title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 15 September 1998 in Case T-140/95: Ryanair Limited v. Commission of the European Communities (State aid - Formal investigation procedure under Article 93(2) of the Treaty - Conditional decision approving aid in the form of a capital injection to be carried out in tranches - Precondition of payment of the second tranche not satisfied - Subsequent decision authorising payment of the second tranche - Action for annulment)

text:
7.11.98               EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 340/17
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                    of 15 September 1998                                              of 16 September 1998
                                                                  in Case T-188/95: Waterleiding Maatschappij Noord-
in Case T-140/95: Ryanair Limited v. Commission of the            West Brabant' NV v. Commission of the European
                 European Communities (1)                                                Communities (1)
(State aid Ð Formal investigation procedure under                 (State aids Ð Tax exemptions Ð Refusal to open the
Article 93(2) of the Treaty Ð Conditional decision                procedure laid down by Article 93(2) of the Treaty Ð
approving aid in the form of a capital injection to be            Meaning of person concerned Ð Confirmatory act Ð
carried out in tranches Ð Precondition of payment of the                                  Inadmissibility)
second tranche not satisfied Ð Subsequent decision
                                                                                (98/C 340/30)
authorising payment of the second tranche Ð Action for
                         annulment)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                        (98/C 340/29)
                                                                  In Case T-188/95: Waterleiding Maatschappij Noord-
                                                                  West Brabant' NV, with its registered office at
                                                                  Oudenbosch (Netherlands), represented by P. H. L. M.
               (Language of the case: English)                    Kuypers of the Breda Bar and H. M. Gilliams of the
                                                                  Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                  the Chambers of J.-M. Bauler, 47 Grand-rue, against
                                                                  Commission of the European Communities (Agent: H. van
In Case T-140/95: Ryanair Limited, established in Dublin,         Vliet), supported by Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents:
represented by Trevor Soames and Alan Ryan, Solicitors,           M. Fierstra and J. S. van den Oosterkamp) Ð application
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                  for the annulment of the Commission's Decision SG(95)
Chambers of Arendt and Medernach, 8Ð10 rue Mathias                D/8442 of 3 July 1995 concerning Aid No NN 13/95 Ð
Hardt, against Commission of the European Communities             Netherlands Ð Wet belastingen op milieugrondslag Ð the
(Agents: Nicholas Khan and Anders Christian Jessen),              Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended
supported by Ireland (Agents: Michael Buckley and Joseph          Composition), composed of: P. Lindh, President, R.
Finnegan) and by Aer Lingus Group plc, established in             García-Valdecasas, K. Lenaerts, J. D. Cooke and M.
Dublin, represented by Paul Gallagher SC, of the Irish Bar,       Jaeger, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar,
and by James O'Dwyer and Patrick McGovern, Solicitors,            has given a judgment on 16 September 1998, in which it:
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Maître ReneÂ Faltz, 6 rue Heine Ð
application for annulment of the Commission decision of           1. dismisses the application as inadmissible;
21 December (OJ C 399 of 31.12.1994, p. 1), authorising
the Irish Government to pay the second tranche of the aid         2. orders the applicant to bear its own costs and those
to the Aer Lingus group approved by Commission                        incurred by the Commission;
Decision 94/118/EC of 21 December 1993 concerning aid
to be provided by the Irish Government to the Aer Lingus
                                                                  3. orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear its
group (OJ L 54 of 25.2.1994, p. 30) Ð the Court of First
                                                                      own costs.
Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition),
composed of: A. Kalogeropoulos, President, C. P. BrieÈt,
C. W. Bellamy, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges; A. Mair,        (1) OJ C 333 of 9.12.1995.
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
15 September 1998, in which it:
1. dismisses the application;                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 15 September 1998
                                                                  in Case T-95/96: Gestevisión Telecinco SA v. Commission
2. orders the applicant to pay the costs incurred by the                        of the European Communities (1)
    Commission and Aer Lingus Group plc;
                                                                  (State aid Ð Public service television Ð Complaint Ð
                                                                  Action for declaration of failure to act Ð Commission's
                                                                  duty to investigate Ð Time-limit Ð Procedure under
                                                                              Article 93(2) Ð Serious difficulties)
3. orders Ireland to bear its own costs.
                                                                                (98/C 340/31)
(1) OJ C 248 of 23.9.1995.                                                      (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                  In Case T-95/96: Gestevisión Telecinco SA, a company
                                                                  governed by Spanish law, established in Madrid (Spain),


13.3.1999              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 71/23
         considered that an undertaking in difficulties, the         Ð set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of the
         position of which in terms of pricing covers the                European Communities of 30 November 1998 in Case
         middle to the top of the range, must of necessity               T-97/94;
         abandon its strategy and adopt instead a strategy
         of price dumping Ð which does not seem to                   Ð declare the action brought by the applicant on 9 March
         accord with the spirit of the guidelines.                       1994 admissible and well founded;
     Ð The Commission's finding concerning a lack of                 Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
         proportion between State funds and the
         contribution made by the buyer does not in any              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
         way take into account the special situation of such
         buyers as the managers of the undertaking, who              Ð Infringement of Article 6 of the European Convention
         contribute sums corresponding to their personal                 on Human Rights, discrimination, breach of the
         finances and thereby show their commitment to                   principle that no person should be allowed to derive
         the restructuring plan. In addition, the                        an advantage from his own illegal acts: whilst the
         Commission has failed to take into account the                  appellant may no longer have been in the service of
         fact that the recipient undertaking constitutes a               the Commission at the time when he brought his
         small to medium-sized undertaking and the fact                  action, he was in its service at the time when he made
         that it is in an objective 2' zone, despite the fact           his complaint giving rise to the subsequent
         that provision is made for this in the guidelines.              proceedings. By failing to notify its decision rejecting
         The Commission wrongly estimates the buyer's                    his complaint until after the expiry of the period of
         contribution to amount to 12 % of the State funds               four months provided for by the Staff Regulations of
         applied; in terms of the subsidy' equivalent, the              Officials, the Commission itself created the
         proportion in question amounts to 22 %. Lastly,                 circumstances which enabled it to plead the absence of
         the restructuring measures taken (involving the                 a legal interest in bringing proceedings.
         closing down of approximately 60 % of
         production capacity, laying off of employees, etc.)         Ð Breach of the principle of the protection of, and
         clearly show that the undertaking has participated              respect for, personal rights: the Court of First Instance
         in the efforts made.                                            failed to take into account the fact that positive staff
                                                                         reports may still permit an official, even after his
     Ð As regards the criterion of preventing distortions
                                                                         service has terminated, to prove his scientific and
         of competition, the French Government considers
                                                                         professional abilities in the event of his continuing to
         that the Commission's assessment fails to take into
                                                                         pursue his professional activities, even outside the
         account the information provided by it, and that
                                                                         Community sphere.
         the decision is not sufficiently specific and
         detailed.
(1) Competition law in the European Communities', Vol. II B,
    p. 38.
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case C-204/98 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 71/41)
                                                                     By order of 10 December 1998 the President of the Court
Appeal brought on 29 January 1999 by N against the                   of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
order made on 30 November 1998 by the Fifth Chamber                  removal from the register of Case C-204/98: Commission
of the Court of First Instance of the European                       of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
Communities in Case T-97/94 between N and the
          Commission of the European Communities                     (1) OJ C 234, 25.7.1998.
                        (Case C-21/99 P)
                         (1999/C 71/40)
An appeal against the order made on 30 November 1998
by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                 Removal from the register of Case C-308/98 (1)
European Communities in Case T-97/94 between N and                                           (1999/C 71/42)
the Commission of the European Communities was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                     By order of 16 December 1998 the President of the Court
Communities on 29 January 1999 by N, represented by
                                                                     of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Georges Sakellaropoulos, of the Athens Bar.
                                                                     removal from the register of Case C-308/98: Commission
                                                                     of the European Communities v Ireland.
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                     (1) OJ C 299, 26.9.1998.
Ð declare the present appeal admissible and well
     founded;


title: Case C-47/06: Action brought on  30 January 2006  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/31

         Action brought on 30 January 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-47/06)
   (2006/C 60/60)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 30 January 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by C. O'Reilly, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for asylum seekers, (1) or, in any event, by not informing the Commission thereof, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposing Directive 2003/9/EC expired on 6 February 2005.

