title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance 27 February 2002 in Case T-79/00: Rewe Zentral AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — "LITE" — Observance of the rights of defence — Immaterial plea — Absolute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
15.6.2002              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 144/41
3.    Orders the defendant to pay the costs.                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
(1) OJ C 122 of 29.4.2000.                                                                         27 February 2002
                                                                          in Case T-106/00: Streamserve Inc. v Office for Harmonis-
                                                                          ation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                                (OHIM) (1)
                                                                          (Community trade mark — Term STREAMSERVE — Absol-
                                                                          ute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Prior national registrations —
                                                                                Principle of non-discrimination)
                        27 February 2002
                                                                                (2002/C 144/87)
in Case T-79/00: Rewe Zentral AG v Office for Harmonis-
ation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                            (OHIM) (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
(Community trade mark — ‘LITE’ — Observance of the
rights of defence — Immaterial plea — Absolute ground for
   refusal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
                                                                          In Case T-106/00, Streamserve Inc., established in Raleigh,
                         (2002/C 144/86)                                  North Carolina (United States of America), represented by
                                                                          M. Nedstrand, lawyer, v Commission of the European Com-
                                                                          munities (Agents: A. di Carlo and G. Humphreys): Action
                  (Language of the case: German)                          brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of
                                                                          the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
                                                                          Marks and Designs) of 28 February 2000 (Case R 423/1999-
                                                                          2) concerning registration of the term STREAMSERVE as a
                                                                          Community trade mark, Court of First Instance (Fourth
In Case T-79/00, Rewe Zentral AG, established in Cologne                  Chamber), composed of: P. Mengozzi, President, V. Tiili and
(Germany), represented by M. Kinkeldey, lawyer, v Office for              R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator,
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and                     for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 27 March 2002, in
Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: initially V. Melgar and P. von Kapff,            which it:
and, subsequently, Melgar and G. Schneider): Action brought
against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office
for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Designs) of 27 January 2000 (Case R 275/1999-3) concerning                1.    Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office
the registration of ‘LITE’ as a Community trade mark, the                       for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of:                          Designs) of 28 February 2000 (Case R 423/1999-2) as
P. Mengozzi, President, V. Tiili and R. M. Moura Ramos,                         regards goods in the categories ‘manuals’ and ‘publications’;
Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
given a judgment on 27 February 2002, in which it:
                                                                          2.    For the rest, dismisses the application;
1.    Dismisses the application;                                          3.    Orders the applicant to bear it own costs and to pay two thirds
                                                                                of the defendant’s costs and orders the defendant to bear one
2.    Orders each party to bear its own costs.                                  third of its own costs.
(1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.                                                (1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.


title: Case T-109/13: Order of the General Court of 10 June 2014  — Othman v Council

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/66

         Order of the General Court of 10 June 2014 — Othman v Council
   (Case T-109/13) (1)

   2014/C 253/91
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 129, 4.5.2013.


title: Case T-262/14: Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2015 — Bionecs v OHIM — Fidia farmaceutici (BIONECS) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark BIONECS — Earlier international word mark BIONECT — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/44

         Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2015 — Bionecs v OHIM — Fidia farmaceutici (BIONECS)
   (Case T-262/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark BIONECS - Earlier international word mark BIONECT - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 027/54)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Bionecs GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: M. Knitter, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Fidia farmaceutici SpA (Abano Terme, Italy) (represented by: R. Kunz-Hallstein, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 February 2014 (Case R 1179/2013/1) concerning opposition proceedings between Fidia Farmaceutici SpA and Bionecs GmbH.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Bionecs GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 235, 21.7.2014.


title: Case C-654/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 10 December 2013 — Delphi Hungary Autóalkatrész Gyártó Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Nyugat-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága (NAV)

text:
               22.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 85/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 10 December 2013 — Delphi Hungary Autóalkatrész Gyártó Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Nyugat-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága (NAV)
   (Case C-654/13)
   2014/C 85/18
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Delphi Hungary Autóalkatrész Gyártó Kft.

      Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Nyugat-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága (NAV)

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, in particular Article 186 thereof, Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the principles of equivalence and effectiveness be interpreted as meaning that they preclude legislation and practice of a Member State which prevent the payment of default interest on amounts of value added tax which could not be claimed under legislation which the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled to be contrary to Community law, although in other cases the Member State’s legislation provides for the payment of interest in the event of the delayed repayment of value added tax which can be claimed back?

               2.

               Is the practice of a Member State’s courts contrary to the principles of effectiveness and equivalence insofar as it refuses to allow claims made in administrative proceedings — thus limiting the options available to a legal person who has suffered loss to an action for damages, despite the fact that such an action is excluded in practice in the national legal order — merely because there is no specific legal rule which is applicable on the facts in the proceedings although [dealing with and] paying similar claims for interest falls within the powers of the tax authority?

               3.

               If the answer to question 2 is in the affirmative, are the courts of the Member State required to interpret and apply in accordance with Community law legal rules of the Member State which are not applicable on the facts, so that equivalent and effective judicial protection can be provided?

               4.

               Must the Community law cited in the first question be interpreted as meaning that [a claim for] interest on taxes collected, retained and not repaid in breach of Community law constitutes an individual right which derives directly from Community law and may be relied on directly before the courts and administrative authorities of the Member State pursuant to Community law, including where the law of the Member State does not provide for the payment of interest in that specific case, it being sufficient, in order to justify a claim for interest, to show that Community law has been breached and that the tax has been collected, retained or not repaid?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 9 November 1995 in Case T-346/94: France-Aviation v. Commission of the European Communities (Repayment of customs duty - Audi alteram partem - Special situation)

