title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 21 March 1996 in Case T-10/95: Akli Chehab v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Partial permanent invalidity - Recognition of aggravation)

text:
4 . 5 . 96           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 133/21
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            Communities and, second, an order requiring the
                     of 21 March 1996                               Commission to pay the token sum of one ecu by way of
                                                                    compensation for the non-material damage which the
in Case T-230/94 : Frederick Farrugia v. Commission of the          applicant claims to have suffered as a result of the contested
                 European Communities ( x )                         decision — the Court of First Instance ( Fifth Chamber ),
(Action for annulment — Commission decision refusing to             composed of R. Schintgen, President, and R. Garcia
award a fellowship to the applicant — Criteria for eligibility      Valdecasas and J. Azizi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
— British Overseas citizen — Erroneous reasons —                    has given a judgment on 21 March 1996, in which it:
     Non-contractual liability — Non-material damage)
                         ( 96/C 133/47 )                            1 , annuls the decision of the Commission of 13 January
                                                                          1 994 awarding an invalidity pension to the applicant;
              (Language of the case: English)                       2 , dismisses the remainder of the application;
In Case T-230/94 : Frederick Farrugia, resident in Athens,          3 , orders the Commission to pay all of the costs.
represented by Linos Sissilianos, of the Athens Bar, v.
Commission of the European Communities ( Agents: Ana                (') OJ No C 380, 31 . 12 . 1994 .
Maria Alves Vieira and, during the oral procedure, Peter
Oliver) — application for the annullment of the
Commission decision of 26 April 1994 rejecting the
applicant's application for a research training fellowship
and for compensation for material and non-material
damage allegedly caused to the applicant by that decision —
                                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
the Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber), composed
of H. Kirschner, President, C. W. Bellamy and                                              of 21 March 1996
A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a          in Case T-10/95 : Akli Chehab v. Commission of the
judgment on 21 March 1996 , in which it:                                               European Communities (*)
                                                                    (Officials — Partial permanent invalidity — Recognition of
1 , annuls the Commission decision in its letter of 26 April                                     aggravation)
     1994;
                                                                                ( 96/C 133/49 )
2 , dismisses the claim for compensation;
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
3 , orders the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                    In Case T-10/95 : Akli Chehab, a retired former official of
(M OJ No C 101 , 22 . 4 . 1995 .                                    the Commission of the European Communities, residing in
                                                                    Paris, represented by Jean-Noël Louis, of the Brussels Bar,
                                                                    with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
                                                                    Fiduciaire Myson Sàrl, 1 Rue Glesener, v. Commission of
                                                                    the European Communities (Agents: Ana Maria Alves
                                                                    Vieira and Julian Currall ) — application, first, for the
                                                                    annulment of a decision whereby the Commission declined
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                    to recognize a 3% aggravation in the partial permanent
                     of 21 March 1996                               invalidity of the applicant and, second, an order requiring
in Case T-3 76/94: Georgette Otten v. Commission of the             the Commission to pay compensation for the non-material
                 European Communities ( 1 )                         damage which the applicant claims to have suffered in the
(Officials — Invalidity Committee — Composition —                   present case — the Court of First Instance ( Second
   Decision to retire an official on grounds of invalidity)         Chamber ), composed of H. Kirschner, President, and C. W.
                                                                    Bellamy and A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal
                         ( 96/C 133/48 )                            Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                    21 March 1996 , in which it:
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                    1 , annuls the    decision of the Commission of 22 March
                                                                          1 994 in so far as it limits to 3% the degree of partial
In Case T-376/94 : Georgette Otten, a former official of the
                                                                          permanent    invalidity from which the applicant is
Commission of the European Communities, residing at                       recognized  to be suffering;
Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël Louis, of the Brussels
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices       2 , dismisses the remainder of the application;
of Fiduciaire Myson Sàrl, 1 Rue Glesener, v. Commission of
the European Communities ( Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and           3 , orders the Commission to pay all of the costs.
Julian Currall ) — application, first, for the annulment
of the decision of the Commission of 13 January 1994
awarding the appplicant an invalidity pension fixed in              ( ! ) OJ No C 74, 25 . 3 . 1995 .
accordance with the third paragraph of Article 78 of
the Staff Regulations of officials of the European


title: Case T-305/14: Action brought on 29 April 2014  — Vestolit v Commission

text:
               14.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/54

         Action brought on 29 April 2014 — Vestolit v Commission
   (Case T-305/14)
   2014/C 223/56
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Vestolit GmbH (Marl, Germany) (represented by: D. Greinacher, J. Martin and B. Scholtka, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul, in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, the Commission’s decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure in relation to the support for the generation of electricity from renewable energy sources and from mine gas in accordance with the Gesetz für den Vorrang erneuerbarer Energien (Law for the priority of renewable energy sources, ‘EEG’) and the reduced EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users against the Federal Republic of Germany — State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) of 18 December 2013, published in the Official Journal of the EU on 7 February 2014 (OJ 2014 C 37, p. 73), in so far as the Commission classifies the special compensation regime pursuant to Paragraphs 40 and 41 of the EEG as State aid within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs necessarily incurred pursuant to Article 87(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law: Infringement of Article 107 TFEU
               The applicant claims that the Commission wrongly classified the support for renewable energies by way of the surcharge system and the special compensation regime to reduce the EEG-surcharge as aid and therefore should not have initiated the formal investigation procedure.