      (1)  OJ L 31 of 06.02.2003, p. 18.


title: Case C-99/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Sala de lo Civil) (Spain) lodged on 27 February 2015 — Christian Liffers v Producciones Mandarina, S.L. and Gestevisión Telecinco, S.A.

text:
               26.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/18

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Sala de lo Civil) (Spain) lodged on 27 February 2015 — Christian Liffers v Producciones Mandarina, S.L. and Gestevisión Telecinco, S.A.
   (Case C-99/15)
   (2015/C 171/21)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo (Sala de lo Civil)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Christian Liffers

      Defendants: Producciones Mandarina, S.L. and Gestevisión Telecinco, S.A.

      Question referred

               1.

               May Article 13(1) of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights be interpreted as meaning that the party injured by an intellectual property infringement who claims damages for pecuniary loss based on the amount of royalties or fees that would be due if the infringer had requested authorisation to use the intellectual property right in question cannot also claim damages for the moral prejudice suffered?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45.


title: Case C-234/13 P: Appeal brought on 29 April 2013 by Albergo Saturnia Internazionale Spa against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 February 2013 in Joined Cases T-278/00 to T-280/00, T-282/00 to T-286/00 and T-288/00 to T-295/00 Albergo Quattro Fontane and Others v Commission

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/19

         Appeal brought on 29 April 2013 by Albergo Saturnia Internazionale Spa against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 February 2013 in Joined Cases T-278/00 to T-280/00, T-282/00 to T-286/00 and T-288/00 to T-295/00 Albergo Quattro Fontane and Others v Commission
   (Case C-234/13 P)
   2013/C 207/32
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Albergo Saturnia Internazionale Spa (represented by: A. Bianchini and F. Busetto, avvocati)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the order of the General Court under appeal

               —

               Uphold the forms of order sought at first instance and, accordingly,

                           —

                           annul, in so far as is reasonable and in so far as it concerns the appellant, European Commission Decision No 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995;

                           —

                           in the alternative, annul that decision in so far as it imposes an obligation to recover the relief granted and in so far as it requires interest to be added to the amount of relief to be recovered for the periods taken into consideration in the judgment;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs incurred both at first instance and on appeal.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant raises nine grounds of appeal:

                  First ground: the General Court erred in not taking into consideration the fact that the measures in question did not confer any advantage upon their beneficiaries given their compensatory nature.

                  Second ground: the Court erred in not excluding, or at least assessing, the likelihood that the measures in question would affect competition and intra-Community trade.

                  Third ground: the Court erred in holding that the derogations in Article 87(2)(b) EC (now Article 107(2)(b) TFEU) and Article 87(3)(b) EC (now Article 107(3)(b) TFEU) were inapplicable.

                  Fourth ground: the Court erred in holding that the derogation in Article 87(3)(c) EC (now Article 107(3)(c) TFEU) was inapplicable.

                  Fifth ground: the Court erred in holding that the derogations in Article 87(3)(d) and (e) EC (now Article 107(3)(d) and (e) TFEU) were inapplicable.

                  Sixth ground: the Court erred in holding that the derogation in Article 86(2) EC (now Article 106(2) TFEU) was inapplicable.

                  Seventh ground: the Court erred in not recognising the existence of the aid, thus infringing Article 88(3) EC (now Article 108(3) TFEU) and Article 15 of Regulation No 659/1999. (1)

                  Eighth ground: the Court erred in finding that Article 14(1) of Regulation No 659/1999 did not apply to the recovery order.

                  Ninth ground: the Court erred in finding that Article 14(1) of Regulation No 659/1999 did not apply to the addition of interest.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).


title: Case F-57/08: Action brought on 9 June 2008 — Palazzo v Commission

text:
               2.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 197/37

         Action brought on 9 June 2008 — Palazzo v Commission
   (Case F-57/08)
   (2008/C 197/72)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Armida Palazzo (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Application for, first, a declaration that Article 4 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities is illegal and, secondly, for annulment of the Appointing Authority's decision concerning the calculation of the credited contribution years of pension rights acquired by the applicant as a member of the local staff.
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               Declare that Article 4 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities is illegal;

               —

               Annul the Appointing Authority's decision 24 October 2007 concerning the calculation of the credited contribution years of the pension rights acquired by the applicant as a member of the local staff;

               —

               order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 18 September 1996 in Case T-387/94: Asia Motor France SA and Others v. Commission of the European Communities (Competition - Obligations with regard to the investigation of complaints - Legality of grounds for rejection - Manifest error of assessment - Statement of reasons)

text:
No C 336/24           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    9 . 11 . 96
                                                   COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            JMC Automobiles, residing at Livange ( Luxembourg ),
                   of 18 September 1996                             Monin Automobiles SA, established at Bourg-de-Péage
in Case T-353 /94 : Postbank NV v. Commission of the
                                                                    ( France ), Europe Auto Service ( EAS ) SA, established at
                                                                    Livange ( Luxembourg ), SA Somaco SARL, established at
                 European Communities ( 1 )                         Fort-de-France ( France ), represented by Jean-Claude
(Competition — Administrative procedure — Notification              Fourgoux, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in
ofthe statement ofobjections and the minutes ofthe hearing          Luxembourg at the Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4 Rue
— Commission decision allowing third parties to the                 Beatrix de Bourbon , against Commission of the European
administrative procedure to produce those documents in              Communities ( Agents : Berend Jan Drijber and Hervé
national legal proceedings — Measure against which an               Lehman ), application for annulment of the Commission 's
action may be brought — Professional secrecy — Business             decision of 13 October 1994 rejecting the applicants'
                              secrets)                              complaints relating to cartel practices alleged to be contrary
                         ( 96/C 336/49 )                            to Article 85 of the EEC Treaty , and for compensation for
                                                                    the damage which the applicants maintain they sustained by
               (Language of the case: Dutch)                        reason of the manner in which the Commission dealt with
                                                                    their complaints — the Court of First Instance of the
In Case T-353/94 : Postbank NV, established in Amsterdam,           European Communities ( Fourth Chamber, Extended
represented by O. W. Brouwer and F. P. Louis, of the                Composition ), composed of K. Lenaerts, President, R.
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at          Garcίa-Valdecasas, P. Lindh, J. Azizi and J. D. Cooke,
the Chambers of M. Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe against                    Judges , Registrar: B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, gave a
Commission of the European Communities ( Agents : B. J.             judgment on 18 September 1996 , in which it:
Drijber and W. Wils ) — application for annulment of the
Commission decision , contained in its letters of
23 September 1994 and 3/4 October 1994 , conceding that             1 . dismisses as inadmissible the claims for a declaration of
third parties may, in national legal proceedings, produce the            an infringement;
statement of objections and the minutes of the hearing
which the Commission forwarded to them in the course of
an administrative procedure — the Court of First Instance of        2 . dismisses the claims for failure to act as inadmissible;
the European Communities ( First Chamber, Extended
Composition ), composed of A. Saggio , President, C. W.
Bellamy , A. Kalogeropoulos, V. Tiili and R. M. Moura
Ramos, Judges, Registrar : J. Palacio Gonzalez,                     3 . annuls the contested decision in so far as it rejects Mr
                                                                         Cesbron 's complaint of 18 November 1985 and the
Administrator, gave a judgment on 18 September 1996 , in
which it :                                                               complaint of Mr Cesbron, Asia Motor France, Monin
                                                                         Automobiles and EAS of 29 November 1988;
1 . annuls the Commission decision contained in its letters
    of 23 September 1 994 and 3/4 October 1 994 addressed
    to NUON Veluwse Nutsbedrijven NV and                            4 . dismisses the remainder of the claims for annulment as
    Maatschappij Elektriciteit en Gas Limburg NV;                        unfounded;
2 . orders the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                    5 . dismisses the claims for damages as inadmissible;
(') OJ No C 370 , 24 . 12 . 1994 .
                                                                    6 . dismisses as unfounded the claims that the Commission
                                                                         should be ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  which culminated in the judgment of the Court of First
                   of 18 September 1996                                  Instance of 29 June 1993 in Case T-7/92 Asia
in Case T-387/94 : Asia Motor France SA and Others v.                    Motor France and Others v. Commission [ 1 993 ]
       Commission of the European Communities (')                        ECR 11-669 ;
(Competition — Obligations with regard to the
investigation of complaints — Legality of grounds for
                                                                    7. orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay
rejection — Manifest error of assessment — Statement of
                                                                         half the applicants ' costs.
                             reasons)
                         ( 96/C 336/50 )
                                                                    (') OJ No C 392 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .
               (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-387/94 : Asia Motor France SA , established at
Livange ( Luxembourg ), Jean-Michel Cesbron , trading as