text:
No C 351 / 12          EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   30 . 12 . 95
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 The applicant claims that the Court should :
                     of 9 November 1995
in Case T-346/94 : France-Aviation v. Commission of the
                                                                        ( 1 ) order the defendants to pay to it DM 2 279 859,69
                                                                              together with interest at the annual rate of 8 % from
                  European Communities ( ] )                                  9 August 1990 pro tanto in return for the assignment of
(Repayment of customs duty — Audi alteram partem —                            the balance of its claim against Iraq for the equivalent
                         Special situation)                                   balance due to it;
                           ( 95/C 351 /24 )
                                                                        ( 2 ) order the defendants to pay the costs;
                (Language of the case: French)                          ( 3 ) declare the judgment enforceable, alternatively,
                                                                              provisionally enforceable subject to the provision of a
In     Case  T-346/94 :        France-Aviation ,  established   at            bank guarantee .
Châteaufort ( France ), represented by Jean-Claude Cavaillé ,
of the Lyon Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
at the Chambers of Guy Arendt, 62 Avenue Guillaume v.
Commission of the European Communities ( Agents :                       The applicant is a German undertaking engaged in the
Richard Wainwright and Jean-Francis Pasquier ) —                        provision of services relating to the implementation of
application for the annulment of Commission Decision                    infrastructure projects . At the time when Regulation ( EEC )
REM 4/94 of 18 July 1994 holding in response to a request               No 2340/90 entered into force , it was carrying out certain
from the French Government that repayment of import                     works in Iraq . That Regulation , which was enacted
duties was not justified in the applicant's case — the Court            following the military occupation of Kuwait by Iraq and in
of First Instance ( First Chamber ), composed of: H.                    accordance with a resolution of the Security Council of the
Kirschner, acting as President, A. Kalogeropoulos and V.                United Nations , prohibited trade with Iraq and Kuwait. The
Tiili , Judges, H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on             applicant claims compensation for the damage suffered by it
9 November 1995 , in which it:                                          as a result of the economic reprisals adopted by the Iraqi
                                                                        authorities against the interests of the Member States of the
                                                                        Community in Iraq . Its capital invested in that country was
 1 . annuls Commission Decision REM 4/94 of 18 July                     blocked and its bank accounts were frozen; the measures
      1994, addressed to the French Republic,                           taken were in the nature of expropriation .
     Directorate-General of Customs and Indirect Taxes ;
                                                                        In the applicant's view, the liability of the Community
2 . dismisses the remainder of the application;                         institutions arises from the fact that they enacted the
                                                                         Regulation in question without providing for measures by
                                                                        way of compensation for the damage which the victims of
 3 . orders the Commission to pay the costs.                             possible economic reprisals on the part of the Iraqi
                                                                         authorities might suffer.
 (') O J No C 351 , 10 . 12 . 1994 .
                                                                         That course of action is inconsistent with the right of
                                                                         ownership, which is a basic right the observance of which is
                                                                         to be ensured by the Community judicature, and which is
                                                                         enshrined as such in the Protocol to the European
                                                                         Convention on Human Rights .
 Action brought on 6 October 1995 by Dorsch Consult
 Ingenieurgesellschaft mbH against the Council of the
        European Union of the European Communities
                         ( Case T-l 84/95 )                              Action brought on 9 October 1995 by R against the
                            ( 95/C 351 /25 )                                     Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-l 87/95 )
                (Language of the case: German)                                                    ( 95/C 351 /26 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
 An action against the Council of the European Union and
 the Commission of the European Communities was brought
 before the Court of First Instance of the European                      An action against the Commission of the European
 Communities on 6 October 1995 by Dorsch Consult                          Communities was brought before the Court of First
 Ingenieurgesellschaft mbH , represented by Karl M. Meessen               Instance of the European Communities on 9 October 1995
 of Messrs Norr, Stiefenhofer & Lutz, Brussels, with an                   by R, residing in Lausanne ( Switzerland ), represented by
 address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                     Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi , of the Brussels Bar,
 Patrick Kinsch of Messrs Arendt & Medernach , 8— 10 Rue                  with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
 Mathias Hardt .                                                          Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 2 Rue Glesener .


title: Case C-323/16 P: Appeal brought on 8 June 2016 by Eurallumina SpA against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 22 April 2016 in joined cases T-60/06 RENV II and T-62/06 RENV II: Italian Republic and Eurallumina SpA v European Commission

text:
               25.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/36

         Appeal brought on 8 June 2016 by Eurallumina SpA against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 22 April 2016 in joined cases T-60/06 RENV II and T-62/06 RENV II: Italian Republic and Eurallumina SpA v European Commission
   (Case C-323/16 P)
   (2016/C 270/39)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Eurallumina SpA (represented by: L. Martin Alegi, A. Stratakis, L. Philippou, Solicitors)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Italian Republic, European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the Judgment,

               —

               annul the Decision (1) in so far as it orders the Italian Republic to recover the aid, or failing that,

               —

               refer the case back to the general Court,

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Appellant raises a single plea in law, divided into five parts, alleging infringement of Community law, in particular infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations and failure to state reasons. The Appellant's specific pleas in law are as follows:

               1.

               The General Court erred in law in interpreting the Judgment of 10 December 2013 so as to consider itself bound to find that publication of the opening of the proceedings on 2 February 2002 put an end to Eurallumina's legitimate expectations.

               2.

               In consequence of this error, the General Court failed to fulfil the very purpose of the referral back and failed to assess Eurallumina's arguments regarding the continuation of its legitimate expectations or assessed them in a distorted legal framework and erroneously.

               3.

               Even in the application of its distorted legal framework the General Court erred in law by finding that the Commission's unreasonable delay in conducting the investigation was not capable of having given rise to legitimate expectations on the part of Eurallumina preventing recovery of the aid.

               4.

               The General Court misinterprets Directive 2003/96 (2)
                  contra legem, in breach of Community law and its principles of interpretation.

               5.

               The General Court erred in law in rejecting Eurallumina's arguments based on its investments in the Sardinian plant.

      (1)  2006/323/EC: Commission Decision of 7 December 2005 concerning the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in Gardanne, in the Shannon region and in Sardinia respectively implemented by France, Ireland and Italy (notified under document number C(2005) 4436)

      OJ L 119, p. 12

      (2)  Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity

      OJ L 283, p. 51


title: Case C-68/07: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 29 November 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen — Sweden) — Kerstin Sundelind Lopez v Miguel Enrique Lopez Lizazo (Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Articles 3, 6 and 7 — Jurisdiction — Recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility — Jurisdiction in divorce proceedings — Respondent not a national or a resident of a Member State — National rules providing for exorbitant jurisdiction)

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/15

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 29 November 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen — Sweden) — Kerstin Sundelind Lopez v Miguel Enrique Lopez Lizazo
   (Case C-68/07) (1)

   (Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Articles 3, 6 and 7 - Jurisdiction - Recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility - Jurisdiction in divorce proceedings - Respondent not a national or a resident of a Member State - National rules providing for exorbitant jurisdiction)
   (2008/C 22/29)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   Referring court
   Högsta domstolen
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Kerstin Sundelind Lopez

      Defendant: Miguel Enrique Lopez Lizazo
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Högsta domstolen — Interpretation of Articles 3, 6 and 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1) — Jurisdiction for divorce proceedings where the respondent is neither resident within a Member State nor a citizen of a Member State
   Operative part of the judgment
   Articles 6 and 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2116/2004 of 2 December 2004, as regards treaties with the Holy See, are to be interpreted as meaning that where, in divorce proceedings, a respondent is not habitually resident in a Member State and is not a national of a Member State, the courts of a Member State cannot base their jurisdiction to hear the petition on their national law, if the courts of another Member State have jurisdiction under Article 3 of that regulation.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 14.4.2007.


