title: Case C-44/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 5 February 2015 —Hauptzollamt Frankfurt am Main v Duval GmbH & Co. KG

text:
               20.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 127/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 5 February 2015 —Hauptzollamt Frankfurt am Main v Duval GmbH & Co. KG
   (Case C-44/15)
   (2015/C 127/17)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Hauptzollamt Frankfurt am Main

      Respondent: Duval GmbH & Co. KG

      Questions referred

               1.

               In the absence of an abstract definition of what constitutes a thermometer as referred to in CN heading 9025, should CN heading 9025 (‘thermometers’) be taken, exceptionally, to comprise only the devices listed in the Explanatory Notes to the Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding System concerning CN heading 9025, Section B (thermometers and pyrometers, recording or not — Nos 08.0 to 28.0)?

               2.

               If this question is to be answered in the negative: Should it be deduced from the listing of the devices in the Explanatory Notes to the HS concerning CN heading 9025 that devices which do not function in ways that are incorporated in those devices (measuring of temperature by means, for example, of the mechanical expansion of liquids or metals, physical changes or electrical impulses, etc.) cannot be classified as falling under CN heading 9025?

               3.

               If this question too is to be answered in the negative: Do thermometers within the meaning of CN heading 9025 also include devices which indicate that the temperature of an object which is to be measured has reached a predetermined value (threshold value), even if the device does not meet such criteria as reproducibility of the measurement result, continuous indication of changes in temperature and the possibility of using the device repeatedly?


title: Case T-422/08 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 14 November 2008 — Sacem v Commission (Interim measures — Decision of the Commission ordering cessation of a concerted practice in connection with the collective management of author's rights — Application for stay of execution — Lack of urgency)

text:
               10.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/31

         Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 14 November 2008 — Sacem v Commission
   (Case T-422/08 R)
   (Interim measures - Decision of the Commission ordering cessation of a concerted practice in connection with the collective management of author's rights - Application for stay of execution - Lack of urgency)
   (2009/C 6/65)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Société des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs de musique (Sacem) (Neuilly-sur-Seine, France) (represented by: H. Calvet, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and É. Gippini Fournier, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Application for a stay of execution of Commission Decision C(2008) final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC)
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 2004 in Case T-341/02: Regione Siciliana v Commission of the European Communities (ERDF — Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 — Termination of financial assistance — Action for annulment — Direct concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               9.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/15

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 8 July 2004
   in Case T-341/02: Regione Siciliana v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (ERDF - Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 - Termination of financial assistance - Action for annulment - Direct concern - Inadmissibility)
   (2004/C 251/27)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case T-341/02: Regione Siciliana, represented by I. Braguglia, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg v Commission of the European Communities (Agents: E. de March and L. Flynn, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — action for annulment of Commission Decision D (2002) 810439 of 5 September 2002 terminating the financial contributions from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) in respect of the major project ‘Messina-Palermo motorway’ (ERDF No 93.05.03.001 – ARINCO No 93.IT.16.009) — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of J. Azizi, President, M. Jaeger and F. Dehousse, Judges; H. Jung, Register, made an order on 8 July 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               (1)

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               (2)

               The applicant is ordered to bear its own costs and those incurred by the defendant.

      (1)  OJ No C 7 of 11.1.2003.


title: Case T-534/13: Judgment of the General Court of 7 October 2015 — Panrico v OHIM — HDN Development (Krispy Kreme DOUGHNUTS) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community figurative mark Krispy Kreme DOUGHNUTS — Earlier national and international word and figurative marks DONUT, DOGHNUTS, donuts and donuts cream — Relative ground of refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Likelihood of profit derived unduly from the distinctive character or reputation — Risk of detriment — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009))

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/35

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 October 2015 — Panrico v OHIM — HDN Development (Krispy Kreme DOUGHNUTS)
   (Case T-534/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community figurative mark Krispy Kreme DOUGHNUTS - Earlier national and international word and figurative marks DONUT, DOGHNUTS, donuts and donuts cream - Relative ground of refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Likelihood of profit derived unduly from the distinctive character or reputation - Risk of detriment - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009)))
   (2015/C 398/45)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

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

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: HDN Development Corp. (Frankfort, Kentucky, United States) (represented by: H. Granado Carpenter and M. Polo Carreňo, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 July 2013 (Case R 623/2011-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Panrico SA and HDN Development Corp.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders Panrico SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 9, 11.1.2014.


title: Case T-412/09: Action brought on 14 October 2009 — CEA v Commission

text:
               19.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 312/35

         Action brought on 14 October 2009 — CEA v Commission
   (Case T-412/09)
   2009/C 312/58
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Commissariat à l’énergie atomique (CEA) (Paris, France) (represented by: J. García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier, M. Arias Díaz and C. Humpe, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               Acknowledge receipt of the application (application, authority to represent the applicant, together with copies and documents) and declare it admissible;

               —

               examine the application lodged for and on behalf of CEA by its legal representatives;

               —

               pursuant to Article 230 EC, annul the Commission’s decision — notified to CEA by a letter dated 29 July 2009 — refusing to treat the ‘indemnités de départ à la retraite’ (retirement allowances; ‘IDR’) paid by CEA as eligible indirect costs and to grant CEA a certificate on the accounting methodology;

               —

               in the alternative, declare, pursuant to Article 238 EC, (i) that the IDR is an eligible cost in accordance with the contractual provisions of the 7th Research Framework Programme, and (ii) that the European Community has failed to comply with its contractual commitments towards CEA in relation to the 7th Research Framework Programme;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Principally, by its action on the basis of Article 230 EC, the Commissariat à l’énergie atomique (CEA) seeks the annulment of the Commission’s final decision, notified to CEA on 29 July 2009, refusing to treat the retirement allowances paid by CEA as eligible indirect costs and to grant CEA a certificate on the accounting methodology so that it can declare its indirect personnel costs in order to obtain reimbursement of costs incurred during the implementation of projects which are co-financed in connection with the 7th Research Framework Programme.
   CEA takes the view that the Commission’s decision that the retirement allowances do not constitute eligible indirect costs is based on errors of law and manifest errors of assessment of the facts, and that the Commission has failed to have regard to the principles of good administration, legal certainty, proportionality and the protection of legitimate expectations.
   In the alternative, CEA seeks a declaration on the basis of Article 238 EC that the Commission has failed to comply with its contractual commitments towards CEA by refusing to treat the retirement allowances paid by CEA as eligible costs and, accordingly, to reimburse them.


title: Case C-126/12: Order of the President of the Ninth Chamber of the Court of 23 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Edgar Brück v Agentur für Arbeit Villingen-Schwenningen — Familienkasse

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/56

         Order of the President of the Ninth Chamber of the Court of 23 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Edgar Brück v Agentur für Arbeit Villingen-Schwenningen — Familienkasse
   (Case C-126/12) (1)

   2013/C 225/110
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Ninth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 184, 23.6.2012.


title: Case T-391/10: Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — Nedri Spanstaal v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European prestressing steel market — Quota fixing and price fixing, market sharing and exchanging of sensitive commercial information — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Ceiling of 10 % of turnover — Relevant turnover — Cooperation during the administrative procedure — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines)

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/33

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — Nedri Spanstaal v Commission
   (Case T-391/10) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European prestressing steel market - Quota fixing and price fixing, market sharing and exchanging of sensitive commercial information - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Ceiling of 10 % of turnover - Relevant turnover - Cooperation during the administrative procedure - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines))
   (2015/C 302/42)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Nedri Spanstaal BV (Venlo, Netherlands) (represented initially by M. Slotboom and B. Haan, and subsequently by M. Slotboom, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Van Nuffel, S. Noë and V. Bottka, Agents)

      Re:

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

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Nedri Spanstaal BV to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.