title: Case F-38/07: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 25 September 2009 — Caleprico v Commission

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/86

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 25 September 2009 — Caleprico v Commission
   (Case F-38/07) (1)

   2009/C 267/157

      Language of the case: Italian

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

      (1)  OJ C 140, 23.6.2007, p. 45.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 June 2000 in Case T-211/98: F v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Suspension — Absence of any prior hearing — Action for annulment and damages)

text:
C 211/18                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         22.7.2000
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               1. Article 2 of Commission Decision 98/182/EC of 30 July 1997
                                                                               concerning aid granted by the Friuli-Venezia Giulia Region
                                                                               (Italy) to road haulage companies in the Region is annulled in so
                          of 15 June 2000
                                                                               far as it declares unlawful aid granted as from 1 July 1990 to
                                                                               undertakings carrying out exclusively local, regional or national
in Joined Cases T-298/97, T-312/97, T-313/97, T-315/97,                        transport;
T-600/97 to T-607/97, T-1/97, T-3/98 to T-6/98 and
T-23/98: Alzetta Mauro and Others v Commission of the
                                                                          2. Article 5 of Decision 98/182 is annulled in so far as it obliges
                   European Communities (1)
                                                                               the Italian Republic to recover that aid;
(Transport of goods by road — State aid — Action for                      3. For the rest, the application is dismissed;
annulment — Whether trade between Member States affec-
ted and competition distorted — Conditions for a derogation
from the prohibition laid down by Article 92(1) of the EC                 4. Each party is ordered to bear its own costs.
Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87(1) EC) — New
aid or existing aid — Principle of the protection of legitimate
expectations — Principle of proportionality — Statement of                (1) OJ No C 55, 20. 2. 1998; No C 72, 7. 3. 1998; and No C 113,
                              reasons)                                        11. 4. 1998.
                          (2000/C 211/36)
                   (Language of the case: Italian)
In Joined Cases T-298/97, T-312/97, T-313/97, T-315/97,
T-600/97 to T-607/97, T-1/97, T-3/98 to T-6/98 and T-23/
98: Alzetta Mauro, residing in Montereale Valcellina (Italy) and              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
31 others, represented by A. Pili of the Pordenone Bar and A.
Barone and G. Pezzano of the Rome Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the chambers of L. Schiltz, 2 Rue du                                        of 15 June 2000
Fort Rheinsheim, Masotti Srl, established at Feletto Umberto
(Italy), and 30 others, represented by R. Petiziol and                    in Case T-211/98: F v Commission of the European
A. Pergolese, of the Udine Bar, Anna Maria Baldo, residing in                                        Communities (1)
Cervignano de Friuli (Italy) and 53 others, Musso Amedeo,
residing in Rivignano (Italy), represented by V. Cinque and
L. Candriella, of the Udine Bar, Sutes SpA, established in Udine,         (Officials — Suspension — Absence of any prior hearing —
and 33 others, Fabis Carlo & Co. Snc, established in Pavia di                             Action for annulment and damages)
Udine (Italy), Franco D’Odorico, residing in Capoformido
(Italy), Fiorindo Birri, residing in Manzano, Italy, Maria Cecilia
                                                                                (2000/C 211/37)
Framalicco, residing in Ampezzo (Italy), Autotrasporti di Viola
Claudio & Co. Snc, established in Cerpeneto-Pozzuolo del
Friuli (Italy), represented by C. Mussato, of the Udine Bar,
Pietro Stagno, residing in Trieste (Italy), Fabrizio Cernecca,                                 (Language of the case: French)
residing in Trieste, Trasporti e Spedizioni Internazionali
Cossutta Snc, established in Trieste, Giuseppe Camaur, residing
in Cormons (Italy), Cointra Transport and Trade Co. Srl,                  In Case T-211/98: F, an official of the Commission of the
established in Ronchi dei Legionari (Italy), Autotrasporti                European Communities, residing in Brussels, represented by
Silvano Zottich, established in Trieste, Zootrans Snc, estab-             G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, of the Brussels Bar, with an
lished in Passagio di Betona (Italy), Pauletic Antonio Succ. di           address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Société de
Pauletic Igor, residing in Trieste, represented by M. Clarich and         Gestion Fiduciaire, 2-4 Rue Beck, v Commission of the Euro-
A. Giadrossi, of the Trieste Bar, supported by the Italian                pean Communities (Agents: G. Valsesia and J. Currall) —
Republic (Agents: U. Leanza, O. Fiumara, and, at the hearing,             application, first, for annulment of the decision of 16 Decem-
G. Aiello), against the Commission of the European Communi-               ber 1998 by which the appointing authority suspended the
ties (Agents: P.F. Nemitz, P. Stancarelli and M. Moretto)                 applicant from his duties and, second, for compensation for
— application for the annulment of Commission Decision                    the material and non-material damage suffered by the applicant
98/182/EC of 30 July 1997 concerning aid granted by the                   as a result of that decision — the Court of First Instance
Friuli-Venezia Giulia Region (Italy) to road haulage companies            (Second Chamber), composed of: J. Pirrung, President, and
in the Region (OJ 1998 L 66, p. 18) — the Court of First                  A. Potocki and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; G. Herzig, Administrator,
Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition), composed                 for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 June 2000, in
of R.M. Moura Ramos, President of the Chamber, R. Garcı́a                 which it:
Valdecasas, V. Tiili, P. Lindh, and P. Mengozzi, Judges; J. Palacio
González, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment              1. Annuls the decision of 16 December 1998 by which the
on 15 June 2000, the operative part of which is as follows:                    appointing authority suspended the applicant from his duties;
 ---pagebreak--- 22.7.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 211/19
2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;                                        ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
3. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.                                                        of 13 April 2000
                                                                           in Case T-263/97: GAL Penisola Sorrentina v Commission
(1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.                                                                 of the European Communities (1)
                                                                           (Economic and social cohesion — Structural interventions
                                                                           — Leader II Community initiative — Natural or legal
                                                                           persons — Measures not of individual concern to them —
                                                                                Inadmissibility)
                                                                                (2000/C 211/39)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                          of 15 June 2000                                  In Case T-263/97: GAL Penisola Sorrentina, established in
                                                                           Naples (Italy), represented by G.L. Lemmo and V. Mormile, of
in Case T-51/99: Sophia Fantechi v Commission of the                       the Naples Bar, with an address for service at 31 Via del
                    European Communities (1)                               Parco Margherita, Naples, v Commission of the European
                                                                           Communities (Agents: J.M. Flett and F.P. Ruggeri Laderchi) —
                                                                           application for annulment of the Commission’s decision C(97)
(Officials — Expatriation allowance — Work done for an                     1261 of 15 May 1997 amending decision C(95) 444/3 of 5
international organisation established in a place other than               April 1995 concerning a grant of aid from the European
the place of employment — Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to                  Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), Guidance
                       the Staff Regulations)                              Section, from the European Regional Development Fund
                                                                           (ERDF) and from the European Social Fund (ESF) for use in
                                                                           an operational programme forming part of the Leader II
                          (2000/C 211/38)                                  Community initiative in the region of Campania in favour of
                                                                           areas falling within objective No 1 in Italy — the Court of First
                                                                           Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas,
                    (Language of the case: French)                         President, and P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung,
                                                                           Registrar, made an order on 13 April 2000, the operative part
                                                                           of which is as follows:
In Case T-51/99: Sophia Fantechi, a member of the temporary
staff of the Commission of the European Communities,                       1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
residing at Tervuren (Belgium), represented by E. Boigelot, of
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at             2. The applicant shall pay all the costs.
the Chambers of L. Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim, v
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall                 (1) OJ C 387 of 20.12.1997.
and D. Waelbroeck) — application, first, for annulment of the
Commission’s decision of 7 July 1998 refusing to grant the
applicant the expatriation allowance provided for in Article 4
of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of officials and, second,
for payment of that allowance together with default interest
— the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed
of: J. Pirrung, President, and A. Potocki and A.W.H. Meij,                       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
has given a judgment on 15 June 2000, in which it:                                                  of 5 May 2000
1. Annuls the Commission’s decision of 7 July 1998;                        in Case T-29/99: VASA Energy GmbH & Co. KG v
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities (1)
2. Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the application
     for payment of the expatriation allowance;                            (Action for failure to act under the EC Treaty — Case not
                                                                                proceeding to judgment)
3. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs
     of the applicant.                                                                             (2000/C 211/40)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(1) OJ C 136 of 15.5.1999.
                                                                           In Case T-29/99: VASA Energy GmbH & Co. KG, established
                                                                           in Hamburg (Germany), represented by D.A. Fouquet,
                                                                           Rechtsanwältin, Hamburg, with an address for service in


