuant to Article 265 TFEU, that the defendant has unlawfully failed to act, contrary to Article 10(2) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 (1);

               —

               In the alternative, annul the decision of the defendant of 5 December 2011 declining to grant a marketing authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004; and

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs of this application.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging, with regard to the action for failure to act lodged pursuant to Article 265 TFEU, that the refusal to adopt a final decision on the application for an authorisation for Orphacol is contrary to the requirements of Article 10(2) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, which requires a final decision to be adopted within a specified timeframe in accordance with the outcome of the Comitology Procedure.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging, with regard to the action of annulment lodged pursuant to Article 263 TFEU in the alternative, that by adopting a decision that was rejected by the Standing Committee and the Appeal Committee under the Comitology Procedure, the defendant is in breach of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 (2) and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging with regard to the action of annulment lodged pursuant to Article 263 TFEU in the alternative, that the decision is in any event vitiated by fundamental errors of law in the interpretation of Directive 2001/83/EC (as amended) (3), and defects of reasoning contrary to Article 296 TFEU.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 1)

      (2)  Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers (OJ 2011 L 55, p. 13)

      (3)  Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67)


title: Case T-139/12: Action brought on 28 March 2012 — Wehmeyer v OHIM — Cluett, Peabody (Fairfield)

text:
               9.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/25

         Action brought on 28 March 2012 — Wehmeyer v OHIM — Cluett, Peabody (Fairfield)
   (Case T-139/12)
   2012/C 165/44
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Wehmeyer GmbH & Co. KG (Aachen, Germany) (represented by: C. Weil, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cluett, Peabody & Co. Inc. (New York, United States)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 January 2012 in case R 2509/2010-1;

               —

               Dismiss the opposition filed by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to the application for registration of the Community trade mark ‘Fairfield’; and

               —

               Order OHIM and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs, including those incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Fairfield’, for goods in classes 3, 14, 18 and 25 — Community trade mark application No 6294342

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 3079481 of the figurative mark ‘FAIRFIELD BY ARROW’, for goods in class 25

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Partly rejected the contested trade mark

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly found that there was a likelihood of confusion between the two trademarks.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal (England), by order of that court of 31 July 1995, in the case of The Queen against Commissioners of Customs and Excise, ex-parte: EMU Tabac Sarl, The Man in Black Ltd and John Anthony Cunningham, Intervener: Imperial Tobacco Ltd (Case C-296/95)

text:
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 ?
 ---pagebreak--- 11 . 11 . 95                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 299/ 11
2 . Where a scheme has been commercially devised and                                 has found that, in the criminal proceedings, the
      marketed whereunder purchases made in Member                                   national court was in breach of the procedural
      State B for the personal use of a private individual in                        safeguards       enshrined     in   Article  6  of  the
      Member State A are made by an agent for that                                   Convention ?
      individual and those purchases are transported from
      Member State B to Member State A as a result of                           4. Is the legal entity against which proceedings have
      arrangements made by such an agent, does Directive                             been brought for State liability entitled to plead
      92/ 12/EEC have the effect of precluding the charging of                       that the punishment would have been on no
     excise duty on those purchases in Member State A ?                              different a scale if the violation of Article 6 of the
                                                                                Convention found by the Court of Human Rights
(') Council Directive 92/ 12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the                          had not occurred , although the Austrian law of
    general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on                  criminal procedure — to date — does not provide
    the holding, movement and monitoring of such products                            in such cases for proceedings for the revision of a
    ( OJ No L 76 , 23 . 3 . 1992 , p. 1 ).                                           judgment or other amending proceedings by means
                                                                                of which the procedural error could have been
                                                                                remedied ?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster                            5 . Does the burden of proving the causal connection
                                                                                between     the      violation   of Article   6  of the
Gerichtshof by order of that court of 29 August 1995 in the
case of Dr Friedrich Wilhelm Kremzow, intervener: Dr                                 Convention and the deprivation of the plaintiff's
           Wilfried Ludwig Weh, v. Republic of Austria                               liberty fall on the plaintiff or does the burden of
                                                                                proof in respect of this defect fall on the defendant
                             ( Case C-299/95 )                                       legal entity ?'
                               ( 95/C 299/ 17 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Oberster
Gerichtshof ( Austrian Supreme Court ) of 29 August 1995 ,                 Action brought on 20 September 1995 by Commission of
which was received at the Court Registry on 18 September                   the European Communities against the Federal Republic of
1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Dr. Friedrich                                               Germany
Wilhelm Kremzow, intervener : Dr Wilfried Ludwig Weh, v.                                            ( Case C-301 /95 )
Republic of Austria , on the following questions :                                                     ( 95/C 299/ 18 )
A. ' Are all or at least the substantive-law provisions of the             An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
      European Convention for the Protection of Human                      brought before the Court of Justice of the European
       Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ( the Convention ) —                Communities on 20 September 1995 by the Commission of
      including the provisions of Articles 5 , 6 and 53 of the             the European Communities , represented by Dr Gotz zur
       Convention which are relevant to the proceedings                    Hausen , Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for
       before the Oberster Gerichtshof — part of Community                 service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la
       law ( Article 164 of the EC Treaty ), with the result that          Cruz, of the Commission 's legal Service , Wagner Centre
      the Court of Justice of the European Communities may                 C 254 , Kirchberg .
      give a preliminary ruling on their interpretation
       pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 1 77 of the EC           The applicant claims that the Court should :
      Treaty ?'
                                                                           1 . declare that, by
B. The following further questions are referred to the
       Court of Justice of the European Communities for a                      — failing to adopt the measures necessary to comply
       preliminary ruling only in the event that Question A is                     with Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985
       answered in the affirmative — at least as regards                           on the assessment of certain public and private
       Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention :                                        projects on the environment (') within the
                                                                                prescribed period ,
       ' 1 . Are national courts bound by judgments of the
                                                                               — failing to communicate to the Commission all the
             European Court of Human Rights finding
             violations of the Convention at least in so far as                    measures which it has taken in order to comply with
                                                                                the Directive,
             they may not take the view that the conduct of State
             institutions to which the finding of a violation                  — failing to provide for an environmental impact
             relates was in accordance with the Convention ?                       assessment to be carried out for all projects in respect
                                                                                of which such an assessment is to be carried out
         2 . Are claims for compensation for damage based on                       under the Directive and for which the development
             Article 5 ( 5 ) of the Convention precluded where the                 consent procedure was commenced after 3 July
             damage is derived from a decision of the Oberster                      1988 ,
             Gerichtshof ?
                                                                               — failing to provide that all the projects set out in
         3 . Is detention within the meaning of Article 5 ( 1 ) ( a )              Annex II to the Directive must be examined in order
             of the Convention contrary to the Convention ex                       to determine whether they are likely to have
             tunc where the European Court of Human Rights                         significant effects on the environment,