title: Case T-254/09: Action brought on 26 June 2009 T-254/09 — Wilo SE v OHI (Representation of a green casing)

text:
               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/44

         Action brought on 26 June 2009 T-254/09 — Wilo SE v OHI (Representation of a green casing)
   (Case T-254/09)
   2009/C 205/81
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Wilo SE (Dortmund, Germany) (represented by G. Braun)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 March 2009 in Case R 1196/2008-1;

               —

               Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: a figurative mark, which represents a green casing

      Decision of the Examiner: rejection of the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation (CE) No 207/2009 (1)) as the mark applied for has the requisite distinctive character

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


title: Case C-144/99: Action brought on 21 April 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
7.8.1999                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 226/11
Action brought on 21 April 1999 by the Commission of                     Finally, the Commission takes the view that interpretation
the European Communities against the Kingdom of the                      consistent with a directive, as a means whereby to compensate
                             Netherlands                                 for the fact that that directive has not been expressly trans-
                                                                         posed, does not satisfy the requirements of Article 249 EC (ex
                                                                         Article 189).
                           (Case C-144/99)
                                                                         (1) OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.
                          (1999/C 226/17)
An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
on 21 April 1999 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by P. Van Nuffel, of its Legal Service,         Action brought on 28 April 1999 by the Commission of
acting as Agent, assisted by M.H. van der Woude, of the                   the European Communities against the French Republic
Brussels Bar, and L. Dommering-Van Rongen, of the Amster-
dam Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
office of C. Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner                                       (Case C-156/99)
Centre. Kirchberg.
                                                                                (1999/C 226/18)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                         Court of Justice of the European Communities on 28 April
                                                                         1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and            represented by Enrico Traversa, Legal Adviser, acting as Agent,
     administrative provisions necessary for the full implemen-          assisted by Nicole Coutrelis, of the Paris Bar, with an address
     tation in Netherlands law of Articles 4(2) and 5 of Council         for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
     Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in              Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
     consumer contracts (1), the Kingdom of the Netherlands
     has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 249 EC (ex
     Article 189) and under that directive;                              The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                         the Court should:
— order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs of               — Declare that, by limiting the manufacturer’s right to deduct
     the proceedings.                                                        the amount of purchase vouchers from tris taxable amount
                                                                             for VAT purposes to money-saving vouchers where the
                                                                             manufacturer delivers direct to the retailer; and excluding
                                                                             money-saving vouchers where there is an indirect relation-
                                                                             ship between the manufacturer and the retailer, and all
                                                                             cash-on-delivery vouchers, the French Republic has failed
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              to fulfil its obligations under Article 11A(1)(a) and llC(l) of
                                                                             Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 (the Sixth
                                                                             VAT Directive) (1);
The obligation of transparency resulting from Article 4(2), final        — Order the French Republic to pay the costs.
clause, and Article 5, first sentence, of Directive 93/13/EEC has
not in any way been explicitly transposed in Netherlands law.
This finding also applies in regard to the contra proferentem
principle, as set out in the second and third sentences of Article       Pleas in law and arguments
5 of the directive. The Commission takes the view that the
implicit method of transposition on which the Netherlands
Government relies (in particular Articles 3:35 and 6:248 of              The distinction drawn in the French legislation has no basis in
the Burgerlijk Wetboek, as well as the manner in which those             Article 11 of the Sixth VAT Directive, as interpreted by the
provisions are applied in case-law) does not in this case                Court inter alia in Elida Gibbs [1996] ECR I-5339, and cannot
constitute implementation for the purposes of Article 249 EC             therefore affect the rules on the taxable amount.
(ex Article 189). F i r s t , express rights require an express
method of implementation; the consume must be placed in a
position in which he is able himself to know his rights.                 (1) OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.
S e c o n d , the Commission doubts whether the implicit
method of implementation effected by the Netherlands
Government achieves the result intended by Articles 4(2) and
5.


title: Case F-149/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 18 September 2014 — Marcuccio v Commission (Civil service — Invalidity — Invalidity allowance — Amounts withheld from the invalidity allowance)

text:
               10.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 395/66

      Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 18 September 2014 — Marcuccio v Commission
      (Case F-149/12) (1)

      ((Civil service - Invalidity - Invalidity allowance - Amounts withheld from the invalidity allowance))
      (2014/C 395/81)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Gattinara, Agents)

         Re:

      Application for annulment of the monthly recovery of EUR 500, withheld from the applicant’s invalidity allowance for the months of April to June 2012.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded.

                  2.

                  Mr Marcuccio is to bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

         (1)  OJ C 108 of 13/04/2013, p. 38.


title: Case C-442/09: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Germany)) — Karl Heinz Bablok and Others v Freistaat Bayern (Genetically modified food for human consumption — Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 — Articles 2 to 4 and 12 — Directive 2001/18/EC — Article 2 — Directive 2000/13/EC — Article 6 — Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 — Article 2 — Apicultural products — Presence of pollen from genetically modified plants — Consequences — Placing on the market — Definition of organism and food for human consumption containing ingredients produced from genetically modified organisms )

text:
               22.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/7

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Germany)) — Karl Heinz Bablok and Others v Freistaat Bayern
   (Case C-442/09) (1)

   (Genetically modified food for human consumption - Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 - Articles 2 to 4 and 12 - Directive 2001/18/EC - Article 2 - Directive 2000/13/EC - Article 6 - Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 - Article 2 - Apicultural products - Presence of pollen from genetically modified plants - Consequences - Placing on the market - Definition of ‘organism’ and ‘food for human consumption containing ingredients produced from genetically modified organisms’)
   2011/C 311/09
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Karl Heinz Bablok, Stefan Egeter, Josef Stegmeier, Karlhans Müller, Barbara Klimesch

      Defendant: Freistaat Bayern

      Intervening parties: Monsanto Technology LLC, Monsanto Agrar Deutschland GmbH, Monsanto Europe SA/NV

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 2.5 and 2.10, Articles 3(1), 4(2) and 12(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed (OJ 2003 L 268, p. 1) — Unintentional and adventitious presence in apicultural products of pollen from genetically modified plants which is no longer capable of reproducing — Possible repercussions on the procedure for placing such products on the market — Concept of ‘genetically modified organism’ and ‘produced from GMOs’

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The concept of a genetically modified organism within the meaning of Article 2.5 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed must be interpreted as meaning that a substance such as pollen derived from a variety of genetically modified maize, which has lost its ability to reproduce and is totally incapable of transferring the genetic material which it contains, no longer comes within the scope of that concept.

               2.