title: Action brought on 23 July 1998 by Dolores Rodriguez Pérez, Francisco Andrada Sanz, Pablo Fernández Ruiz, Fabriciano Corchete Vicente, Antonio Oliva Español, Miguel Alay Marcos, Geraldine O'Shea, Ana Luisa Muller, Alfonso Novoa Diz, Ernesto Pérez Carbonell, Alfredo Escribano Martínez, Soledad Blanco Mangudo, Enrique Rojas de Montis, Joan Antoni Salmurri Trintxet, Federica Burel Louberry, Elena Frutos Zamarrón, Rafael Aguirre Unceta, Manuel Parejo Pagador, Pablo Pardo Ortiz, Santiago Vazquez Souto, Concepción Sanmartín Quintela, Saturnino Durán Vidal, Luis Guembe Casi and Alfonso Ruiz de Azúa Castaño against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-114/98)

text:
C 340/22             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   7.11.98
at Cesena (Italy), represented by Carlo Piccoli and                 1. the application is dismissed as inadmissible.
Fabrizio Fabbri, of the Forlì-Cesena Bar, and FrancËois
Turk, of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service            2. the applicant shall bear the whole of the costs.
in Luxembourg at the latter's Chambers, 13a Avenue
Guillaume, v. Commission of the European Communities                (1) OJ C 137 of 2.5.1998.
(Agent: Francesco P. Ruggeri Laderchi) Ð application for
partial annulment of Commission Regulation (EC)
No 1488/97 of 29 July 1997 amending Council
Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 on organic production of
agricultural products and indications referring thereto on
                                                                                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 202 of
                                                                              OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
30.7.1997, p. 12) Ð the Court of First Instance (First
Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, and                                      of 12 August 1998
R. M. Moura Ramos and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung,                 in Case T-42/98 R: Maria Paola Sabbatucci v. European
Registrar, made an order on 9 September 1998, the                                              Parliament
operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                    (Application for interim measures Ð Amicable settlement
                                                                    Ð Binding nature Ð Mandatory removal from the
1. the application is dismissed as inadmissible;
                                                                                register Ð Conditions)
                                                                                (98/C 340/44)
2. the applicants are to pay the costs.                                             (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                    In Case T-42/98 R: Maria Paola Sabbatucci, an official of
(1) OJ C 387 of 20.12.1997.                                         the European Parliament, residing in Luxembourg,
                                                                    represented by Alberto Dal Ferro and Andrea Cevese, of
                                                                    the Vicenza Bar, with an address for service at the
                                                                    Chambers of Mr Morresi, 67 Avenue des Nerviens,
                                                                    Brussels, v. European Parliament (Agents: Antonio Caiola
                                                                    and Evelyn Waldherr) Ð application for interim measures
                                                                    made pursuant to Article 91(4) of the Staff Regulations of
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                           officials of the European Communities and in accordance
                      (Fourth Chamber)                              with Articles 185 and 186 of the EC Treaty Ð the
                                                                    President of the Court of First Instance made an order on
                    of 17 September 1998                            12 August 1998, the operative part of which is as follows:
in Case T-40/98: Giuliano Pagliarani v. Commission of               1. Case T-42/98 R is removed from the register.
                the European Communities (1)
                                                                    2. The costs are reserved.
(Officials Ð Determination of grade Ð New facts Ð Not
                         permissible)
                        (98/C 340/43)
               (Language of the case: French)                       Action brought on 23 July 1998 by Dolores Rodriguez
                                                                    PeÂrez, Francisco Andrada Sanz, Pablo FernaÂndez Ruiz,
                                                                    Fabriciano Corchete Vicente, Antonio Oliva EspanÄol,
In Case T-40/98: Giuliano Pagliarani, member of the                 Miguel Alay Marcos, Geraldine O'Shea, Ana Luisa
temporary staff of the Commission of the European                   Muller, Alfonso Novoa Diz, Ernesto PeÂrez Carbonell,
Communities, residing in Brussels, represented by Mario             Alfredo Escribano Martínez, Soledad Blanco Mangudo,
Spandre and Claudio Mereu, of the Brussels Bar, with an             Enrique Rojas de Montis, Joan Antoni Salmurri Trintxet,
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Mr             Federica Burel Louberry, Elena Frutos Zamarrón, Rafael
Thielen, 21 rue de Nassau, against Commission of the                Aguirre Unceta, Manuel Parejo Pagador, Pablo Pardo
European Communities (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and                Ortiz, Santiago Vazquez Souto, Concepción Sanmartín
Christine Berardis-Kayser) Ð application for, first, the            Quintela, Saturnino DuraÂn Vidal, Luis Guembe Casi and
annulment of the decision of the appointing authority of            Alfonso Ruiz de AzuÂa CastanÄo against the Commission of
28 October 1993 classifying the applicant in Grade B 3                                the European Communities
step 3 and of the decision of the appointing authority of                                  (Case T-114/98)
8 December 1997 rejecting the applicant's complaint
                                                                                (98/C 340/45)
inasmuch as it does not take account of certified
professional experience and, secondly, a claim for                                 (Language of the case: Spanish)
compensation for material damage allegedly suffered by
the applicant as a result of those decisions Ð the Court of         An action against the Commission of the European
First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: P. Lindh,             Communities was brought before the Court of First
President, K. Lenaerts and J. D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung,            Instance of the European Communities on 23 July 1998
Registrar, made an order on 17 September 1998, the                  by Dolores Rodriguez PeÂrez, Francisco Andrada Sanz,
operative part of which is as follows:                              Pablo FernaÂndez Ruiz, Fabriciano Corchete Vicente,
 ---pagebreak--- 7.11.98              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                C 340/23
Antonio Oliva EspanÄol, Miguel Alay Marcos, Geraldine               twelve years of negotiation, no agreement has yet been
O'Shea, Ana Luisa Muller, Alfonso Novoa Diz, Ernesto                reached on the content of the said Royal Decree.
PeÂrez Carbonell, Alfredo Escribano Martínez, Soledad
Blanco Mangudo, Enrique Rojas de Montis, Joan Antoni                The applicants also submit that the defendant has
Salmurri Trintxet, Federica Burel Louberry, Elena Frutos            gone too far in withdrawing the technical assistance
Zamarrón, Rafael Aguirre Unceta, Manuel Parejo                      accorded, knowing that they are engaged in proceedings
Pagador, Pablo Pardo Ortiz, Santiago Vazquez Souto,                 before the Spanish courts. Despite the appointing
Concepción Sanmartín Quintela, Saturnino DuraÂn Vidal,              authority's assertion in its decision that the withdrawal
Luis Guembe Casi and Alfonso Ruiz de AzuÂa CastanÄo,                of technical assistance does not imply discontinuance
residing in Brussels and Luxembourg, represented by                 of the proceedings brought, in practice it does entail
Antonio Creus and BegonÄa Uriarte Valiente, of the                  discontinuance as the applicants are deprived of the
Barcelona and Madrid Bar, with an address for service in            technical assistance of their institution.
Brussels at 78 Avenue d'Auderghem.
                                                                    Finally, the applicants plead breach of the duty to state
                                                                    reasons in this case.
The applicants claim that the Court should:
Ð annul the Commission Decision of 10 November
     1997, refusing to provide the applicants with financial
     and technical assistance in their action concerning the
     transfer of pension rights acquired under the Spanish          Action brought on 23 July 1998 by JoseÂ Ma Olivares
     pension scheme, and the Decision of 19 June 1998               Ramos, Angel VinÄas Martín, Paloma Díez Pardo, Carlos
     rejecting the complaint made by the applicants;                Gil Renaux, JoseÂ Luis Roselló López, Rosario DomeÂnech
                                                                    Cobo, Miguel Lobato GonzaÂlez, Eduardo PenÄa Abizanda,
                                                                    Manuel de Lucas Casas, Eduardo Sorribes Manzana,
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs of these                    Ricardo Puente Sala, JoseÂ Ma Plaza SaÂnchez, JoseÂ Ramón
     proceedings.                                                   Borrell Nivera, Francisco FernaÂndez Ruiz, Rafael García
                                                                    Palencia, Antonio Espino Morcillo, Bonifacio Marín
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 PeÂrez, Teresa de la Mora, Pablo Amor Echeverri, Luis
                                                                    Montoya Morón, Amador Rodríguez Prieto, Marco
                                                                    Marcos Rodríguez, Emilio López Menchero, Leopoldo
The applicants, who are Commission officials, take issue
                                                                    Fabra Utray, Gonzalo Molina Igartua, Gonzalo GimeÂnez
with the refusal of the appointing authority to provide
                                                                    AndreÂs, Pedro Tarno FernaÂndez, Manuel Rodríguez
them with financial and technical assistance in the
                                                                    Alonso, Ana María Cobos Aguirre, Fernando Truyols
proceedings brought before the national courts regarding
                                                                    Zaforteza, Isabel de Eguía Antolín, Victor Pou Serradell,
the absence under Spanish law of any means of
                                                                    Lucía Ramón Amat, Joaquín FerraÂn PeÂrez-Portabella,
transferring pension rights acquired under the Spanish
                                                                    JesuÂs SuaÂrez Avila, Pablo JimeÂnez FernaÂndez, Rosa
pension scheme to the Community scheme. In the
                                                                    Quevedo Díez, Angeles Santos Asenjo, Francisco de
abovementioned decision of 10 November 1997, the
                                                                    Vicente, Carlos Arroyos, Antonio Lopez PenÄa, Valeriano
Commission justified its refusal by reference to the
                                                                    Díaz García, Alfonso GonzaÂlez Finat, Antonio FernaÂndez
advanced stage reached in the negotiations with the
                                                                    AvileÂs, Miguel AbellaÂn López, Angel GonzaÂlez Leiro,
Spanish State regarding the adoption of a Royal Decree to
                                                                    Fernando Aragón Morales, Rafael Valls i Pursals, JesuÂs
fill the legal vacuum, and to the fact that the Kingdom of
                                                                    Garijo, Alexandre Checchi Lang, Rafael Cepas Palanca,
Spain had already been explicitly condemned by the Court
                                                                    Eduardo de la PenÄa Vega, Antonio Alonso Madero, Jaime
of Justice over the same matter.
                                                                    Díez-Canseco, Enrique Juaristi Martínez and Pablo
                                                                    Benavides against the Commission of the European
This action is based on the breach of the principle of                                       Communities
equal treatment, in that the applicants suffered                                          (Case T-115/98)
discrimination in comparison with other Spanish officials
who, in an identical case a few months previously,                                          (98/C 340/46)
received financial assistance from the institution, and in
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
comparison with other officials who, in similar cases, were
also assisted by their institution.                                 An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
The applicants, for their part, submit that in this case the        Instance of the European Communities on 23 July 1998
Commission has confused technical assistance' with the             by JoseÂ Ma Olivares Ramos, Angel VinÄas Martín, Paloma
pursuit of negotiations with the Spanish State. However,            Díez Pardo, Carlos Gil Renaux, JoseÂ Luis Roselló López,
in their opinion, the negotiation with the national                 Rosario DomeÂnech Cobo, Miguel Lobato GonzaÂlez,
authorities of a legal provision which will allow pension           Eduardo PenÄa Abizanda, Manuel de Lucas Casas,
rights to be transferred cannot be considered to be                 Eduardo Sorribes Manzana, Ricardo Puente Sala, Jose Ma
technical assistance' within the meaning of Article 24 of          Plaza SaÂnchez, JoseÂ Ramón Borrell Nivera, Francisco
the Staff Regulations since such negotiations fall within           FernaÂndez Ruiz, Rafael García Palencia, Antonio Espino
the obligations incumbent upon the Commission under                 Morcillo, Bonifacio Marín PeÂrez, Teresa de la Mora,
Article 155 of the Treaty and, even if their pursuit could          Pablo Amor Echeverri, Luis Montoya Morón, Amador
be considered to be technical assistance', quod non, it            Rodríguez Prieto, Marco Marcos Rodríguez, Emilio López
could not be considered genuine or effective, since, after          Menchero, Leopoldo Fabra Utray, Gonzalo Molina