title: Case C-124/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of  6 April 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te 's-Gravenhage) — Federatie Nederlandse Vakbeweging v Staat der Nederlanden (Social policy — Protection of the safety and health of workers — Directive 93/104/EC — Right to paid annual leave — Financial compensation for not taking the minimum period of paid annual leave)

text:
               17.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/19

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 April 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te 's-Gravenhage) — Federatie Nederlandse Vakbeweging v Staat der Nederlanden
   (Case C-124/05) (1)

   (Social policy - Protection of the safety and health of workers - Directive 93/104/EC - Right to paid annual leave - Financial compensation for not taking the minimum period of paid annual leave)
   (2006/C 143/33)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Gerechtshof te 's-Gravenhage
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Federatie Nederlandse Vakbeweging (FNV)

      Defendant: Staat der Nederlanden
   Re:
   Preliminary ruling — Gerechtshof te 's-Gravenhage — Interpretation of Article 7(2) of Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 1993 L 307, p. 18) — Compatibility with a national provision under which it is possible to agree in writing, over the duration of a contract of employment, to grant financial compensation in the following year in respect of minimum annual leave which has not been used up
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 7 of Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, as amended by Directive 2000/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 2000, must be interpreted as precluding a national provision which, during a contract of employment, permits days of annual leave, within the meaning of Article 7(1) of the directive, which are not taken in the course of a given year, to be replaced by an allowance in lieu in the course of a subsequent year.

      (1)  OJ C 155, 25.6.2005.