title: Case T-569/15: Action brought on 25 September 2015 — Fondazione Casamica v Commission and EASME

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/69

         Action brought on 25 September 2015 — Fondazione Casamica v Commission and EASME
   (Case T-569/15)
   (2015/C 398/83)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Fondazione Casamica (Salerno, Italy) (represented by: M. Lamberti, lawyer)

      Defendants: Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized enterprises (EASME), European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the contested measure: Results of the evaluation — Ineligible proposal. Proposal: A4A, 699442 — Decision ref. Ares (2015)3187639, notified on 29 July 2015, adopted by the European Commission, EASME Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized enterprises, inasmuch as it is unlawful for the reasons stated;

               —

               declare the proposal to participate, Proposal number A4A, 699442, acronym A4A, title: Archaeology 4 All, to be suitable and admit to the tender procedure the applicant and its partners, within the framework of the consortium formed for the purpose of taking part in that procedure.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The call for proposals forming the subject-matter of this action is intended to establish, define and develop a model for accessible tourism which, after identifying the difficulties linked to disabilities, overcomes them by means of a standard model which represents an appropriate response and may be offered at every site of cultural and archaeological interest.
   The eligibility requirements for submitting a project included, in addition to specialised and long-standing experience in the specific sector and in addition to a legal person closely associated with the objectives of the proposal, the presence of a national, regional or local governmental authority.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, concerning the eligibility of the proposal.

                           —

                           The Supervisory Authority for Archaeology, Campania (Soprintendenza Archeologia della Campania) is a body recognised as a governmental authority in that it is a local managing department of the Ministry of Cultural Heritage and Activities and Tourism (Ufficio Dirigenziale Periferico del Ministero dei Beni e delle Attività Culturali e del Turismo).

               2.

               Second plea in law, concerning the legal nature of the Soprintendenza, a partner in the consortium

                           —

                           In the coordination of departments having general management functions within the Ministry, the Prime Minister, by Decree No 171 of 29 August 2014, recognised the supervisory authorities as local managing departments whose nature, legal form and function derive from and are defined within the legal and administrative structure of the Ministry itself of which they are an integral part; they do not exercise delegated powers and cannot be regarded as bodies which act by delegation on behalf of a government authority.


title: Action brought on 30 April 1997 by the European Parliament against the Council of the European Union (Case C-165/97)

text:
12 . 7 . 97                  EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 212/ 13
part in maintaining the fundamental balances of our                         Admittedly, at that time Article 130s involved only the
environment, particularly as regards soil, water, climate,                  'consultation' procedure, as did Article 43 of the Treaty.
fauna and flora . It is in contradiction to the preambles to                The first Regulation in that field, Council Regulation
those Regulations that the contested Regulation, which                      ( EEC ) No 3529/86 of 17 November 1986 on protection of
merely extends the existing provisions for five years,                      the Community's forests against fire ( 3 ), adopted before
mentions in its preamble that the protection of forests                     the entry into force of the Single European Act, had
against atmospheric pollution and certain unfavourable                      Articles 43 and 235 of the Treaty as its legal basis .
meteorological factors contributes directly to the
achievement of the objectives laid down in Article 39 ( 1 )
( b ) of the EC Treaty.                                                     From its content, it is clear that the contested Regulation
                                                                            concerns environmental protection. The measures which it
(')   OJ  No  L  51 , 21 . 2 . 1997, p . 9 .                                extends — in particular identification of the causes of
(2)   OJ  No  L  326 , 21 . 11 . 1986, p . 2 .                              fires, creation or improvement of systems of prevention,
(3)   OJ  No  L  165 , 15 . 6 . 1989, p . 8 .                               training of specialized personnel, analytical studies and
(4)   OJ  No   L 217, 31 . 7. 1992 , p . 1 .                                pilot projects to test new techniques and fire-fighting
                                                                            methods — are strictly linked to forests and their
                                                                            protection . Their aim is the protection of forests. Such
                                                                            measures cannot fall within the scope of the common
                                                                            agricultural policy. They are of no relevance to the
                                                                            products concerned by Articles 38 to 46 of the EC Treaty,
                                                                            namely those listed in Annex II to the Treaty. The
Action brought on 30 April 1997 by the European                             measures concerned fall within the scope of Article 130r
     Parliament against the Council of the European Union                   of the Treaty.
                                Case C-165 /97
                                 ( 97/C 212/22 )
                                                                            The stated objectives of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2158/92
                                                                             and its predecessor are the protection against fire and the
An action against the Council of the European Union was                      preservation of forest resources, which play an essential
 brought before the Court of Justice of the European                         part in maintaining the fundamental balances of our
 Communities on 30 April 1997 by the European                                environment, particularly as regards soil , water, climate,
 Parliament, represented by Johann Schoo, Head of                            fauna and flora . It is only as an ancillary matter that their
 Division in its Legal Service, and Joao Sant'Anna, of its                   preambles mention the safeguarding of the various
                                                                             functions which forests fulfil in rural areas . It is in
 Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service
 in Luxembourg at its General Secretariat, Mail and                          contradiction to the preambles of those Regulations that
 Registry Service, Tower Building, Office 017.                               the contested Regulation, which merely extends the
                                                                             existing provisions for five years, mentions in its preamble
                                                                             that protecting forests against fire directly contributes to
 The European Parliament claims that the Court should :                      the achievement of the objectives laid down in Article 39
                                                                             ( 1 ) ( b ) of the EC Treaty.
 — annul, pursuant to Article 173 of the EC Treaty,
       Regulation ( EC ) No 308/97 ('), amending Regulation                  (') OJ No L 51 , 21 . 2 . 1997, p . 11 .
       ( EEC ) No 2158/92 ( 2 ) on the protection of the                     ( 2 ) OJ No L 217, 31 . 7 . 1992 , p . 3 .
       Community's forests against fire, and                                  (•') OJ No L 326 , 21 . 11 . 1986 , p. 5 .
 — order the Council of the European Union to pay the
       costs .
  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                              Action brought on 30 April 1997 by the Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities against the French Republic
  The contested Regulation, which extends until
  31 December 2001 the duration of the scheme provided                                                  ( Case C-166/97)
  for by Council Regulation (EEC ) No 2158/92 of 23 July                                                   ( 97/C 212/23 )
  1992 on the protection of the Community's forests against
  fire, was adopted on the sole basis of Article 43 of the EC
  Treaty, relating to the common agricultural policy, which
  provides that the European Parliament is to be consulted .                   An action against the French Republic was brought before
  The legal basis for the Regulation should, however, have                     the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
  been Article 130s of the Treaty, relating to environmental                   30 April 1997 by the Commission of the European
  policy, which provides for the 'cooperation' procedure                       Communities, represented by Richard B. Wainwright,
  between the Council and the Parliament .                                     Legal Adviser, and Jean-Francis Pasquier, a national civil
                                                                               servant seconded to the Commission's Legal Service,
                                                                               acting as Agents, with an address for service in
  Regulation ( EEC ) No 2158/92 was itself adopted on the                      Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
  legal basis of Articles 43 and 130s of the EC Treaty.                        Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.