title: Case T-303/02: Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 5 December 2006 — Westfalen Gassen Nederland v Commission (Competition — Cartels — Dutch market for industrial and medical gases — Price fixing — Proof of participation in the cartel — Proof of distancing — Principles of non-discrimination and proportionality — Calculation of fines)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/30

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 5 December 2006 — Westfalen Gassen Nederland v Commission
   (Case T-303/02) (1)

   (Competition - Cartels - Dutch market for industrial and medical gases - Price fixing - Proof of participation in the cartel - Proof of distancing - Principles of non-discrimination and proportionality - Calculation of fines)
   (2006/C 331/66)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Westfalen Gassen Nederland BV (Deventer, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Essers and M. Custers, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Bouquet, Agent)
   Re:
   Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2003/207/EC of 24 July 2002 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty (case COMP/E 3/36.700 — Industrial and medical gases) (OJ 2003 L 84, p. 1) and, alternatively, reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Westfalen Gassen Nederland BV to bear its own costs and to pay three quarters of those incurred by the Commission and orders the Commission to bear one quarter of its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 305, 17.12.2002.


title: Case T-493/07: Action brought on 28 December 2007 — GlaxoSmithKline v OHIM — Serono Genetics Institute (FAMOXIN)

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/59

         Action brought on 28 December 2007 — GlaxoSmithKline v OHIM — Serono Genetics Institute (FAMOXIN)
   (Case T-493/07)
   (2008/C 51/107)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: GlaxoSmithkline SpA (Verona, Italy) (represented by: G. Richard, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Serono Genetics Institute SA (Evry, France)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 14 September 2007 in Case R 8/2007-1 and declare the request for invalidation brought by the applicant to be well founded;

               —

               the applicant invites the Board to annul all cost orders made against the applicant by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market, and to order the later to bear the costs of the applicant.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The Community word mark ‘FAMOXIN’ for goods and services in Class 5 — Application No 2 491 298

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Serono Genetics Institute SA

      Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Trade mark right of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity: The national word mark ‘LANOXIN’ for goods in Class 5

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the application for invalidation in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 52 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94.


title: Case C-610/14: Order of the President of the Ninth Chamber of the Court of 18 January 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Prešov — Slovakia) — Helena Kolcunová v Provident Financial s. r. o.

text:
               18.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 136/22

         Order of the President of the Ninth Chamber of the Court of 18 January 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Prešov — Slovakia) — Helena Kolcunová v Provident Financial s. r. o.
   (Case C-610/14) (1)

   (2016/C 136/28)
   Language of the case: Slovak
   The President of the Ninth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 118, 13.4.2015.


title: Case T-40/08: Action brought on 26 January 2008 — EREF v Commission

text:
               26.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/26

         Action brought on 26 January 2008 — EREF v Commission
   (Case T-40/08)
   (2008/C 107/45)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: European Renewable Energies Federation ASBL (EREF) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: D. Fouquet, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               The Decision C(2007) 4323 final of the European Commission of 25 September 2007 is declared null and void;

               —

               the financial vehicle in question in its present shape and structure is declared unlawful state aid;