               Article 2.1, 2.10 and 2.13 and Article 3(1)(c) of Regulation No 1829/2003, Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety, and Article 6(4)(a) of Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs must be interpreted as meaning that, when a substance such as pollen containing genetically modified DNA and genetically modified proteins is not liable to be considered as a genetically modified organism, products such as honey and food supplements containing such a substance constitute ‘food … containing ingredients produced from [genetically modified organisms]’ within the meaning of Article 3(1)(c) of Regulation No 1829/2003. That classification may be made irrespective of whether contamination by the substance in question was intentional or adventitious.

               3.

               Articles 3(1) and 4(2) of Regulation No 1829/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that, when they imply an obligation to authorise and supervise a foodstuff, a tolerance threshold such as that provided for in respect of labelling in Article 12(2) of that regulation may not be applied to that obligation by analogy.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.


title: Case T-253/17: Action brought on 28 April 2017 — Der Grüne Punkt v EUIPO — Halston Properties (Representation of a circle with two arrows)

text:
               19.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/45

         Action brought on 28 April 2017 — Der Grüne Punkt v EUIPO — Halston Properties (Representation of a circle with two arrows)
   (Case T-253/17)
   (2017/C 195/61)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Der Grüne Punkt — Duales System Deutschland GmbH (Cologne, Gemany) (represented by: P. Goldenbaum, I. Rohr and N. Ebbecke, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Halston Properties, s. r. o. GmbH (Bratislava, Slovakia)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark (Representation of a circle with two arrows) — EU trade mark No 298 273

      Procedure before EUIPO: Revocation proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 February 2017 in Case R 1357/2015-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs;

               —

               in the event that the other party decides to intervene in the proceedings, order that intervener to bear its own costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-167/99: Action brought on 13 July 1999 by Carla Giulietti against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
2.10.1999              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 281/23
Action brought on 9 July 1999 by Luis Fernando Andres                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
de Dios and Others against the Council of the European
                               Union                                      — annul the decision taken by the selection board in compe-
                                                                               tition No COM/A/10/98 excluding the applicant from the
                          (Case T-166/99)                                      tests subsequent to the pre-selection tests, the said decision
                                                                               being contained in a letter sent to the applicant on 16 June
                                                                               1999;
                         (1999/C 281/43)
                                                                          — consequently, annul all of the steps taken and acts done
                   (Language of the case: French)                              subsequently in the procedure relating to competition
                                                                               No COM/A/10/98 which are vitiated by illegality;
An action against the Council of the European Union was                   — order the Commission to pay the costs.
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 9 July 1999 by Luis Fernando Andres de
Dios, Suzanne Kitlas and Jacques Verraes, residing in Brussels
(Belgium), and Maria Soledad Garcia Retortillo, residing at               Pleas in law and main arguments
Càceres (Spain), represented by Jean-Noël Louis, Greta-
Françoise Parmentier and Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of               The applicant was a candidate in open competition No
Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange.                                COM/A110/98 for the constitution of a reserve list for the
                                                                          recruitment of administrators in career bracket A 7/A 6 in the
The applicants claim that the Court should:                               fields of external relations and the management of aid to third
                                                                          countries. By letter of 16 June 1999, the selection board in the
— annul Council Decision 1999/307/EC of 1 May 1999;                       competition informed the applicant that although she had
                                                                          obtained the minimum number of marks required for each of
— order the defendant to pay the costs.                                   the four tests, she had not been placed amongst the top 200
                                                                          candidates. In order to be included amongst those top 200
                                                                          candidates, the applicant had to have obtained 80.10 marks,
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           that is to say, a further 3.72 marks. Consequently, the contest-
                                                                          ed decision excluded the applicant from admission to the
The contested decision is the same as that in issue in Case               subsequent tests in the competition.
T-107/99 Garcia Retortillo (1). The pleas in law and main
arguments are the same as those advanced in that case.
                                                                          The applicant maintains that:
The applicants argue, in particular, that, since the contested
decision was adopted on 30 April 1999, that is to say, on a               — the principle of equal treatment was disregarded in several
date on which neither the Treaty of Amsterdam nor Protocol                     respects, both when the pre-selection tests took place and
No 2 thereto had yet entered into force, it must be held in the                when those tests were marked;
present case that the decision in question lacks any legal basis.
                                                                          — the pre-selection tests are vitiated by a twofold procedural
                                                                               irregularity, which does not guarantee anonymity in the
(1) Not yet published in the Official Journal.                                 processing of the tests or ensure that those tests will not
                                                                               be subject to manipulation;
                                                                          — the competition notice is irregular, in that it disregards the
                                                                               principle of equal treatment and Annex III to the Staff
                                                                               Regulations;
Action brought on 13 July 1999 by Carla Giulietti against                 — by providing incomplete information, the selection board
       the Commission of the European Communities                              failed to comply with the obligation to provide reasons;
                          (Case T-167/99)                                 — by failing to ensure that the pre-selection tests were held
                                                                               in a proper fashion and that the candidates were treated in
                                                                               that context in a strictly non-discriminatory manner, the
                         (1999/C 281/44)                                       defendant infringed the principle of the protection of
                                                                               legitimate expectations; and
                   (Language of the case: French)                         — the defendant committed a breach of the principle of good
                                                                               management and sound administration, which was further
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                      aggravated by the fact that the pre-selection tests had
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                     already had to be annulled once before on account of
European Communities on 13 July 1999 by Carla Giulietti,                       irregularities.
residing in Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersanden and
Laure Levi, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue
de Cessange.


title: Case C-76/11 P: Appeal brought on 21 February 2011 by Tresplain Investments Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 9 December 2010 in Case T-303/08: Tresplain Investments Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Hoo Hing Holdings Ltd

text:
               16.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 120/6

         Appeal brought on 21 February 2011 by Tresplain Investments Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 9 December 2010 in Case T-303/08: Tresplain Investments Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Hoo Hing Holdings Ltd
   (Case C-76/11 P)
   2011/C 120/11
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Tresplain Investments Ltd (represented by: B. Brandreth, Barrister, J. Stobbs, Attorney)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Hoo Hing Holdings Ltd

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the contested judgment of the General Court and the contested decision of the Board of Appeal of OHIM;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the appellant's costs incurred before the General Court and the Court of Justice of the European Union

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant submits that the General Court's Decision erred in law in its interpretation and application of Article 8(4) CTMR (1) in the following ways:

               1.

               The General Court and Board of Appeal wrongly concluded that the existence of goodwill created a right of more than mere local significance. It does not do so unless the goodwill is of more than mere local significance;

               2.

               The General Court and Board of Appeal wrongly concluded that the evidence of concurrent trading was evidence relevant only to the likelihood of a misrepresentation. Consideration should also have been given to the argument that the existence of concurrent goodwill would have rendered misrepresentation impossible.

               3.