title: Case T-150/05: Action brought on 18 April 2005 by Markku Sahlstedt, Juha Kankkunen, Mikko Tanner, Toini Tanner, Liisa Tanner, Eeva Jokinen, Aili Oksanen, Olli Tanner, Leena Tanner, Aila Puttonen, Risto Tanner, Tom Järvinen, Runo K. Kurko, Maa- ja metsätaloustuottajain keskusliitto MTK ry and MTK:n säätiö against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/42

         Action brought on 18 April 2005 by Markku Sahlstedt, Juha Kankkunen, Mikko Tanner, Toini Tanner, Liisa Tanner, Eeva Jokinen, Aili Oksanen, Olli Tanner, Leena Tanner, Aila Puttonen, Risto Tanner, Tom Järvinen, Runo K. Kurko, Maa- ja metsätaloustuottajain keskusliitto MTK ry and MTK:n säätiö against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-150/05)
   (2005/C 143/78)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 18 April 2005 by Markku Sahlstedt, Juha Kankkunen, Mikko Tanner, Toini Tanner, Liisa Tanner, Eeva Jokinen, Aili Oksanen, Olli Tanner, Leena Tanner, Aila Puttonen, Risto Tanner, Tom Järvinen, Runo K. Kurko, Maa- ja metsätaloustuottajain keskusliitto MTK ry and MTK:n säätiö, represented by Kari Marttinen, lawyer.
   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision (1) in its entirety;

               —

               in the alternative, if it does not regard that as possible, annul the contested decision in so far as it concerns all the sites in the Republic of Finland included in the decision;

               —

               in the further alternative, if it does not regard that as possible either, annul the decision as regards the sites specified in part 6.2.2.7;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs in full with statutory interest.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   According to the applicants, the decision is contrary to Community law, in particular Article 4 of the Nature Directive and Annex III referred to there. The argument that the decision is contrary to Community law rests on three principal pleas in law:

               (a)

               Under Article 3 of the nature directive, the Natura 2000 network is a coherent European network of protected sites. The coherence of the network is ensured and the objective of a favourable level of protection attained by the fact that Article 4 of and Annex III to the directive, concerning the choice of sites, are binding on both the Member States and the Commission. Sites may not be chosen without complying with those provisions and not by preliminary decisions or partial decisions. The sites are to be chosen by uniform criteria for all Member States;

               (b)

               Stages 1 (the Member State stage) and 2 (the Commission stage) of Annex III form a whole which consists of measures having legal effect. The procedure in stage 2 and the decision on sites of Community importance are not in accordance with the directive if the proposal in stage 1 does not fulfil the requirements of the directive;

               (c)

               The Commission must in connection with stage 2, together with the Member States, coordinate the proposals of the Member States and make changes to the boundaries concerning each biogeographical region, as a consequence of a more extensive examination than the Member State's as regards the favourable level of protection.

         Finland's stage 1 proposal of sites, from which the sites of Community importance were chosen by the Commission decision in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 4(2) of the directive, is contrary to the nature directive's mandatory selection criteria for the choice of sites.
   The Commission is obliged to ensure that the sites included in the Member State's proposal satisfy the biogeographical requirements required for the inclusion of sites in the decision to be made after stage 2. The Commission thus may not, without a proper examination of the biogeographical data, approve a proposed site for entry in the list of sites of Community importance.

      (1)  Commission Decision 2005/101/EC of 13 January 2005 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, the list of sites of Community importance for the Boreal biogeographical region, OJ L 40, 11.2.2005, p. 1.


title: Case T-69/09: Action brought on 20 February 2009 — Provincie Groningen and Provincie Drenthe v Commission

text:
               18.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/33

         Action brought on 20 February 2009 — Provincie Groningen and Provincie Drenthe v Commission
   (Case T-69/09)
   2009/C 90/51
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicants: Provincie Groningen (Groningen, Netherlands) and Provincie Drenthe (Assen, Netherlands) (represented by: C. Dekker and E. Belhadj, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul in part Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2008) 8355 of 11 December 2008 on the reduction of the aid from the European Regional Development Fund within the framework of the single programming document for the Groningen-Drenthe region coming under objective 2 — no 97.07.13.003 — granted in accordance with Commission Decision C(1997) 1362 of 26 May 1997, in so far as the former decision relates to the 2% flat-rate adjustment to the budget in the amount of EUR 1 139 346,24 which was applied and the expenditure amounting in total to NLG 8 441 804 which it was declared could not be subsidised, and in so far as it relates to the extrapolation adjustment of 5,76% and also in so far as it concerns the adjustment of NLG 1 160 456 in connection with the failure to put out to tender contracts with a value below the threshold referred to in the procurement directives;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of their application, the applicants first submit that there has been a breach of Article 24 of Regulation No 4253/88 (1) by reason of the fact that the Commission applied an extrapolated adjustment of 5,76% in respect of established errors and a flat-rate adjustment of 2% in respect of the failure to meet specific conditions of the project and programme, even though those adjustments cannot be based on that article.
   Second, the applicants allege that there has been a breach of Articles 28 EC and 49 EC by reason of the fact that the Commission failed to realise that contracts with a value below the threshold values referred to in Directive 93/37/EEC, (2) Directive 93/38/EEC (3) and Directive 92/50/EEC (4) in respect of public contracts may be awarded in accordance with the provisions governing the free movement of goods and services only if there is a cross-border element.
   Third, the applicants allege an infringement of the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectation inasmuch as the Commission established that contracts with a value below the threshold values referred to in the public procurement directives may be awarded only in accordance with the provisions on free movement of goods and services, even though this was not clear at the time when the single programming document for the Groningen-Drenthe region coming under objective 2 was being implemented.
   Fourth, the applicants argue that there has been a breach of the EC Treaty, in particular Article 211 EC, by virtue of the fact that the Commission applied a flat-rate reduction of 2% in respect of the alleged failure to comply with the national conditions governing the project, event though it had no power to do so.
   Fifth, the applicants allege a breach of Regulations No 4253/88 and No 2064/97 (5) by reason of the fact that the Commission failed to realise that the applicants had complied with their obligations concerning the monitoring and control system.
   Sixth, the applicants allege infringement of the principle of legitimate expectation in that the Commission provided the applicants with grounds for a well-founded expectation that the existing monitoring and control system and other forms of supervision were sufficient for them to meet their obligations.
   Seventh, the applicants allege a breach of Regulation No 4253/88 on the ground that the Commission wrongly concluded that the project for the ‘Noord-Zuidroute’ had not been completed in time and that there were shortcomings in the monitoring and control systems, in respect of which a fixed adjustment of 2% was applied.
   Eighth, the applicants contend that there was a breach of Directive 93/36/EEC (6) by virtue of the fact that the Commission wrongly found that, in the context of the ‘Waterfabriek Noorder Dierenpark Emmen’ project, contracts had been concluded for the supply of membranes and a process monitoring system which, contrary to Directive 93/36/EEC, were allegedly awarded without any form of competition, even though Directive 93/36/EEC does indeed allow such in that situation.
   Ninth, the applicants allege a breach of Directives 92/50/EEC and 93/37/EEC on the ground that the Commission wrongly held that, in the context of the ‘Waterfabriek Noorder Dierenpark Emmen’ project, a contract had been concluded in respect of project and framework management which, contrary to Directive 92/50/EEC, was allegedly awarded without any form of competition, even though that contract formed part of the realisation of the work within the terms of Directive 93/37/EEC and therefore did not have to be the subject of a separate tender.
   Tenth, the applicants allege a breach of Directive 93/38/EEC on the ground that the Commission wrongly held that, within the framework of the ‘Centraal Station Groningen’ project, a contract for the renting of temporary accommodation units was awarded contrary to Directive 93/38/EEC, even though the arranging of that temporary accommodation was to be classified as ‘work’ within the terms of Directive 93/38/EEC.
   Eleventh, the applicants allege a breach of Regulation No 4253/88 by virtue of the fact that the Commission wrongly held that the subsidisation of the ‘Noord-Nederland’ technology centre was not in accordance with the single programming document.
   The applicants conclude by alleging a breach of the EC Treaty and of Regulation No 4253/88 by reason of the fact that, for the purpose of establishing the total error percentage, the Commission wrongly took into account the findings relating to the renovation plan for the Martini Hall in Groningen.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988 laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments (OJ 1988 L 374, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54).