               —

               the European Commission is ordered to pay all procedural costs, including the costs of the claimant.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In 2004 the applicant filed a complaint with the Commission claiming that different aspects of the financing of a new power plant under construction in Finland amounted to state aid that had not been notified. The state aid aspects of the complaint were registered by the Commission under case number CP 238/04 and in 2006 the Commission decided to split the file into two separate cases numbered NN 62/A/2006 and NN 62/B/2006.
   In the present case, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 4323 final of 25 September 2007 concerning case NN 62/A/2006, notified to it on 14 November 2007, by which the Commission concluded that the export guarantee provided by the French export credit agency (‘COFACE’) granting a credit for the financing of the new power plant unit ‘Olkiluoto 3’ purchased by the Finnish electricity generation company Teollisuuden Voima Oy (‘TVO’) did not constitute illegal state aid and thus, decided to close the investigation.
   The applicant claims that the export guarantee or credit insurance of EUR 570 000 provided by COFACE to TVO constitutes illegal intercommunity aid due to its financial impact on the overall financing package of the project concerned. The applicant contends that the guarantee constituted unlawful state aid in so far as it was provided by COFACE acting as a public agency on the account of France which undertook responsibility to cover repayment of the credit to the bank consortium in case TVO was unable to pay and in so far as it conferred an unfair economic advantage to TVO, facilitating its access to the market and securing its future financing potential. In addition, the applicant submits that such a secured loan will enable TVO to produce electricity at a considerably lower cost.
   Further, it asserts that the splitting of the file into two separate cases violates essential procedural rules and leads to incorrect assessments.


title: Joined Cases C-91/16 and C-120/16: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 September 2016 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 60 de Madrid — Spain) — Caixabank SA v Héctor Benlliure Santiago (C-91/16), Abanca Corporación Bancaria SA v Juan José González Rey, María Consuelo González Rey, Francisco Rodríguez Alonso (C-120/16) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms — Default interest rate — Application of the remunerative interest rate — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Inadmissibility)

text:
               5.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 454/14

      Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 September 2016 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 60 de Madrid — Spain) — Caixabank SA v Héctor Benlliure Santiago (C-91/16), Abanca Corporación Bancaria SA v Juan José González Rey, María Consuelo González Rey, Francisco Rodríguez Alonso (C-120/16)
      (Joined Cases C-91/16 and C-120/16) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms - Default interest rate - Application of the remunerative interest rate - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Inadmissibility))
      (2016/C 454/27)
      Language of the cases: Spanish

         Referring court

      Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 60 de Madrid

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Caixabank SA (C-91/16), Abanca Corporación Bancaria SA (C-120/16)

         Defendants: Héctor Benlliure Santiago (C-91/16), Juan José González Rey, María Consuelo González Rey, Francisco Rodríguez Alonso (C-120/16)

         Operative part of the order

      The requests for a preliminary ruling made by the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 60 de Madrid (Court of First Instance No 60, Madrid, Spain), by decisions of 8 February 2016 (Case C-91/16) and of 18 February 2016 (Case C-120/16), are manifestly inadmissible.

         (1)  OJ C 175, 17.5.2016.


title: Case C-417/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 23 August 2010 — Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze; Agenzia delle Entrate v 3 M Italia SpA

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/23

      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 23 August 2010 — Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze; Agenzia delle Entrate v 3 M Italia SpA
      (Case C-417/10)
      ()
      (2010/C 288/41)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Corte Suprema di Cassazione

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze; Agenzia delle Entrate

         Defendant: 3 M Italia SpA

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Does the abuse of rights principle in taxation matters, as defined in Cases C-255/02 Halifax and Others [2006] ECR I-1609 and C-425/06 Part Service [2008] ECR I-897, constitute a fundamental principle of Community law only in the field of harmonised taxes and in matters governed by secondary Community law provisions, or does it extend, as a category of abuse of fundamental freedoms, to matters involving non-harmonised taxes, such as direct taxes, where the tax relates to transnational financial matters, such as the acquisition by a company of rights of usufruct over the shares of a second company established in another Member State or in a non-Member State?

                  2.

                  Irrespective of the answer to the first question, is there a Community interest in provision being made by the Member States for adequate anti-avoidance measures in the field of non-harmonised taxes, and is such an interest thwarted by the failure to apply — in the context of a tax amnesty measure — the abuse of rights principle which is also recognised as a rule of national law and, if so, are the principles that may be inferred from Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union infringed?

                  3.

                  Do the principles governing the single market impliedly preclude not only extraordinary measures in the form of a total waiver of a tax claim, but also an extraordinary measure for concluding tax disputes whose application is limited in time and conditional upon payment of only part of the tax due, which is considerably less than the full amount?

                  4.

                  Do the principle of non-discrimination and the rules governing State aid preclude the system for concluding tax disputes at issue in the present case?

                  5.

                  Does the principle of the effective application of Community law preclude extraordinary procedural rules of limited duration which remove the power to review legality (in particular concerning the correct interpretation and application of Community law) from the court of last instance, which is under an obligation to refer questions of validity and interpretation requiring a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union?


title: Case C-88/03: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 September 2006 — Portuguese Republic v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — State aid — Decision 2003/442/EC — Tax measures adopted by a regional or local authority — Reductions on the rate of income tax for natural and legal persons having their tax residence in the Azores — Classification as State aid — Selective nature — Justification by the nature and overall structure of the tax system — Obligation to state reasons — Compatibility with the common market)

text:
               28.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/1

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 September 2006 — Portuguese Republic v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-88/03) (1)

   (Action for annulment - State aid - Decision 2003/442/EC - Tax measures adopted by a regional or local authority - Reductions on the rate of income tax for natural and legal persons having their tax residence in the Azores - Classification as State aid - Selective nature - Justification by the nature and overall structure of the tax system - Obligation to state reasons - Compatibility with the common market)
   (2006/C 261/01)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Fernandes, Agent, and J. da Cruz Vilaça and L. Romão, advogados)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Di Bucci and F. de Sousa Fialho, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Spain (Agent: N. Díaz Abad), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (R. Caudwell, Agent, and D. Anderson QC)

   Re:
   Annulment of Commission Decision C(2002) 4487 final in so far as it considers State aid incompatible with the common market the reduction of the rate of income tax for natural and legal persons having their tax residence on the Azores and pursuing certain financial activities (Section J, codes 65, 66 and 67 and Section K, code 74, of the Statistical Classification of Economic Activities in the European Community — NACE REV1.1)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Kingdom of Spain to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 112, 10.5.2003.


title: Case F-7/09: Action brought on 30 January 2009 — Faria v OHIM

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/55

         Action brought on 30 January 2009 — Faria v OHIM
   (Case F-7/09)
   (2009/C 69/122)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Marie-Hélène Faria (Muchamiel, Spain) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
   Subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Application for annulment of the evaluation report in respect of the period from 1 October 2006 to 30 September 2007, and an order that the defendant pay compensation for the loss suffered by the applicant.
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims the Tribunal should:

               —

               Annul the evaluation report in respect of the period from 1 October 2006 to 30 September 2007;

               —

               So far as necessary, annul the decision of 17 October 2008 rejecting the complaint brought by the applicant;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay damages to compensate for the non-material harm suffered, assessed on equitable principles at EUR 100 000;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.


title: Case C-46/07: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 November 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of Member State to fulfil its obligations — Article 141 EC — Social Policy — Equal pay for male and female workers — Concept of pay — Officials' retirement scheme)

text:
               10.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/3

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 November 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-46/07) (1)

   (Failure of Member State to fulfil its obligations - Article 141 EC - Social Policy - Equal pay for male and female workers - Concept of ‘pay’ - Officials' retirement scheme)
   (2009/C 6/05)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Pignataro-Nolin and M. van Beek, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: I. Braguglia, Agent and G. Fiengo and W. Ferrante, Lawyers)
   Re:
   Failure of Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Article 141 EC — Infringement of the principle of equal pay for male and female workers — National legislation providing for a retirement age for public officials which varies according to sex
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               declares that by maintaining provisions under which the age at which officials have the right to receive the old-age pension varies according to whether they are men or women, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 141 EC;