               The General Court and Board of Appeal erred in treating the evidence of use as indicating that the goodwill was associated with the earlier sign relied upon.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark

      OJ L 11, 14.1.1994, p. 1


title: Case T-346/02: Action brought on 22 November 2002 by Cableuropa, S.A., Región de Murcia de Cable, S.A., Valencia de Cable, S.A., Mediterránea Sur Sistemas de Cable, S.A., y Mediterránea Norte Sistemas de Cable, S.A. against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 19/40                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      25.1.2003
The applicant finally submits that the defendant committed               by Admira, by means of an exchange of shares. According to
serious procedural irregularities. More particularly, the defend-        the notification, following the successful completion of the
ant did not respect the principle of good administration, the            abovementioned operation, the resulting undertaking would
right of parties to be heard and the duty to state reasons for its       come under the joint control of Prisa and Groupe Canal+.
decisions.
                                                                         In support of its arguments, the applicants allege:
                                                                         —     lack of competence of the Commission, in that it is not
                                                                               empowered to refer a case to the authorities of a
                                                                               Member State when the markets concerned affect intra-
                                                                               Community trade and more than one Member State;
Action brought on 22 November 2002 by Cableuropa,
S.A., Región de Murcia de Cable, S.A., Valencia de Cable,
                                                                         —     infringement of Article 9 of the abovementioned regu-
S.A., Mediterránea Sur Sistemas de Cable, S.A., y Mediter-
                                                                               lation on concentrations in that the contested decision
ránea Norte Sistemas de Cable, S.A. against Commission
                                                                               makes a ‘blank’ reference to the national authorities;
                of the European Communities
                                                                         —     failure to observe the obligation to provide reasons,
                         (Case T-346/02)                                       specifically as regards the exceptional nature of the
                                                                               reference in cases in which the markets in question affect
                         (2003/C 19/75)                                        a substantial part of the common market.
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)                        (1 ) OJ 1989 L 395, p. 1.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 22 November 2002 by Cableuropa,
S.A. (having its registered office in Aravaca, Madrid), Región
de Murcia de Cable, S.A. (having its registered office in Murcia,        Action brought on 22 November 2002 by Aunacable,
Spain), Valencia de Cable, S.A. (having its registered office in         S.A.Unipersonal, Retecal Sociedad Operadora de Teleco-
Madrid), Mediterránea sur Sistemas de Cable, S.A. (having its            municaciones de Castilla y León, S.A., Euskaltel, S.A.,
registered office in Alicante, Spain) y Mediterránea Norte               Telecable de Avilés, S.A. Unipersonal, Telecable de Ovie-
Sistemas de Cable, S.A. (having its registered office in Castellón,      do, S.A. Unipersonal, Telecable de Gijón, S.A. Uniper-
Spain), represented by Luis Felipe Castresana Sánchez and                sonal, R Cable y Telecomunicaciones Galicia, S.A., and
Gonzalo Samaniego Bordiu, lawyers.                                       Tenaria S.A. against Commission of the European Com-
                                                                                munities
The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                                (Case T-347/02)
—     annul the decision of the Commission of 14 August 2002
      referring Case COMP/M.2845 - Sogecable/Canalsatélite                                          (2003/C 19/76)
      Digital/Vía Digital to the competent authorities in the
      Kingdom of Spain pursuant to Article 9 of Council
      Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89;                                                         (Language of the case: Spanish)
—     order the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          European Communities on 22 November 2002 by Aunacable,
                                                                         S.A.Unipersonal (having its registered office in Madrid), Retecal
                                                                         Sociedad Operadora de Telecomunicaciones de Castilla y León,
The decision contested by the present application concerns the           S.A. (having its registered office in Boecilli, Valladolid, Spain),
notification, pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EEC)          Euskaltel, S.A.(having its registered office in Zamudio-Bizkaia),
No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of                         Telecable de Avilés, S.A. Unipersonal (registered in Avilés),
concentrations between undertakings ( 1), of a planned concen-           Telecable de Oviedo, S.A. Unipersonal (having its registered
tration by which Sogecable SA, controlled by Promotora de                office in Oviedo), Telecable de Gijón, S.A. Unipersonal (having
Informaciones S.A (Prisa) and Groupe Canal +S.A., the latter             its registered office in Gijón), R Cable y Telecomunicaciones
belonging to the Vivendi Universal group, signs an agreement             Galicia, S.A.(having its registered office in A Coruña, Spain)
with the Admira Media S.A. group, belonging to the Telefónica            and Tenaria S.A.(having its registered office in Cordovilla,
S.A group, with the aim of merging Sogecable and DTS                     Navarra, Spain), represented by Antonio Creus Carreras,
Distribuidora de Televisión Digital S.A. (Vía Digital), controlled       Natalia Lacalle Mangas and José Mª Jiménez Laiglesia, lawyers.


title: Action brought on 31 October 1995 by Giampaolo Cordiale against European Parliament (Case T-205/95)