      (3)  Council Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 84).

      (4)  Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1).

      (5)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2064/97 of 15 October 1997 establishing detailed arrangements for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 as regards the financial control by Member States of operations co-financed by the Structural Funds (OJ 1997 L 290, p. 1).

      (6)  Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 1).


C 94/16              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 28.3.98
      Removal from the register of Case C-120/96 (1)                     Removal from the register of Case C-79/97 (1)
                         (98/C 94/33)                                                      (98/C 94/37)
By order of 1 December 1997, the President of the Court           By order of 1 December 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the                of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-120/96 (Reference for         removal from the register of Case C-79/97: (Reference for
a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf):          a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München):
FRUKO-Handelsgesellschaft mbH v. Hauptzollamt Emme-               Happy Sports Michl OHG v. Finanzamt Landshut.
rich.
                                                                  (1) OJ C 131, 26.4.1997.
(1) OJ C 180, 22.6.1996.
                                                                         Removal from the register of Case C-99/97 (1)
      Removal from the register of Case C-300/96 ( )1
                                                                                (98/C 94/38)
                         (98/C 94/34)
                                                                  By order of 1 December 1997, the President of the Court
By order of 1 December 1997, the President of the Court           of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the                removal from the register of Case C-99/97: (Reference for
removal from the register of Case C-300/96 (Reference for         a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien):
a preliminary ruling from the Schleswig-Holsteinisches            Verein zur Förderung des freien Wettbewerbs im Medien-
Verwaltungsgericht): Erika Reimer v. Amt für Land- und            wesen v. TV Spielfilm Verlag Gesellschaft mbH.
Wasserwirtschaft Flensburg.
                                                                  (1) OJ C 131, 26.4.1997.
(1) OJ C 336, 9.11.1996.
                                                                        Removal from the register of Case C-135/97 (1)
      Removal from the register of Case C-345/96 (1)                                       (98/C 94/39)
                         (98/C 94/35)
                                                                  By order of 1 December 1997, the President of the Court
                                                                  of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
By order of 1 December 1997, the President of the Court           removal from the register of Case C-135/97: (Reference
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the                for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht
removal from the register of Case C-345/96 (Reference for         Wien): Verein zur Förderung des freien Wettbewerbs im
a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Nieder-        Medienwesen v. MVF Magazin-Verlag am Fleetrand
sachsen): Landeshauptstadt Hannover v. Almut Sattler.             Gesellschaft mbH.
(1) OJ C 370, 7.12.1996.                                          (1) OJ C 166, 31.5.1997.
      Removal from the register of Case C-414/96 (1)                    Removal from the register of Case C-223/97 (1)
                         (98/C 94/36)                                                      (98/C 94/40)
By order of 1 December 1997, the President of the Court           By order of 1 December 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the                of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-414/96 (Reference for         removal from the register of Case C-223/97 (Reference for
a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Hamburg):             a preliminary ruling from the Bundesvergabeamt): HDM
Mechthild Kehrl v. Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse Ham-               Flugservice GesmbH. v. Hauptverband der österreichischen
burg, intervener: Bundesanstalt für Arbeit.                       Sozialversicherungsträger.
(1) OJ C 131, 26.4.1997.                                          (1) OJ C 228, 26.7.1997.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 13 December 1995 in the case of Finanzamt Bergisch Gladbach v. Werner Skripalle (Case C-63/96)