               2.

               orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 14.4.2007.


title: Case T-331/15: Action brought on 23 June 2015 — Bimbo v OHIM (THE SNACK COMPANY)

text:
               10.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/37

         Action brought on 23 June 2015 — Bimbo v OHIM (THE SNACK COMPANY)
   (Case T-331/15)
   (2015/C 262/50)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

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

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

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘THE SNACK COMPANY’ — Application for registration No 12 173 852

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 March 2015 in Case R 954/2014-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               grant registration of the trade mark applied for;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of the principle of equal treatment;

               —

               Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Removal from the register of case T-201/94

text:
22.2.2003              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                     C 44/45
        Removal from the register of Case T-201/94 (1)                            Removal from the register of Case T-262/01 (1)
                         (2003/C 44/82)
                                                                                (2003/C 44/83)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
By order of 27 November 2002 the President of the First
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case                 By order of 29 November 2002 the Court of First Instance of
T-201/94: Erwin Kustermann v Council of the European                      the European Communities (Sole Judge: J. Azizi) ordered the
Union and Commission of the European Communities.                         removal from the register of Case T-262/01: Jürgen Sachau v
                                                                          Commission of the European Communities.
( 1) OJ C 218 of 6.8.1994.
                                                                          (1 ) OJ C 3 of 5.1.2002.


title: Case T-144/14: Action brought on 3 March 2014 — EE v OHIM (Device of an ivory dotted pattern)

text:
               5.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 135/57

         Action brought on 3 March 2014 — EE v OHIM (Device of an ivory dotted pattern)
   (Case T-144/14)
   2014/C 135/75
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: EE Ltd (Hatfield, United Kingdom) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

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

      Form 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 7 January 2014 given in Case R 705/2013-1.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative trade mark representing a device of an ivory pattern for goods and services in Classes 7, 9, 16, 25, 35-39, 41, 42 and 45 — Community trade mark application No 11 388 493

      Decision of the Examiner: Found the mark applied for not eligible for registration

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) CTMR.


title: Case T-255/15: Action brought on 19 May 2015 — Almaz-Antey/Council

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/69

         Action brought on 19 May 2015 — Almaz-Antey/Council
   (Case T-255/15)
   (2015/C 294/84)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: OAO Concern PVO Almaz-Antey (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: C. Stumpf and A. Haak, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/432 of 13 March 2015 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2015 L 70, p. 47) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/427 of 13 March 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2015 L 70, p. 1), insofar those measures apply to the applicant;

               —

               order that the Council should pay the applicant’s 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 that the Council failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons for including the applicant on the lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictive measures in view of the situation in Ukraine.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Council has manifestly erred in considering that any of the criteria for listing in the contested measures were fulfilled in the applicant’s case.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant’s decision infringes the principle of proportionality.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the entire reasoning of the defendant fails to meet the requirements for restrictive measures.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council has infringed, without justification or proportion, the Applicant’s fundamental rights, including the applicant’s rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 29 June 1995 in Case T-30/91: Solvay SA v. Commission of the European Communities (Competition P Concerted practice P Presumption of innocence P Administrative procedure P Rights of the defence P Equality of arms P Access to the file)

text:
12 . 8 . 95             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 208 /21
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                Decision 91 /298/EEC of 19 December 1990 relating to a
                          of 29 June 1995                               proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty
                                                                        ( IV/33.133-B : Soda-ash — Solvay, CFK) ( 2 ), the Court of
in Case T-30/91 : Solvay SA v. Commission of the European               First Instance ( First Chamber sitting in extended
                          Communities ( x )                             composition ), composed of: J. L. Cruz Vilaça, President,
(Competition — Concerted practice — Presumption of                      and D. P. M. Barrington, A. Saggio, H. Kirschner and A.
innocence — Administrative procedure — Rights of the                    Kalogeropoulos , Judges , H. Jung, Registrar, has given a
       defence — Equality of arms — Access to the file)                 judgment on 29 June 1995 , in which it:
                            ( 95/C 208/44 )
                                                                        1 . annuls Commission Decision 91 /298/EEC of
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                               19 December 1990 relating to a proceeding under
                                                                               Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (IV/33.133-B : SodaLash —
                                                                               Solvay, CFK), in so far as it concerns the applicant;
In Case T-30/91 : Solvay SA, formerly Solvay et Cie SA,
established in Brussels , represented by Lucien Simont,                 2 . orders the Commission to pay the costs.
Advocate at the Belgian Court of Cassation, Paul-Alain
Foriers and Guy Block, of the Brussels Bar, with an address             í 1 ) OJ No C 153 , 11 . 6 . 1991 .
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jacques                    ( 2 ) OJ No L 152 , 15 . 6 . 1991 , p . 16 .
Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe , v. Commission of the European
Communities ( Agents : Berend Jan Drijber and Nicole
Coutrelis ) — application for the annulment of Commission
Decision 91 /297/EEC of 19 December 1990 relating to a
proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty
( IV/33.133-A : Soda-ash — Solvay, ICI ) ( 2 ) the Court of First
Instance ( First Chamber sitting in extended composition ),              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
composed of: J. L. Cruz Vilaça, President, and D. P. M.                                           of 29 June 1995
Barrington, A. Saggio, H. Kirschner and A. Kalogeropoulos,              in Case T-32/91 : Solvay SA v. Commission of the European
Judges , H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 June                                       Communities ( 1 )
1995 , in which it:
                                                                        (Competition — Abuse of a dominant position —
                                                                        Commission 's Rules of Procedure — Authentication of a
1 . annuls Commission Decision 91 /297/EEC of
      19 December 1990 relating to a proceeding under
                                                                               decision adopted by the college of Commissioners)
      Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (1V/33.133-A: Soda-ash —                                          ( 95 /C 208 /46 )
      Solvay, ICI), in so far as it concerns the applicant;
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
2 . orders the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                        In Case T-32/91 : Solvay SA, formerly Solvay et Cie SA,
(M OJ No C 153 , 11 . 6 . 1991 .                                        established in Brussels, represented by Lucien Simont,
( 2 ) OJ No L 152 , 15 . 6 . 1991 , p . 1 .
                                                                        Advocate at the Belgian Court of Cassation, Paul-Alain
                                                                        Foriers and Guy Block, of the Brussels Bar, with an address
                                                                        for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jacques
                                                                        Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe, v. Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities ( Agents : Berend Jan Drijber and Nicole
                                                                        Coutrelis ) — application for the annulment of Commission
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                Decision 91 /299/EEC of 19 December 1990 relating to a
                          of 29 June 1995                               proceeding under Article 86 of the EEC Treaty
in Case T-31 /91 : Solvay SA v. Commission of the European              ( IV/33.133-C : Soda-ash — Solvay ) ( 2 ), the Court of First
                          Communities (')                               Instance ( First Chamber sitting in extended composition ),
                                                                        composed of: J.L. Cruz Vilaça , President, and D.P.M.
 (Competition — Market sharing agreement —                              Barrington, A. Saggio, H. Kirschner and A. Kalogeropoulos,
 Commission 's Rules of Procedure — Authentication of a
                                                                        Judges, H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 June
      decision adopted by the college of Commissioners)                  1995 , in which it:
                             ( 95/C 208/45 )
                                                                         1 . annuls Commission Decision 91 /299/EEC of
                 (Language of the case: French)                                19 December 1990 relating to a proceeding under
                                                                               Article 86 of the EEC Treaty (IV/33.133-C: Soda-ash —
                                                                               Solvay);
In Case T-31 /91 : Solvay SA, formerly Solvay et Cie SA,
established in Brussels, represented by Lucien Simont,
Advocate at the Belgian Court of Cassation, Paul-Alain
                                                                        2 . orders the Commission to pay the costs.
Foriers and Guy Block, of the Brussels Bar, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jacques                     (') OJ No C 153 , 11 . 6 . 1991 .
Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe, v. Commission of the European                     ( 2 ) OJ No L 152 , 15 . 6 . 1991 , p . 21 .
Communities (Agents : Berend Jan Drijber and Nicole
Coutrelis ) — application for the annulment of Commission


title: Case C-330/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Wien (Austria), lodged on 16 July 2007 — Jobra Vermögensverwaltungs-Gesellschaft mbH v Finanzamt Amstetten Melk Scheibbs