text:
No C 16/ 16            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     20 . 1 . 96
Action brought on 31 October 1995 by Giampaolo                         the European Parliament. That communication was not sent
            Cordiale against European Parliament                       in due time through error or forgetfulness on the part of the
                                                                       official concerned .
                        ( Case T-205/95 )
                           ( 96/C 16/35 )                              The applicant maintains in that regard that it cannot be
                                                                       asserted that his secondment to Rome was a private
                (Language of the case: Italian)                        agreement based on the resolution of 20 October 1988 ,
                                                                       without any financial implications for the Group, when a
                                                                       written, precise and unambiguous undertaking exists,
An action against the European Parliament was brought                  according to which the applicant was to remain within the
before the Court of First Instance of the European                     Community system, whereas the Italian administration was
Communities on 31 October 1995 by Giampaolo Cordiale,                  to make the necessary arrangements regarding the national
formerly a member of the temporary staff of the European               civil servant who was to replace him in Brussels.
Parliament ( ELDR Group ), represented by Jean-Noël Louis,
of the Brussels Bar, and Alberto Panuccio, of the Reggio
Calabria Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the office of Fiduciaire Myson Sàrl, 1 Rue Glesener.
The applicant claims that the Court should :                           Action brought on 27 November 1995 by the Flemish
                                                                       Region against the Commission of the European
— declare unfounded and annul the implied rejection of the                                          Communities
    applicant's complaint of 22 March 1995 ,                                                     ( Case T-214/95 )
                                                                                96/C 16/36
— declare well-founded and legitimate the applicant's
    request for allowances, the same having been recognized
    in a document emanating from the defendant itself, and                             (Language of the case: Dutch)
    therefore order the defendant to pay the sums due,
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                               Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                       Instance of the European Communities on 27 November
                                                                        1995 by the Flemish Region, represented by A. L. Merckx,
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    of the Brussels Bar .
The applicant, a member of the temporary staff seconded to             The applicant claims that the Court should:
the office of the Minister for coordination of Community
policies in Rome, contests the legality of the decision of              1 , annul the Commission Decision of 26 July 1995
9 March 1 995 of the office of the ELDR Group of the                        concerning aid granted by the Flemish Region to the
European Parliament denying him the right to the duty                       Belgian airline Vlaamse Luchttransportmaatschappij
travel allowance ( allowance for staying in Rome, together                  NV;
with travel expenses ) provided for by the decision of the
office of the President of that institution and notified to all        2 , order the Commission to pay the costs.
the members of that office by a circular letter from the
Secretary-General dated 20 October 1988 .                              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The contested decision stated that the Personnel Division              — inadequate reasoning in relation to the application of
had never received the relevant documentation from the                      Article 92 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty as regards the distortion
Group, including a request for the applicant to be placed at                of competition and the adverse effect on trade between
the disposal of an Italian administrative authority and that,               Member States,
in the absence of any such request, it was impossible to
rectify matters retroactively.                                         — infringement of Article 92 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty,
                                                                            inasmuch as the aid measure, which is very limited in its
As a preliminary point, the applicant alleges improper                      scope, does not affect trade between Member States,
conduct on the part of the ELDR which gave rise to
 non-payment of the allowance due to him from the                      — inadequate reasoning in relation to the exemption
 Directorate-General for Personnel . He states in that                      claimed by the applicant with regard to aid measures of
connection that his entitlement to the payment in question                  limited scope in the aviation sector ( OJ No C 350,
 arose when the ELDR agreed to, formalized and made                         p . 5 ),
 arrangements for an exchange between the applicant and
 the Italian official, who in the meantime has replaced him in          — inadequate reasoning in relation to the application of
 Brussels .                                                                 Article 92 ( 3 ) (c ) of the EC Treaty,
 Nothing      more     was     needed,    therefore,   than   the       — infringement of Article 92 ( 3 ) ( c ) of the EC Treaty.
 communication from the secretariat of the ELDR to the
 Directorate-General for Personnel, Budget and Finance of


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin by order of that court of 11 August 1995 in the case of Suat Kol v. Land Berlin (Case C-285/95)

text:
No C 268/18              iENl                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      14 . 10 . 95
nothing to prevent the Commission from persisting in its                 ( a ) Is Council Regulation ( EC ) No 3093/94 ( ] ) to be
inaction, perpetuating the failure to act, or at least to give                  interpreted ( given that it must comply with Article 130r
deliberately ambiguous replies.                                                 of the Treaty ) as permitting the free use of halons ( that
                                                                                is, products which have a serious impact on the
The appellant will rely on all the arguments put forward                        environment ), subject only to limitations on their
before the Court of First Instance in the application and in                    production or on their use by producers, and not on
the reply .                                                                     their importation, but as prohibiting absolutely the use
                                                                                ( and hence both the production and the importation ) of
                                                                                HCFCs (that is, of products which have little impact on
                                                                                the environment )        for purposes not stated in
                                                                                Article 5 ?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht                ( b) Is not the provision in point in Regulation (EC )
Baden-Wiirttemberg by order of that court of 21 August                          No 3093/94 in substance a measure having equivalent
1995 in the case of Karlheinz Fischer v. Finanzamt                              effect to a quantitative restriction in so far as, in the
                            Donaueschingen                                      absence of any of the grounds of justification under
                           ( Case C-283/95 )                                    Article 36 of the Treaty, it restricts the free movement
                                                                                of a product throughout the Community ?
                              ( 95/C 268/38 )
                                                                         (c ) Does not the conduct of the Community and of its
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                          institutions, in adopting Regulation ( EC ) No 3093/94 ,
European Communities by an order of the Finanzgericht                           and particularly at the stages subsequent to its
Baden-Wiirttemberg ( Finance Court of the Land                                  adoption, constitute action of a public-law nature
Baden-Wiirttemberg) of 21 August 1 995 , which was                              designed to reinforce the dominant position of certain
received at the Court Registry on 25 August 1995 , for a                        operators, such action constituting in itself an instance
preliminary ruling in the case of Karlheinz Fischer v.                          of serious abuse for the purposes of Article 86 of the
Finanzamt Donaueschingen on the following questions :                           Treaty ?
1 . Is Article 2 ( 1 ) of the Sixth Directive ( 1 ) to be interpreted    ( d ) May legislation for the protection of the environment
      as meaning that services which the organizer of unlawful                  — and particularly Regulation ( EC ) No 3093/94 —
      and punishable games of chance provides to the players                    derogate ( be interpreted as derogating ) from the
      are not taxable ?                                                         Community rules on competition ( by thus permitting
                                                                                or facilitating restrictive agreements or the abuse of a
2 . If Question 1 is to be answered in the negative :                           dominant position ) or are the prohibitions under those
                                                                                rules unconditional and not subject to derogation,
      Is Article 11 A ( 1 ) ( a ) of the Sixth Directive to be                  precluding derogations or restrictions, whether
      interpreted as meaning that, in the case of unlawful                      introduced by the Community or by individual
      gaming in the form of roulette, the basis of assessment                   Member States ?
      for the operator's services to the players is the amount
      retained by the operator during a tax period ?                     (') OJ No L 333 , 22. 12 . 1994, p. 1 .
3 . If Question 2 is to be answered in the negative :
      How is the basis of assessment to be determined in cases
      described under Questions 1 and 2 ?
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
( ] ) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 ( OJ             Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin by order of that court of
      No L 145 , p . 1 ).                                                   11 August 1995 in the case of Suat Kol v. Land Berlin
                                                                                ( Case C-285/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 268/40 )
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Ufficio del                  European Communities by order of the Eighth Chamber of
Giudice di Pace, Genoa, by order of that court of 8 August              the Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin ( Higher Administrative
     1995 in the case of Safety Hi-Tech Sri v. S> &c T. Sri              Court, Berlin ) of 1 1 August 1995 , which was received at the
                             Case C-284/95 )                             Court Registry on 28 August 1 995, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                         in the case of Suat Kol v . Land Berlin on the following
                             ( 95/C 268/39 )                             questions :
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   1 . Are periods of employment spent in a Member State by a
European Communities by an order of the Ufficio del                            Turkish worker on the basis of a residence permit
Giudice di Pace ( Magistrate's Office ), Genoa , of 8 August                   obtained by wilful and criminal deceit to be recognized
1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on                             as legal employment within the meaning of Article 6(1 )
28 August 1 995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Safety               of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Council of
Hi-Tech Sri v. S. & T. Sri on the following questions :                        Association ?
 ---pagebreak--- 14 . 10 . 95           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 268/ 19
2 . If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative :                Second limb of the plea :
     Is the termination of residence of such a worker by virtue         The Court of First Instance has further infringed
     of an expulsion order made solely on general preventive            Community law by holding, in points 84 and 85 of the
     grounds with a view to deterring other aliens compatible           judgment, that there is no limit of time for raising a new plea
     with Article 14 ( 1 ) of the abovementioned Decision ?             under Article 48 ( 2 ) of its Rules of Procedure.
                                                                        Third limb of the plea :
                                                                        In ordering the Commission to produce the text of the
Appeal brought on 30 August 1995 by the Commission of                   decision as authenticated at the time, the Court of First
the European Communities against the judgment delivered                 Instance infringed Community law, in so far as its order is
on 29 June 1995 by the First Chamber of the Court of First              based on a mistaken view of the rules governing the
Instance of the European Communities sitting in extended                procedure and the rules of proof and evidence; the Court of
composition in case T-37/91 between Imperial Chemical                   First Instance also made a mistake of reasoning in that it
Industries pic and the Commission of the European                       failed to explain in both the order of 25 October 1994 and
                          Communities                                   the judgment why it had concluded that it should order the
                       ( Case C-286/95 P)                               Commission to produce that text.
                           95/C 268/41
                                                                        Second plea for setting aside the judgment: infringement of
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 29 June 1995                Community law and lack of reasoning as concerns the
by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the              purpose of authentication and the consequences of a failure
European Communities sitting in extended composition in                 to authenticate the decision at the time of its adoption.
Case T-37/91 between Imperial Chemical Industries pic and
the Commission of the European Communities, was
                                                                        First limb of the plea :
brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 30 August 1995 by the Commission of the                  The Court of First Instance has infringed Community law by
European Communities, represented by Julian Currall and                 holding, in particular in ground 91 of the judgment, that
Berend Jan Drijber, members of its Legal Service, acting as             authentication is a formal requirement which must be
agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                observed independently of the existence or not of any
office of Carlos Gômez de la Cruz, Centre Wagner,                       evidence capable of casting doubt on the authenticity of the
Kirchberg.                                                              notified text .
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        Second limb of the plea :
1 , set aside the Court of First Instance's judgment of
     29 June 1995 in Case T-37/91 , Imperial Chemical                   The Court of First Instance infringed Community law and
     Industries pic v. Commission of the European                       made a mistake of reasoning in holding in grounds 88 , 90
     Communities ;                                                      and 92 that authentication must take place before the act is
                                                                        notified to the addressee, failing which it is void, and that the
                                                                        authentication carried out in this case was defective .
2 , dismiss the ground of annulment of the Commission's
     decision based upon the lack of authentication;
                                                                        Third limb of the plea :
3 , remit the case to the Court of First Instance pursuant to
     Article 54 of the Statute ( EC ) of the Court of Justice for a     The Court of First Instance has infringed Community law
     decision on the other grounds of annulment alleged                 and incidentally neglected its obligation to give reasons for
     against the Commission's decision;                                 its judgment by failing to consider whether the alleged defect
                                                                        was such as to affect the interests of the addressee of the
4 , order ICI to pay the costs of this appeal .                         decision .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
First plea for the setting aside of the judgment: infringement
of Community law and lack of reasoning as regards the
admissibility of ICI's new plea for annulment, the
organization of the procedure and the rules of proof and
evidence .                                                              Action brought on 30 August 1995 by the Commission of
                                                                          the European Communities against the Italian Republic
First limb of the plea :                                                                       Case C-289/95 )
The Court of First Instance has infringed Community law by                                       ( 95/C 268/42
holding, at point 82 of the judgment, that the statements by
the Commission to which reference is made, can amount in
themselves to a new fact for the purposes of Article 48 ( 2 ) of        An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
its Rules of Procedure .                                                the Court of Justice of the European Communities on