text:
4 . 5 . 96                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 133/ 15
of the European Communities, represented by Hélène                      Estado, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
Michard and Enrico Traversa, acting as Agents, with an                  Luxembourg at the Spanish Embassy, 4-6 Boulevard E.
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos               Servais .
Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should :
The Commission claims that the Court should :
                                                                        — annul the element concerning anchovy contained in the
( a ) declare that, by introducing and maintaining in force an                Annex to Council Regulation ( EC ) No 3074/95 of
       administrative provision extending to the leasing or                   22 December 1995 ( ! ) fixing, for certain fish stocks and
       letting of certain items of movable property the                       groups of fish stocks, the total allowable catches for
       exemption from VAT restricted by Community                             1996 and certain conditions under which they may be
       legislation exclusively to the leasing or letting of                   fished,
       immovable property, the French Republic has failed to
       fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of Council Directive      — order the defendant institution to pay the costs .
       77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 ( the Sixth VAT Directive )
       on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States
       relating to turnover taxes — common system of value              Pleas in law and main arguments
       added tax : uniform basis of assessment (');
                                                                        The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
( b ) order the French Republic to pay the costs .                      in Case C-179/95 ( 2 ).
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         (>) OJ No L 330 , 30 . 12 . 1995 , p . 1 .
                                                                        ( 2 ) OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 , p . 10 .
The Commission considers that the exemption from VAT in
respect of the leasing or letting of certain items of movable
property, such as tents, caravans and mobile homes, goes
beyond the limits laid down by Article 13 ( B ) ( b ) of the Sixth
Directive, which applies only to the leasing or letting of
immovable property .
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
                                                                        Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 13 December
In the Commission's view, the uncertain interpretation of
                                                                        1995 in the case of Finanzamt Bergisch Gladbach v. Werner
the concept of a supply of services in the form of the leasing
                                                                                Skripalle
or letting of certain items of movable property which stems
from a hybrid interpretation, in accordance with criteria laid                                    ( Case C-63 /96 )
down by national law, of the supply of accommodation in a                                           ( 96/C 133/32 )
hotel or similar establishment, constitutes a major problem
which directly calls in question the system of uniform
taxation within the Community established by the Sixth                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Directive in relation to the leasing or letting of movable              European Communities by an order of the Bundesfinanzhof
                                                                        ( Federal Finance Court ) — Eleventh Chamber — of 13
property .
                                                                        December 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry
The Commission further observes that the provisions on                  on 8 March 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
exemption must be strictly interpreted, since they constitute           Finanzamt Bergisch Gladbach v. Werner Skripalle on the
an exception to the basic principle of the Directive, which             following questions :
establishes a common system of taxation of economic
                                                                         1 . Does Article 27 of Directive 77/388/EEC cover an
activities within the Community .
                                                                              authorization by the Council to introduce special
                                                                              measures for derogation from Directive 77/388/EEC (^
( 1 ) OJ No L 145 , 1977, p . 1 .
                                                                              in order to prevent tax avoidance which, in the case of
                                                                              supplies for consideration made between associated
                                                                              persons, apply the cost to the taxable person within the
                                                                              meaning of Article 11 A ( 1 ) (c ) of Directive 77/388/EEC
                                                                              as the minimum basis of assessment also where the
                                                                              agreed consideration represents the market rate but is
Action brought on 6 March 1996 by the Kingdom of Spain                        less than the minimum basis of assessment and there is
           against the Council of the European Union                          therefore no tax avoidance ?
                           ( Case C-61/96 )
                                                                        2 . Can a Member State invoke special measures under
                             ( 96/C 133/31 )                                  Article 27 of Directive 77/388/EEC as taxation rules
                                                                               applying to a taxable person, if neither the Council's
An action against the Council of the European Union was                       decision authorizing the measures was published in the
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                            Official Journal of the European Communities nor the
Communities on 6 March 1 996 by the Kingdom of Spain,                          authorization procedure under Article 27 ( 2 ) to ( 4 )
represented by Rosario Silva de Lapuerta, Abogado del                          of Directive 77/388/EEC made public — after its
 ---pagebreak--- No C 133/16         | EN j                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    4 . 5 . 96
    completion — in official publications of the Member                  Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
    State ?                                                              Landesarbeitsgericht Hamm by order of that court of
                                                                         1 March 1996 in the case of Vera Jacquet v. Land
                                                                                Nordrhein-Westfalen
(') OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 .
                                                                                ( Case C-65 /96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 133/34 )
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                              European Communities by an order of the Fifth Chamber of
Landesarbeitsgericht Hamm by order of that court of                      the Landesarbeitsgericht Hamm (Higher Labour Court,
26 January 1996 in the case of Land Nordrhein-Westfalen                  Hamm) of 1 March 1996 , which was received at the Court
                          v. Kari Uecker                                 Registry on 8 March 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the
                         ( Case C-64/96 )                                case of Vera Jacquet v. Land Nordrhein-Westfalen on the
                           ( 96/C 133/33 )                               following questions :
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   1 . May the spouse — not being a national of a Member
European Communities by an order of the Fifth Chamber of                     State — of a national of that Member State in which the
the Landesarbeitsgericht Hamm ( Higher Labour Court,                         spouses live and in which the spouse who is a national is
Hamm ) of 26 January 1996 , which was received at the                        employed also rely on the right under Article 11 of
Court Registry on 8 March 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in                 Regulation ( EEC ) No 1612/68 0 of 15 October 1968
the case of Land Nordrhein-Westfalen v . Kari Uecker on the                  on freedom of movement for workers within the
following questions :                                                        Community ?
1 . May the spouse — not being a national of a Member
    State — of a national of that Member State in which the
    spouses live and in which the spouse who is a national is            2 . If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
    employed also rely on the right under Article 11 of
    Regulation ( EEC ) No 1612/68 ( x ) of 15 October 1968                   Does that right of the spouse who is not a national of a
    on freedom of movement for workers within the                            Member State to 'take up any activity as an employed
    Community ?                                                              person' throughout the territory of the Member State
                                                                             concerned include the right, with respect to the
2 . If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative :                           conditions of employment and work, in particular with
                                                                             respect to the conditions for an effective temporal
    Does that right of the spouse who is not a national of a                 limitation of an employment relationship, to be treated
    Member State to 'take up any activity as an employed                     by an employer in the Member State concerned in the
    person' throughout the territory of the Member State                     same way as that employer would have to treat the
    concerned include the right, with respect to the                         spouse who is a national of the Member State ?
    conditions of employment and work, in particular with
    respect to the conditions for an effective temporal
    limitation of an employment relationship, to be treated
                                                                         3 . If Question 2 is also answered in the affirmative:
    by an employer in the Member State concerned in the
    same way as that employer would have to treat the
    spouse who is a national of the Member State ?                           Does Article 7 ( 1 ) of the said Regulation ( EEC ) No
                                                                              1612/68 in conjunction with Article 48 (2 ) of the EC
3 . If Question 2 is also answered in the affirmative :                      Treaty confer on a worker in a Member State of which
                                                                             he is a national the right to the same treatment as is due
    Does Article 7 ( 1 ) of the said Regulation (EEC )                       to workers who are nationals of another Member State ,
    No 1612/68 in conjunction with Article 48 ( 2 ) of the EC                and is a national provision which has been held by the
    Treaty confer on a worker in a Member State of which                     Court of Justice to be inapplicable against the latter
    he is a national the right to the same treatment as is due               persons therefore also inapplicable against the relevant
    to workers who are nationals of another Member State,                    Member State's own nationals and their spouses who
    and is a national provision which has been held by the                   are not nationals of a Member State ?
    Court of Justice to be inapplicable against the latter
    persons therefore also inapplicable against the relevant
    Member State's own nationals and their spouses who
    are not nationals of a Member State ?                                0 ) OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475 .
C ) OJ , English Special Edition 1968 ( II ), p . 475 .


title: Case T-15/05: Action brought on 18 January 2005 by Wim De Waele against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               5.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 57/40

         Action brought on 18 January 2005 by Wim De Waele against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case T-15/05)
   (2005/C 57/67)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 18 January 2005 by Wim De Waele, residing in Bruges (Belgium), represented by Paul Maeyaert and Samuel Granata.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               alter the contested decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 16 November 2004 (Case R 820/2004-1) and annul it in part, namely in so far as it concerns the goods ‘sausage casings for charcuterie’ in Class 18 or at least in so far as it concerns the goods ‘sausage casings for charcuterie intended for professional customers’;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               Community trade mark sought:

               Three-dimensional mark in the shape of an oblong with grooves twisting to the left and to the right which create diamond-shaped geometrical patterns, for goods in Classes 18, 29 and 30 – Application No 3 050 531.

               Decision of the examiner:

               Refusal of the application.

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Dismissal of the appeal.

               Pleas in law:

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94.


title: Case C-5/09: Action brought on 8 January 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/19

         Action brought on 8 January 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-5/09)
   (2009/C 55/32)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: N. Yerrell and M. Karanassou-Apostolopoulou)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/68 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2005, and in any event by not notifying those provisions to the Commission, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The time-limit for transposition of Directive 2005/68/EC of 16 November 2005 into domestic law expired on 10 December 2007.

      (1)  OJ L 323 of 9.12.2005, p. 1.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 December 2004 in Case C-177/03: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 89/618/Euratom — Informing the general public in the event of a radiological emergency — Non-transposition)

text:
               19.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/7

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 9 December 2004
   in Case C-177/03: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic
       (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 89/618/Euratom - Informing the general public in the event of a radiological emergency - Non-transposition)
   (2005/C 45/13)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-177/03: action under Article 141 EA for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 16 April 2003, between Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Grunwald and B. Stromsky) and French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues and E. Puisais) – the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), M. Ilešič and E. Levits, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 December 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to take by 27 October 2000 all the measures needed to comply with Articles 2, 3, 6 and 7 of Council Directive 89/618/Euratom of 27 November 1989 on informing the general public about health protection measures to be applied and steps to be taken in the event of a radiological emergency, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;

               2.