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/17

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Wien (Austria), lodged on 16 July 2007 — Jobra Vermögensverwaltungs-Gesellschaft mbH v Finanzamt Amstetten Melk Scheibbs
   (Case C-330/07)
   (2007/C 269/33)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Wien
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Jobra Vermögensverwaltungs-Gesellschaft mbH

      Respondent: Finanzamt Amstetten Melk Scheibbs
   Question referred
   Do the provisions relating to the freedom of establishment (Article 43 EC et seq.) and/or the freedom to provide services (Article 49 EC et seq.) preclude national legislation in force on 31 December 2003 under which the grant to a trader of a tax advantage (investment growth premium) for the acquisition of unused tangible assets is conditional also upon those assets being used exclusively in a domestic place of business, whereas that tax advantage (investment growth premium) is not available for the acquisition of unused tangible assets which are used in a foreign place of business, including, therefore, in a place of business that is located elsewhere in the European Union?


title: Case T-175/09 P: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2010 — Council v Stols (Appeal — Public service — Promotion — Comparative examination of the merits — Manifest error of assessment — Distortion of the evidence)

text:
               5.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/12

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2010 — Council v Stols
   (Case T-175/09 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Public service - Promotion - Comparative examination of the merits - Manifest error of assessment - Distortion of the evidence)
   2011/C 38/20
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and G. Kimberley, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Willem Stols (Halsteren, Netherlands) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 17 February 2009 F-51/08 Stols v Council [2009] ECR II-0000, 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 (First Chamber) of 17 February 2009 in Case F-51/08 Stols v Council [2009] ECR II-0000;

               2.

               Refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;

               3.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 167,18.7.2009.


title: Case T-491/17: Action brought on 1 August 2017 — Opere Pie d’Onigo v Commission

text:
               2.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 330/14

         Action brought on 1 August 2017 — Opere Pie d’Onigo v Commission
   (Case T-491/17)
   (2017/C 330/19)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Istituzione Pubblica di Assistenza e Beneficienza ‘Opere Pie d’Onigo’ (Pederobba, Italy) (represented by: G. Maso, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:
   annul, in its entirety or in individual parts, the Commission decision adopted on 27 March 2017 (SA.38825) State aid — Italy, presumed State aid for private providers of social and healthcare services.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that Article 107 TFEU has been infringed and that the Commission erred in finding that the selective exclusion of public providers of social and healthcare services from INPS (National Social Welfare Institute) maternity insurance and from the refunding of costs incurred in respect of the absence of employees who care for family members with serious disabilities was justified.

               2.

               Second plea in law, based on the State origin of the aid, on the ground that, according to the applicant, the funds intended to cover private companies’ costs relating to maternity insurance and the refunding of costs incurred in respect of the absence of employees who care for family members with serious disabilities are paid by the INPS and, consequently, by the Italian State via State resources.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that, according to the applicant, such measures favour private companies by conferring on them an advantage over public providers of the same services, which must instead bear in full the costs relating to periods of absence in respect of maternity leave and care provided to family members with serious disabilities, resulting in serious financial consequences.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that, according to the applicant, the contested measures affect trade between Member States inasmuch as they favour multinational groups and Italian companies with foreign capital contribution which invest in Italy for profit-making purposes and, by contrast, penalise smaller public providers which operate for non-profit purposes by distorting the structure of their labour costs.


title: Joined Cases T-8/95 and T-9/95: Order of the Court of First Instance of 3 November 2008 — Pelle and Konrad v Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities (Non-contractual liability — Milk — Additional levy — Reference quantity — Regulation (EEC) No 2187/93 — Compensation of producers — Suspension of limitation)

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/34

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 3 November 2008 — Pelle and Konrad v Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities
   (Joined Cases T-8/95 and T-9/95) (1)

   (Non-contractual liability - Milk - Additional levy - Reference quantity - Regulation (EEC) No 2187/93 - Compensation of producers - Suspension of limitation)
   (2009/C 32/64)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties
   Applicants: Wilhelm Pelle (Kluse-Ahlen, Germany) and Ernst-Reinhard Konrad (Löllbach, Germany) (represented by: B. Meisterernst, M. Düsing, D. Manstetten, F. Schulze and W. Haneklaus, lawyers)
   Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented initially by A. Brautigam and A.-M. Colaert, and subsequently by A.-M.Colaert, agents) and the Commission of the European Communities (represented by B. Booß and M. Niejahr, agents, and subsequently by T. van Rijn and M. Niejahr, assisted initially by H.-J. Rabe, G. Berrisch and M. Núñez-Müller, lawyers)
   Re:
   Applications for compensation under Article 178 of the EC Treaty (now Article 235 EC) and under the second paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty (now the second paragraph of Article 288 EC) for damage allegedly suffered by the applicants as a result of the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for the application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of Council Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector (OJ 1984 L 90, p. 13), as supplemented by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1371/84 of 16 May 1984 laying down detailed rules for the application of the additional levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation No 804/68 (OJ 1984 L 132, p. 11).
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the present action.

               2.

               Each party bears its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 74, 25.3.1995.


title: Case F-71/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 30 April 2015 — Maraoud v EEAS (Civil Service — Staff of the EEAS — Member of the contractual staff — Mission in a third country — Workplace accident — Allowance for living conditions — Days of leave not taken — Reimbursement of healthcare — Failure to follow the pre-litigation procedure — Manifestly inadmissible)

text:
               15.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 198/50

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 30 April 2015 — Maraoud v EEAS
   (Case F-71/14) (1)

   ((Civil Service - Staff of the EEAS - Member of the contractual staff - Mission in a third country - Workplace accident - Allowance for living conditions - Days of leave not taken - Reimbursement of healthcare - Failure to follow the pre-litigation procedure - Manifestly inadmissible))
   (2015/C 198/68)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Hayet Maraoud (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L.F. de Castro Fernandez and J.-L. Gillain, lawyers)

      Defendant: European External Action Service (EEAS) (represented by: S. Marquardt and M. Silva, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision no longer to pay the allowance for living conditions (ALC), the additional payment (AP) based on the living conditions in the applicant’s place of employment and a daily allowance (DA) and to pay for 49 days’ leave not taken in respect of 2012 and a claim for compensation for the harm caused by a failure to offer aid or assistance and abandonment following the workplace accident suffered by the applicant.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Ms Maraoud shall bear her own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European External Action Service.