title: Case T-275/08: Action brought on 11 July 2008 — Italy v Commission

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/57

         Action brought on 11 July 2008 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-275/08)
   (2008/C 223/101)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: S. Fiorentino, avvocato dello Stato)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul Commission Decision C (2008) 1709 final of 30 April 2008 on the clearance of the accounts of certain paying agencies of Germany, Italy and Slovakia concerning expenditure financed by the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) in respect of the 2006 financial year, in so far as it charges interest on sums to be borne by the Italian State pursuant to Article 32(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/05 and, in particular, in so far as it accounts for interest, with effect from the date of payment of sums that are not due, on sums which have not been recovered within eight years of the date of the primary administrative or judicial procedure and where judicial proceedings are pending before the national courts or tribunals, 50 % of which is to be borne by the Member State and 50 % by the Community budget.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-274/08 Italian Republic v Commission.


title: Case T-96/09 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 3 April 2009 — UCAPT v Commission (Interim measures — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Failure to comply with the formal requirements — Inadmissible)

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/43

         Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 3 April 2009 — UCAPT v Commission
   (Case T-96/09 R)
   (Interim measures - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Failure to comply with the formal requirements - Inadmissible)
   2009/C 141/92
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Union des Coopératives agricoles des producteurs de tabac de France (UCAPT) (Paris, France) (represented by: B. Peignot and D. Garreau, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Moore and P. Mahnič Bruni, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for suspension of operation of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ 2009 L 30, p. 16).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case T-25/05: Judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2010 — KME Germany and Others v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Copper plumbing tube industry — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Fines — Actual impact on the market — Size of the relevant market — Duration of the infringement — Ability to pay — Cooperation)

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/31

         Judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2010 — KME Germany and Others v Commission
   (Case T-25/05) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Copper plumbing tube industry - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Fines - Actual impact on the market - Size of the relevant market - Duration of the infringement - Ability to pay - Cooperation)
   2010/C 179/52
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: KME Germany AG, formerly KM Europa Metal AG (Osnabrück, Germany); KME France SAS, formerly Tréfimétaux SA (Courbevoie, France); and KME Italy SpA, formerly Europa Metalli SpA (Florence, Italy) (represented by: M. Siragusa, A. Winckler, G.C. Rizza, T. Graf, M. Piergiovanni, lawyers, and R. Elderkin, Barrister)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier, S. Noë and C. Thomas, Agents)

      Re:

   Application, first, for reduction of the fines imposed on the applicants under Article 2(g), (h) and (i) of Commission Decision C(2004) 2826 of 3 September 2004 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/38.069 — Copper plumbing tubes) and, second, by way of counterclaim by the Commission, for those fines to be increased.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Dismisses the European Commission’s counterclaim;

               3.

               Orders KME Germany AG, KME France SAS and KME Italy Spa to bear their own costs and to pay 50 % of the costs incurred by the Commission;

               4.