title: Case T-36/03: Action brought on 31 January 2003 by José Pedro Pessoa e Costa against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 101/38               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         26.4.2003
Finally, the applicant alleges breach of the principle of non-             compensation for the material damage he allegedly suffered in
discrimination in that the contested decisions deprived the                the period between 1 July and 31 December 2001 and has
union of which the applicant is the secretary general of all               made the present application. In support of his arguments, he
manner of human and material resources without taking                      alleges infringement of the abovementioned article of the Staff
account of its representativeness.                                         Regulations.
Action brought on 31 January 2003 by José Pedro                            Action brought on 7 February 2003 by DaimlerChrysler
Pessoa e Costa against Commission of the European                          AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                           Communities                                                   Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                                (Case T-39/03)
                          (Case T-36/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 101/70)
                         (2003/C 101/69)
                                                                           (Language of the case: to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
                    (Language of the case: French)                         of the Rules of Procedure — Language in which the application was
                                                                                submitted: German)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
European Communities on 31 January 2003 by José Pedro                      Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Pessoa e Costa, residing in Brussels, represented by Albert                Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis et Étienne Marchal, lawyers, with an               7 February 2003 by DaimlerChrysler AG, Stuttgart, Germany,
address for service in Luxembourg.                                         represented by M. Trimborn, lawyer. AXON Leasing GmbH,
                                                                           Grasbrunn, Germany, was also a party to the proceedings
                                                                           before the Board of Appeal.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     declare that the Commission commited an administrative               The applicant claims that the Court should:
      fault by not reinstating the applicant to the first vacancy
      at Grade A 5 commensurate with his abilities;                        —     annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of
                                                                                4 November 2002 in appeal No R 329/2001-4 and
—     order the Commission to reconstitute his career and, in                    dismiss the appeal;
      particular, to pay him the remuneration to which he is
      entitled in respect of the period from 1 August to                   —     order the defendant Office to pay the costs.
      31 December 2001 together with default interest calcu-
      lated at the rate of 1.5 % per annum;
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                                Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           Applicant for Com-             The applicant
                                                                           munity trade mark:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           Community trade mark           The word mark ‘AXOR’ for goods
                                                                           sought:                        and services in Classes 12 and 37
The applicant, an official working for the defendant, on leave                                            (automobiles and parts therefor
on personal grounds until 30 June 2001, requested his                                                     (included in Class 12) and motor
reinstatement, in accordance with Article 40(4)(d) of the Staff                                           vehicle maintenance and repair)
Regulations of officials of the European Communities. On                                                  — application No 1111061
30 May 2002, the applicant lodged a complaint claiming that
the defendant had failed to reinstate him to the first vacancy             Proprietor of mark or          AXON Leasing GmbH
corresponding to his grade and abilities. The applicant claims             sign cited in the oppo-
that that complaint was partially rejected so far as concerns              sition proceedings:


title: Case T-324/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 May 2007 — F v Commission (Staff cases — Officials — Expatriation allowance — Action for annulment — Action for damages — Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Concept of international organisation — Habitual residence and main occupation — Retroactive refusal to pay the expatriation allowance — Recovery of amounts wrongly paid)

text:
               7.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/20

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 May 2007 — F v Commission
   (Case T-324/04) (1)

   (Staff cases - Officials - Expatriation allowance - Action for annulment - Action for damages - Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Concept of international organisation - Habitual residence and main occupation - Retroactive refusal to pay the expatriation allowance - Recovery of amounts wrongly paid)
   (2007/C 155/38)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: F (Rhodes-Saint-Genèse, Belgium) (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Krämer, Agent)
   Re:
   First, annul the decisions of the Commission refusing with retroactive effect to pay the applicant the expatriation allowance and determining the method for recovery of the amounts wrongly paid on that account and, second, order repayment of all the amounts which have been or will be deducted from the applicant's salary from February 2004, plus interest, and damages for the material and non-material loss allegedly suffered.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 300, 4.12.2004.


title: Case T-315/06: Action brought on 17 November 2006 — Ercros v OHIM — Degussa (TAI CROS)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/68

         Action brought on 17 November 2006 — Ercros v OHIM — Degussa (TAI CROS)
   (Case T-315/06)
   (2006/C 326/142)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Ercros, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: R. Thierie, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Degussa AG (Düsseldorf, Germany)
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               ‘purely and simply’ alter the contested decision (decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 September 2006 in appeal proceedings R 29/2006-1);

               —

               grant the opposition and reject the application for figurative mark No 2 768 851‘TAICROS’;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Degussa AG.

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘TAI CROS’ for goods in Class 1 (Application No 2 768 851).

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish word marks ‘CROS’, Spanish word mark ‘SOCIEDAD ANONIMA CROS’, Spanish figurative marks ‘CROS’ and Spanish word mark ‘ERCROS’ for goods in Class 1.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), since there is a likelihood of confusion between the two opposing marks.

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


title: Case C-479/07: Action brought on 26 October 2007 — French Republic v Council of the European Union

text:
               8.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/32

         Action brought on 26 October 2007 — French Republic v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-479/07)
   (2007/C 297/52)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, G. De Bergues and A.-L. During, Agents)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. de Gregorio Merino and M-M Joséphidès, Agents)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Council Regulation (EC) No 809/2007 of 28 June 2007 amending Regulations (EC) No 894/97, (EC) No 812/2004 and (EC) No 2187/2005 as concerns drift nets (1);