      (1)  OJ C 388, 3.11.2014, p. 29.


title: Joined Cases T-239/05, T-240/05, T-245/05 to T-247/05, T-255/05, T-274/05 to T-280/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 May 2007 — Black & Decker v OHIM — Atlas Copco (Three-dimensional representations of two yellow and black electric power tools) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Opposition period — Transmission by telecopier — Admissibility — Clear indentification of the earlier trade mark — Rule 18(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)

text:
               23.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 140/21

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 May 2007 — Black & Decker v OHIM — Atlas Copco (Three-dimensional representations of two yellow and black electric power tools)
   (Joined Cases T-239/05, T-240/05, T-245/05 to T-247/05, T-255/05, T-274/05 to T-280/05) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Opposition period - Transmission by telecopier - Admissibility - Clear indentification of the earlier trade mark - Rule 18(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)
   (2007/C 140/36)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Black & Decker (Towson, Maryland, United States) (represented by: H. Carr QC and P. Harris Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Atlas Copco AB (Stockholm, Sweden) (represented by: R. Meade, Barrister, and M. Gilbert, Solicitor)
   Re:
   Thirteen actions brought against the decisions of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 April 2005 (R 727/2004-1, R 729/2004-1, R 723/2004-1, R 730/2004-1 and R 724/2004-1), of 27 April 2005 (R 722/2004-1) and of 3 May 2005 (R 788/2004-1, R 789/2004-1, R 790/2004-1, R 791/2004-1, R 792/2004-1, R 793/2004-1 and R 794/2004-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Atlas Copco AB and The Black & Decker Corporation.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the actions;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 205, 20.8.2005.


title: Joined Cases T-415/07 and T-416/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 30 November 2009 — RedEnvelope v OHIM — Red Letter Days (redENVELOPE)

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/69

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 30 November 2009 — RedEnvelope v OHIM — Red Letter Days (redENVELOPE)
   (Joined Cases T-415/07 and T-416/07) (1)

   2010/C 24/125

      Language of the case: English

   The President of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) has ordered that the joined cases be removed from the register.

      (1)  C 8, 12.1.2008.


C 102/16                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     8.4.2000
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                                      Removal from the register of Case C-399/95 (1)
1) declare that by failing to notify the laws, regulations                                       (2000/C 102/29)
     or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     Commission Directive 98/21/EC of 8 April 1998 (1)                    By order of 13 December 1999 the President of the Court of
     amending Council Directive 93/16/EEC (2) to facilitate the           Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
     free movement of doctors and the mutual recoginition of              from the register of Case C-399/95: Federal Republic of
     their diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal            Germany v Commission of the European Communities.
     qualifications, or by failing to adopt the measures necessary
     to comply with it, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations
     under that Directive                                                 (1) OJ C 77 of 16.3.1996.
2) order Ireland to pay the costs of these proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-195/96 (1)
Article 249 EC (ex Article 189 of the EC Treaty), under which
a directive shall be binding as to the result to be achieved,
upon each Member State, carries by implication an obligation                                     (2000/C 102/30)
on the Member States to observe the period for compliance
laid down in the directive. That period expired on 31 December            By order of 13 December 1999 the President of the Court of
1998 without Ireland having enacted the provisions necessary              Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
to comply with the directive referred to in the conclusions of            from the register of Case C-195/96: Federal Republic of
the Commission.                                                           Germany v Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 247 of 24.8.1996.
(1) OJ L 119 of 22.4.1998, p. 15.
(2) OJ L 165 of 7.7.1993, p. 1.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-333/98 (1)
      Removal from the register of Case C-255/92 P (1)                                           (2000/C 102/31)
                         (2000/C 102/27)                                  By order of 17 January 2000 the President of the Court of
                                                                          Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
By order of 9 December 1999 the President of the Court of                 from the register of Case C-333/98 (reference for a preliminary
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal               ruling from the Commissione dei v i Provvedimenti dell’Ufficio
from the register of Case C-255/92 P: BASF AG v Commission                Italiano Brevetti e Marchi): Merck & Co Inc. v Ufficio Italiano
of the European Communities.                                              Brevetti e Marchi.
(1) OJ C 187 of 24.7.1992.                                                (1) OJ C 327, 24.10.1998.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-291/99 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case C-129/99 (1)
                                                                                (2000/C 102/32)
                         (2000/C 102/28)
                                                                          By order of 18 January 2000 the President of the Court of
By order of 10 December 1999 the President of the Court of                Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal               from the register of Case C-291/99 (reference for a preliminary
from the register of Case C-129/99: Federal Republic of                   ruling from the Tribunale di Trieste, Prima Sezione Civile):
Germany v Commission of the European Communities.                         Crossbow Srl v Ministero delle Finanze.
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.                                                 (1) OJ C 314, 30.10.1999.


title: Case T-86/17: Action brought on 10 February 2017 — Le Pen v Parliament

text:
               3.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/61

         Action brought on 10 February 2017 — Le Pen v Parliament
   (Case T-86/17)
   (2017/C 104/85)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Marine Le Pen (Saint-Cloud, France) (represented by: M. Ceccaldi and J.-P. Le Moigne, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Secretary General of the European Parliament of 5 December 2016 taken in accordance with Decision 2009/C 159/01 of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 19 May and 9 July 2008 issuing a demand for payment to the applicant in respect of EUR 298 497,87 for sums unduly paid for parliamentary assistance, stating reasons for the recovery of those sums and authorising the officer responsible, in collaboration with the institution’s accountant, to recover those sums in accordance with Article 68 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute of Members of the European Parliament and Articles 66, 78, 79 and 80 of the Financial Regulation (‘the FR’);

               —

               annul the debit note No 2016-1560 of 6 December 2016, demanding that applicant pay the sum of EUR 298 497,87 pursuant to the decision of the Secretary General of 5 December 2016, recovery of sums unduly paid for parliamentary assistance, application of Article 86 of the Implementing Measure for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament and Articles 66, 78, 79 and 80 of the FR;

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay all the costs of the proceedings;

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay Ms Le Pen EUR 50 000 as payment for recoverable costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action the applicant puts forward twelve pleas:

               1.

               First plea, based on the lack of competence of the author of the act. The applicant takes the view that the decision of the Secretary General of the European Parliament of 5 December 2016 (‘the contested decision’) falls within the competence of the Bureau of the European Parliament and the signatory of the decision did not indicate any delegation of powers.

               2.

               Second plea, based on the lack of reasoning in the contested decision, even though that requirement is laid down by Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

               3.

               Third plea claiming infringement of an essential procedural requirement, in that the contested decision referred to the investigation report prepared by the European Anti- Fraud Office (‘OLAF’), closed on 26 July 2016, which was not communicated to the applicant. Therefore, applicant was not heard and was not able to properly avail herself of her right to defend herself, since the Secretary General refused to communicate to her the evidence on which the contested decision is based.

               4.

               Fourth plea, based on the failure by the Secretary General of the European Parliament to personally examine file. According to the applicant, the latter merely relied on the report by OLAF and never personally examined the applicant’s situation.

               5.

               Fifth plea, based on the lack of any facts supporting the contested decision and the debit note (‘the contested acts’), in that the facts on which they are based are inaccurate.

               6.

               Sixth plea, based on the reversal of the burden of proof. In that regard, the applicant considers that it is not for her to adduce evidence of her parliamentary assistant’s work, but that it is for the competent authorities to prove the contrary.

               7.

               Seventh plea, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality, in so far as there are no grounds with regard to the details or the method of calculation of the sum claimed from the applicant, and it is assumed that the parliamentary assistant never worked for the applicant.

               8.

               Eighth plea, based on an abuse of powers, in that the contested acts were adopted with the aim of depriving the applicant, a Member of the European Parliament, of the means to carry out her mandate.

               9.

               Ninth plea, based on an abuse of process. The applicant considers that, to avoid being ordered to send her the OLAF report which was in his possession, the Secretary General unlawfully sent the request for communication of that report to OLAF which has not sent her the report.

               10.

               Tenth plea, based on discrimination and the existence of fumus persecutionis, in that the circumstances surrounding the present dispute exclusively concern the applicant and her party.

               11.

               Eleventh plea, based on the undermining of the independence of a member of parliament and the consequences of the lack of any binding mandate. The contested acts were undoubtedly intended to impede the freedom to exercise the applicant’s parliamentary mandate, by depriving her of the financial means necessary to carry out her mission. Furthermore, the applicant was unable to receive instructions from the Secretary General as to how she was to carry out her mandate, subject to the threat of financial sanctions.

               12.