               Orders the Commission to bear 50 % of its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 2.4.2005.


title: ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 12 July 1996 in Case T-52/96 R: Sogecable SA v. Commission of the European Communities

text:
14 . 9 . 96           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 269/23
                                                    COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT                                                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
          OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                         OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                       of 12 July 1996                                                           of 13 July 1996
in Case T-52/96 R: Sogecable SA v. Commission of the                 in Case T-76/96 R: The National Farmers ' Union and
                    European Communities                               Others v. Commission of the European Communities C )
                         ( 96/C 269/54 )                                                          ( 96/C 269/55 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                     In Case T-76/96 R: The National Farmers' Union, having its
                                                                     headquarters in London, International Traders Ferry
In Case T-52/96 R: Sogecable SA, established in Madrid,              Limited, having its registered office in Tortola (British
represented by Santiago Martinez Lage and Rafael                     Virginia Islands ), UK Genetics, having its registered office
Allendesalazar Corcho, of the Madrid Bar, with an address            in Narrowcombe, Islington, Newton Abbott ( United
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May,             Kingdom ), R. S. and E. M. Wright Limited, having its
31 Grand-Rue, against Commission of the European                     registered office at Mountfarm, Ashby de Launde, Lincoln
Communities ( Agent: Francisco Enrique Gonzalez Diaz ),              ( United Kingdom ), Prosper De Mulder Limited, having its
supported by Cableuropa SA, established in Madrid , Cable i          registered office in Doncaster ( United Kingdom ),
Televisió de Catalunya SA, established in Barcelona , Spain,         represented by Stuart Isaacs QC and Clive Lewis, Barristers ,
Santander de Cable SA, established in Santander, Spain, and          and by Burges Salmon, Solicitor, with an address for service
Jerez de Cable SA, established in Jerez de la Frontera, Spain,       in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger Hoss &
represented by Ramon García-Gallardo, Josep Maria Julia              Prussen, 15 cote d'Eich, supported by the United Kingdom
and Julio Veloso , of the Madrid Bar, of J. & B. Cremades y          of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ( Agents : Lindsey
Asociados , 391 avenue Louise, Brussels , and by Antena 3            Nicoll and Karel Paul Lasok ) v. Commission of the
TV SA, established in Madrid , represented by Rafael                  European Communities ( Agents : Dierk Boos, Xavier Lewis
Jimenez de Parga , of the Barcelona Bar, Aurelio Pappalardo,         and James Macdonald Flett ) — application for suspension
 of the Trapani Bar, and Massimo Merola , of the Rome Bar,            of operation of Commission Decision 96/239/EC of
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers             27 March 1996 on emergency measures to protect against
 of Alain Lorang, 51 rue Albert I — application for                   bovine spongiform encephalopathy ( 2 ), the President of the
 suspension of the operation of the decision adopted by               Court of First Instance made an order on 13 July 1996 , the
 the Commission on 8 February 1996 ( IV/M.0709                        operative part of which is as follows :
 Telefónica/Canal Plus/Cablevisión ) pursuant to Council
 Regulation ( EEC ) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the
 control of concentrations between undertakings and for               1 . Prosper De Mulder Limited shall be removed from the
 interim measures restraining the Commission from                           list of applicants in the proceedings for interim relief;
 adopting any act or decision under Articles 8 , 13 , 14 and 15
 of that Regulation until such time as the Court of First
 Instance has ruled on the validity of the decision contested in
 the main proceedings — the President of the Court of First           2 . the United Kingdom is given leave to intervene in
 Instance made an order on 12 July 1996 , the operative part                support of the form of order sought by the applicants in
 of which is as follows :                                                   the proceedings for interim relief;
                                                                      3 . the application for interim relief is dismissed;
  1 . the interim application is dismissed;
                                                                      4.    the costs are reserved.
 2.   costs are reserved.
                                                                      (') OJ No C 210, 20 . 7. 1996 , p. 22 .
                                                                      ( 2 ) OJ No L 78 , 28 . 3 . 1996 , p . 47 .


title: Case C-163/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag (Nederland) lodged on 21 March 2016 — Christian Louboutin, Christian Louboutin SAS v Van Haren Schoenen BV

text:
               13.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/30

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag (Nederland) lodged on 21 March 2016 — Christian Louboutin, Christian Louboutin SAS v Van Haren Schoenen BV
      (Case C-163/16)
      (2016/C 211/39)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Rechtbank Den Haag

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Christian Louboutin, Christian Louboutin SAS

         Defendant: Van Haren Schoenen BV

         Question referred

      Is the notion of ‘shape’ within the meaning of Article 3(1)(e)(iii) of Directive 2008/95/EC (1) (‘Form’, ‘vorm’ and ‘forme’ in the German, Dutch and French language versions of the Trade Marks Directive respectively) limited to the three-dimensional properties of the goods, such as their contours, measurements and volume (expressed three-dimensionally), or does it include other (non three-dimensional) properties of the goods, such as their colour?

         (1)  Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (Codified version) (OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25).


title: Case C-322/06: Order of the President of the Court of 30 April 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
               4.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/29

         Order of the President of the Court of 30 April 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-322/06) (1)

   (2007/C 183/51)

      Language of the case: Dutch

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

      (1)  OJ C 224, 16.9.2006.


title: Case T-658/14: Judgment of the General Court of 7 October 2015 — Jurašinović v Council (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents exchange with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former-Yugoslavia in the course of legal proceedings — Decision taken following the partial annulment by the Tribunal of the initial decision — Partial refusal of access — Exception relating to the protection of international relations)

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/55

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 October 2015 — Jurašinović v Council
   (Case T-658/14) (1)

   ((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents exchange with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former-Yugoslavia in the course of legal proceedings - Decision taken following the partial annulment by the Tribunal of the initial decision - Partial refusal of access - Exception relating to the protection of international relations))
   (2015/C 398/69)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Ivan Jurašinović (Angers, France) (represented by: O. Pfligersdorffer and S. Durieu, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: E. Rebasti and A. Jensen, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Council decision of 8 July 2014 refusing to grant the applicant full access to certain documents exchanged with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in the case against A. Gotovina, taken following the partial annulment of the initial decision by judgment of 3 October 2012 in Jurašinović v Council (T-63/10, Rec, EU:T:2012:516).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the action in so far as the form of order seeking annulment of the decision of the Council of the European Union of 8 July 2014 refusing to grant Mr Ivan Jurašinović full access to certain documents exchanged with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in the proceedings against Mr A. Gotovina, taken following the partial annulment of the initial decision by judgment of 3 October 2012 in Jurašinović v Council (T-63/10, Rec, EU:T:2012:516)concern Documents No 7, 25, 33, 34 and 36.

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action.

               3.

               Orders Mr Jurašinović to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council.

      (1)  OJ C 380, 27.10.2014.