               For the rest, dismisses the application;

               3.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 146 of 21.6.2003.


title: Judgment of the Court of 3 October 2012 in Case E-15/11 — Arcade Drilling AS v The Norwegian State, represented by Tax Region West (Freedom of establishment — Articles 31 and 34 EEA — Taxation — Anti-avoidance principles — Proportionality)

text:
               31.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 29/7

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 3 October 2012
   in Case E-15/11
   Arcade Drilling AS v The Norwegian State, represented by Tax Region West
   (Freedom of establishment — Articles 31 and 34 EEA — Taxation — Anti-avoidance principles — Proportionality)
   2013/C 29/08
   In Case E-15/11 Arcade Drilling AS v The Norwegian State, represented by Tax Region West — REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by Oslo tingrett (Oslo District Court), concerning the interpretation of Articles 31 and 34 of the EEA Agreement, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 3 October 2012, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               In the absence of clear and precise provisions of national law that a company moving its head office outside the State of incorporation must liquidate, and of any decision by the competent authorities and courts putting the liquidation into effect, the relocation of head office to another EEA State does not frustrate the company‘s right to rely on Article 31 EEA. In such circumstances, the company may rely on Article 31 EEA to challenge the lawfulness of a tax imposed on it by the home State on the occasion of the relocation of its head office to another EEA State.
               The definitive establishment of the amount of tax payable by a company that relocates its head office outside the realm of Norway based on the assessment of the tax authorities that it is in avoidance of taxation consequent to an obligation to wind up and liquidate the company pursuant to national company law, constitutes a restriction under Articles 31 and 34 EEA if companies deemed to be in breach of such an obligation, but not seeking relocation, are not subject to liquidation taxation.

               2.

               The definitive establishment of the amount of tax payable by a company based on the assessment of the tax authorities that the company is in avoidance of taxation consequent to an obligation to wind up and liquidate the company pursuant to national company law may be justified on the grounds of maintaining the balanced allocation of powers of taxation between the EEA States and preventing tax avoidance. These grounds constitute overriding reasons in the public interests. Moreover, the definitive establishment of the amount of tax payable by a company is appropriate in relation to ensuring the attainment of these objectives.
               The definitive establishment of the amount of tax payable by a company based on the assessment of the tax authorities in the EEA State of origin that the company is in avoidance of taxation consequent to an obligation to wind up and liquidate the company pursuant to national company law must be regarded as not going beyond what is necessary to attain the objectives relating to the need to maintain the balanced allocation of powers of taxation between the EEA States and to prevent tax avoidance, insofar as it provides for the consideration of objective and verifiable elements in order to determine whether the relocation of a head office represents an arrangement incompatible with the rules of domestic company law.
               If the consideration of objective and verifiable elements leads to the conclusion that the company is not in compliance with the rules of national company law and should therefore be subject to liquidation, the definitive establishment of the amount of tax payable must be confined to the consequences of liquidation in order to remain compatible with the principle of proportionality. It is for the national court to verify whether the decision at issue in the main proceedings goes beyond what is necessary to attain the objectives pursued by the legislation.
               A national measure that prescribes the immediate recovery of tax on unrealised assets and tax positions at the time of the assessment of the tax authorities that a company has lost its status as a separate legal entity under national law, but without any decision by the authorities or courts competent to determine that the company has lost that status, is precluded by Article 31 EEA.


title: Case T-638/14: Judgment of the General Court of 8 April 2016 Frinsa del Noroeste v EUIPO — Frisa Frigorífico Rio Doce (FRISA) (European Union trade mark — Opposition procedure — Application for the European Union figurative mark FRISA — Earlier European Union figurative mark Frinsa — Relative ground for refusal — Genuine use of the earlier trademark — Submission of new facts and evidence in support of an appeal brought before the General Court — Power to alter decisions — Article 42(2) and (3), Article 65 and final part of Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Rule 22, paragraphs 2 to 4, of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)

text:
               30.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 191/25

         Judgment of the General Court of 8 April 2016 Frinsa del Noroeste v EUIPO — Frisa Frigorífico Rio Doce (FRISA)
   (Case T-638/14) (1)

   ((European Union trade mark - Opposition procedure - Application for the European Union figurative mark FRISA - Earlier European Union figurative mark Frinsa - Relative ground for refusal - Genuine use of the earlier trademark - Submission of new facts and evidence in support of an appeal brought before the General Court - Power to alter decisions - Article 42(2) and (3), Article 65 and final part of Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Rule 22, paragraphs 2 to 4, of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95))
   (2016/C 191/32)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Frinsa del Noroeste, SA (Santa Eugenia de Ribeira, Spain) (represented by: J. Botella Reyna, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Frisa Frigorífico Rio Doce, SA (Espírito Santo, Brazil)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 July 2014 (Joined Cases R 1547/2013-4 and R 1851/2013-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Frinsa del Noroeste, SA and Frisa Frigorífico Rio Doce, SA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 1 July 2014 (Joined Cases R 1547/2013-4 and R 1851/2013-4);

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 380, 27.10.2014.


title: Case C-219/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 13 May 2015 — Elisabeth Schmitt v TÜV Rheinland LGA Products GmbH

text:
               24.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/17

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 13 May 2015 — Elisabeth Schmitt v TÜV Rheinland LGA Products GmbH
   (Case C-219/15)
   (2015/C 279/21)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Elisabeth Schmitt

      Defendant: TÜV Rheinland LGA Products GmbH

      Questions referred

   Is it the purpose and intention of the Directive (1) that, in the case of Class III medical devices, the notified body responsible for auditing the quality system, examining the design of the product and surveillance acts in order to protect all potential patients and may therefore, in the event of a culpable infringement of an obligation, have direct and unlimited liability towards the patients concerned?
   Does it follow from the aforementioned points of Annex II to Directive 93/42/EEC that, in the case of Class III medical devices, the notified body responsible for auditing the quality system, examining the design of the product and surveillance is subject to a general obligation to examine devices, or at least to examine them where there is due cause?
   Does it follow from the aforementioned points of Annex II to Directive 93/42/EEC that, in the case of Class III medical devices, the notified body responsible for auditing the quality system, examining the design of the product and surveillance is subject to a general obligation to examine the manufacturer’s business records and/or to carry out unannounced inspections, or at least to do so where there is due cause?

      (1)  Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices (OJ 1993 L 169, p. 1), Directive 2007/47/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 amending Council Directive 90/385/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to active implantable medical devices, Council Directive 93/42/EEC concerning medical devices and Directive 98/8/EC concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (OJ 2007 L 247, p. 21).


title: Case C-599/11 P: Appeal brought on 28 November 2011 by TofuTown.com GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 20 September 2011 in Case T-99/10 Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               5.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 133/14

         Appeal brought on 28 November 2011 by TofuTown.com GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 20 September 2011 in Case T-99/10 Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-599/11 P)
   2012/C 133/25
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: TofuTown.com GmbH (represented by: B. Krause, Rechtsanwältin)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment under appeal;

               —

               order Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and of this appeal, or, on the contested basis that the appeal is dismissed, order that such costs be shared.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present appeal has been brought against the judgment of the General Court by which that Court annulled the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 January 2010 relating to opposition proceedings between Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG and TofuTown.com GmbH.
   In the appellant’s view the judgment under appeal should be set aside on the following grounds.
   First, the General Court erred in law in determining, under new criteria, that there was a likelihood of confusion in the light of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. According to the judgment under appeal, it is sufficient, in order for the existence of a conceptual similarity to be established, that both terms are taken from a common overarching term, and that, although conceptually different, they do not contrast with each other, which is inconsistent with existing case-law.
   Second, the General Court erred in law in determining that there was a likelihood of confusion without taking all the relevant and accepted criteria for the assessment of the similarity of trade marks into account. In the present case, the only common element is at the end of the mark cited in opposition. According to settled case-law, consumers generally pay more attention to the beginning of a trade mark than to the end.