               —

               Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By its action, lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 10 October 2007 (received by fax on 5 October 2007) and referred to the Court of Justice under Article 51 and the second paragraph of Article 54 of the Statute of the Court of Justice by order of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 26 October 2007, the applicant disputes the definition of ‘drift net’ adopted by the Council in Regulation No 809/2007 to the extent that it includes stabilised nets such as the ‘thonaille’ (a tuna gillnet) among such drift nets. In extending to those nets the prohibition of drift nets laid down by Regulations 894/2007, 812/2004 and 2187/2005, the present regulation infringes both the obligation to provide reasons and the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination.
   By its first plea, the applicant claims that the Council failed in its obligation to provide reasons by not mentioning in the contested regulation, first, the reasons which led it to include stabilised nets among drift nets and therefore to extend the substantive scope of the restrictions applicable to that type of nets and, second, the scientific and technical opinions it relied upon when adopting that measure.
   By its second plea, the applicant complains of the manifestly inappropriate character of the prohibition of stabilised nets such as the thonaille, both with regard to the objective pursued by the regulations cited above which aim to limit the uncontrolled expansion of fishing activities carried out with drift gillnets and with regard to the objective of limiting by-catches. Carried out on a very small scale by a limited number of small vessels, fishing by thonaille is in fact a traditional activity practised on a small stretch of Mediterranean coastline which does not present any risk of uncontrolled expansion. The thonaille has moreover been subject to technical adjustments in order to reduce as far as possible the risk of by-catches and, in particular, by-catches of protected species.
   By its third plea, the applicant alleges finally an infringement of the principle of non-discrimination since the contested regulation treats the thonaille in the same way as drift gillnets whereas the two categories are different both with regard to the particular technical characteristics of the thonaille and with regard to the small number of vessels concerned and the limited scale of the fishing activities.

      (1)  OJ 2007 L 182, p. 1.


title: Case C-322/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 7 June 2016 — Global Starnet Ltd v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Amministrazione Autonoma Monopoli di Stato

text:
               19.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/24

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 7 June 2016 — Global Starnet Ltd v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Amministrazione Autonoma Monopoli di Stato
   (Case C-322/16)
   (2016/C 343/37)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Global Starnet Ltd

      Respondents: Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Amministrazione Autonoma Monopoli di Stato

      Questions referred

               1.

               May Article 267(3) TFEU be interpreted as meaning that the court of final instance is not unconditionally obliged to refer a question on the interpretation of EU law for a preliminary ruling if, in the course of the proceedings in question, the Corte Costituzionale (Constitutional Court) assessed the constitutional lawfulness of the national rules, in essence on the basis of the regulatory parameters which the Court of Justice is being asked to interpret, even though they are formally different in that they derive from provisions of the Constitution rather than from provisions of the European Treaties?

               2.

               In the alternative, in the event that the Court answers the question on the interpretation of Article 267(3) TFEU to the effect that reference for a preliminary ruling is compulsory: do the provisions and principles set out in Article 26 TFEU (The internal market), Article 49 TFEU (Right of establishment), Article 56 TFEU (Freedom to provide services), Article 63 TFEU (Free movement of capital) and Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Freedom to conduct a business) and the general principle of the protection of legitimate expectations (which ‘is among the fundamental principles of the European Union’, as stated by the Court of Justice in the judgment of 14 March 2013 in Agrargenossenschaft Neuzelle, C-545/11) preclude the adoption and application of national regulations (Article 1(78)(b), subsections 4, 8, 9, 17, 23 and 25, of Law No 220/2010) which lay down new requirements and obligations for concession holders in the sector of the online operation of legal gaming, including existing concession holders, by means of an addendum to the existing agreement (and without any period for gradual compliance)?


title: Case C-130/10: Action brought on 11 March 2010 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

text:
               22.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/26

         Action brought on 11 March 2010 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-130/10)
   2010/C 134/40
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: E. Perillo, K. Bradley, A. Auersperger Matić, Agents)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Council Regulation (EU) No 1286/2009 (1) of 22 December 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 (2) imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban;

               —

               Order that the effects of Council Regulation (EU) No 1286/2009 be maintained until it is replaced;

               —

               order Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The European Parliament considers that Council Regulation (EU) No 1286/2009 of 22 December 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban is invalid for the following reasons:

               —

               having regard to its aim and content, the correct legal basis for the Regulation is Article 75 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

               —

               in the alternative, the conditions for recourse to Article 215 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union were not fulfilled, because no proposal had been validly presented, and the Council had not previously adopted a decision in accordance with Chapter 2 of Title V of the Treaty on the European Union.

         Should the Court annul the contested Regulation, Parliament nonetheless proposes that the Court exercise its discretion to maintain the effects of the contested Regulation, in accordance with Article 264, second paragraph, TFEU, until such time as it is replaced.

      (1)  OJ L 346, p. 42

      (2)  OJ L 139, p. 9