               Twelfth plea, based on OLAF’s lack of independence, in that that body did not offer any guarantee of impartiality and probity and is under the control of the European Commission.


title: Case T-277/09: Action brought on 16 July 2009 — Trasys v Commission

text:
               10.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 244/5

         Action brought on 16 July 2009 — Trasys v Commission
   (Case T-277/09)
   2009/C 244/08
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Trasys (Woluwe-Saint-Lambert, Belgium) (represented by: M. Martens and P. Hermant, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Commission Decision, notified to the applicant by a letter dated 9 June 2009, rejecting the applicant’s tender for Lots C and E in the call for tender No 10017 and awarding contract to the successful contractors;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In the present case the applicant seeks the annulment of the defendant’s decisions to reject its bid submitted for Lots C and E in response to a call for an open tender for support of the Publications Office and its CORDIS unit in the provision of publishing and communication services (1) and to award the contract to the successful contractor.
   In support of its claims the applicant puts forward four pleas in law.
   First, the applicant contends that the defendant infringed the principle of transparency laid down in Articles 100 and 89(1) of the financial regulation (2) by unreasonably limiting access to essential information and in consequence depriving the applicant of the opportunity to gain a proper understanding of the method used to evaluate the tenders and of the reasons why its tender was rejected.
   Second, the applicant alleges that its bid has been subject to a tender assessment methodology which is contrary to the principles set out in Article 89(1) of the financial regulation such as the principles of equal treatment and transparency.
   Third, it claims that the tender specifications were not clear enough and that the last clarifications were provided too late by the contracting authority and, as a consequence, the applicant was not in the position to plan its tender and to take into account the way in which the assessment would be made.
   Fourth, the applicant submits that its bid has been subject to an unreasonable and disproportional evaluation by the contracting authority leading to the errors of assessment which vitiate the final decision.

      (1)  JO 2008/S 242-321376

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1)


title: Case T-351/08: Action brought on 25 August 2008 — Matratzen Concord v OHIM — Barranco Schnitzler and Barranco Rodriguez (MATRATZEN CONCORD)

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/45

         Action brought on 25 August 2008 — Matratzen Concord v OHIM — Barranco Schnitzler and Barranco Rodriguez (MATRATZEN CONCORD)
   (Case T-351/08)
   (2008/C 285/84)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Matratzen Concord GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: J. Albrecht, lawyer)

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

      Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Pablo Barranco Schnitzler (Sant Just Desvern, Spain) and Mariano Barranco Rodriguez (Sant Just Desvern)
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 May 2008 (Case R 1034/2007-2);

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs, including those of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: figurative mark ‘MATRATZEN CONCORD’ for goods in Classes 10, 20 and 24 (Application No 3 355 369)

      Proprietors of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Pablo Barranco Schnitzler and Mariano Barranco Rodriguez

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: national word mark ‘MATRATZEN’ for goods in Class 20

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Refusal of the application for a Community trade mark

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94, in that there is no likelihood of confusion between the conflicting marks, and infringement of Article 43(2) of that regulation, in that no proof has been provided of genuine use of the mark cited in opposition.


title: Case T-229/12: Action brought on 25 May 2012 — Advance Magazine Publishers/OHIM — Eduardo López Cabré (VOGUE)

text:
               28.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 227/27

         Action brought on 25 May 2012 — Advance Magazine Publishers/OHIM — Eduardo López Cabré (VOGUE)
   (Case T-229/12)
   2012/C 227/46
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc. (New York, USA) (represented by: C. Aikens, Barrister)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Eduardo López Cabré (Barcelona, Spain)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and Designs) of 26 March 2012 (R 1170/2011-4);

               —

               alternatively, to uphold the Opposition only so far as it relates to the following goods umbrellas, parasols and accessories for umbrellas and parasols; and

               —

               to order the Opponent to pay the costs incurred by the Applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘VOGUE’ for goods and services in classes 3, 9, 14, 16, 18, 21, 24, 26, 28, 35, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44 and 45 — Community trade mark application No 4 023 041

      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: The community and national word mark ‘VOGUE’ and the national figurative mark ‘VOGUE moda en lluvia’ for goods in class 18

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Partly upheld the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-489/01: Action brought on 17 December 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom

text:
6.4.2002               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 84/49
Action brought on 17 December 2001 by the Commission                     Communities on 24 December 2001 by the Kingdom of the
of the European Communities against the United                           Netherlands, represented by H.G. van Sevenster, C.M. Wissels
                             Kingdom                                     and J. van Bakel, acting as Agents.
                         (Case C-489/01)
                          (2002/C 84/84)                                 The applicant claims that the Court should: annul the contested
                                                                         decision (1) in so far as the Community financial contribution
                                                                         fixed for the eradication of classical swine fever in the
                                                                         Netherlands in 1998 represents a reduction of 25 % in
An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the              the compensation paid to livestock farmers, and order the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 December              Commission to pay the costs.
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Ms Christina Tufvesson, acting as agent, with
an address for service in Luxembourg.
The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
1)    declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
      administrative provisions necessary to comply, as regards
      the territory of Gibraltar, with Directive 97/9/EC (1) of the      —     Incorrect factual basis: none of the six files selected by the
      European Parliament and of the Council of 3 March 1997                   Commission contains any mention of any irregularities
      on investor-compensations schemes, or, in any case, by                   which might be of a repetitive and systematic nature and
      not notifying these measures to the Commission, the                      which might form the factual basis for the imposition of
      United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under                a reduction.
      Article 15 of this Directive;
2)    order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.                         —     Infringement of the law: Council Decision 90/424/EEC
                                                                               on expenditure in the veterinary field (2) makes no
                                                                               provision for the application of a general reduction. The
                                                                               concept of ‘adequate’ compensation (seventh indent in
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                               Article 3(2) of Decision 90/424/EEC) is not defined in
                                                                               Directive 80/217/EEC or in Decision 90/424/EEC or
Article 249 EC, under which a directive shall be binding as to                 anywhere else in Community law. The Commission’s
the result to be achieved, upon each Member State, carries by                  assertion that, in the application of the concept of
implication an obligation on the Member States to observe the                  adequate compensation as interpreted by the Netherlands,
period for compliance laid down in the directive. That period                  too high a value was placed on swine, disregards the
expired on 26 September 1998 without the United Kingdom                        content and scope of the applicable Netherlands rules.
having enacted the provisions necessary to comply with the                     In addition, the Commission incorrectly ignores the
directive referred to in the conclusions of the Commission, as                 discretionary power in the matter which is enshrined in
regards the territory of Gibraltar.                                            the Community rules.
(1) OJ L 84, 26.3.1997, p. 22.                                           —     Violation of the principle of proportionality.
                                                                         —     Violation of the principle of legal certainty.
                                                                         —     Non-compliance with the obligation to provide a state-
Action brought on 24 December 2001 by the Kingdom of                           ment of reasons.
the Netherlands against the Commission of the European
                           Communities
                         (Case C-501/01)                                 (1) Commission Decision 2001/739/EC of 17 October 2001 on the
                                                                             total amount of Community aid for the eradication of classical
                                                                             swine fever in the Netherlands in 1998.
                          (2002/C 84/85)                                 (2) OJ 1990 L 224, p. 19.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European


title: Case F-71/13: Action brought on 15 July 2013 — ZZ v EEA

text:
               21.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/32

         Action brought on 15 July 2013 — ZZ v EEA
   (Case F-71/13)
   2013/C 274/53
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi, J.-N. Louis, and D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Environment Agency (EEA)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the decision to reject the applicant’s request for an administrative inquiry to be opened to prove or clarify facts relating to harassment.

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of 20 September 2012 by the authority empowered to conclude contracts (‘AECE’) rejecting the applicant’s request for an administrative inquiry to be opened to prove or clarify facts relating to harassment;

               —

               order the EEA to pay the costs.