                           —

                           In this connection, the applicant contends that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment in the preliminary assessment of the issue of whether the special compensation regime constitutes aid, since the special compensation regime, as an exception to the EEG-surcharge, does not grant any advantage which energy-intensive users would not have obtained under normal market conditions.

                           —

                           The applicant also claims that no State resources are affected. Since the proceeds from the EEG-surcharge already did not constitute State resources, no State resources could be affected even by the exception for energy-intensive users.

                           —

                           The applicant further claims that the special compensation regime also does not distort competition. At most, it establishes the competitive conditions which exist without the EEG-surcharge.

               2.

               Second plea in law: Infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations
               The applicant claims that, by adopting the decision, the Commission also infringes the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations. The German scheme to support renewable energy has already been subject to a thorough State aid assessment. In that assessment, the Commission in 2002 concluded that a transfer of State resources is not linked to that scheme. Since the 2012 EEG does not, in this respect, contain any substantial amendments to the legal position at the time, the economic operators concerned ought not to have expected a re-examination, but should have been entitled to rely on the continuance of the scheme.

               3.

               Third plea in law: Misuse of powers
               Lastly, the applicant considers that the Commission misused the discretion afforded to it under Articles 107 and 108 TFEU. By initiating the investigation procedure, the Commission is primarily pursuing the objective of fundamentally harmonising the support for renewable electricity. That fundamental objective is also evidenced by the new draft guidelines for environmental and energy aid, in which the Commission for the first time lays down detailed schemes to support renewable energies. In order to work towards a harmonisation, the Commission would, however, have to apply the procedure for approximating laws pursuant to Articles 116 and 117 TFEU, which is laid down for that purpose.


title: Case C-440/14 P: Appeal brought on 23 September 2014 by National Iranian Oil Company against the judgment delivered on 16 July 2014 in Case T-578/12 National Iranian Oil Company v Council

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/22

         Appeal brought on 23 September 2014 by National Iranian Oil Company against the judgment delivered on 16 July 2014 in Case T-578/12 National Iranian Oil Company v Council
   (Case C-440/14 P)
   2014/C 421/33
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: National Iranian Oil Company (represented by: J.-M. Thouvenin, avocat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               set aside the judgment of 16 July 2014 of the Seventh Chamber of the General Court of the European Union in Case T-578/12;

               —

               grant the forms of order sought by the appellant in the proceedings before the General Court;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of both proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its action, the appellant raises six grounds of appeal against the judgment of the General Court delivered on 16 July 2014.
   As the first ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the General Court erred in law in paragraph 43 of the judgment under appeal by holding that by referring to Article 46(2) of Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 (1), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 (2) must be considered to state clearly that its legal basis is constituted by Article 46(2) of Regulation No 267/2012. A legal basis lays down the legal form which the measure based on it must take; however, Article 46(2) does not lay down any legal form.
   As the second ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the General Court erred in law in paragraphs 54 to 56 of the judgment under appeal, which is stated in the claim that ‘it is not apparent from Article 215(2) that the individual restrictive measures taken against natural or legal persons, groups or non-State entities must be adopted according to the procedure provided for in Article 215(1) TFEU’. First, Article 215(1), the only provision of the TFEU dealing with restrictive measures, lays down clearly that the procedure applicable with respect to such measures is the procedure provided for in that article, and does not provide for any other. Secondly, Article 291 TFEU is incompatible with Article 215(2) TFEU. Finally, in the alternative, Article 291(2) TFEU cannot be regarded as capable of providing the Council with a legal basis in addition to that constituted by Article 215(2) TFEU, for the adoption of restrictive measures.
   As the third ground of appeal, which is put forward in the alternative in the event that it is held that recourse to Article 291(2) TFEU, as a basis for the adoption of individual restrictive measures, is legally possible in the context of a policy of adopting restrictive measures initially based on Article 215 TFEU, the appellant claims that the General Court erred in law by holding, in essence, in paragraphs 74 to 83 of its judgment, that the Council of the European Union, to reproduce the wording of Article 291(2), ‘duly justified’ the recourse to that procedure in derogation in this case. First, the justification requirement thus set out cannot be satisfied by a justification which is not express. Secondly, even if an implied justification is capable of satisfying that requirement, it is not fulfilled in this case, since the General Court interpreted the texts concerned wrongly.
   As the fourth ground of appeal, which is put forward in the alternative in the event that it is held that recourse to Article 291(2) TFEU, as a basis for the adoption of individual restrictive measures, is legally possible in the context of a policy of adopting restrictive measures initially based on Article 215 TFEU, the appellant claims that the General Court erred in law by holding, in paragraph 86 of its judgment, that Article 46(2) of Regulation No 267/2012 ‘reserves to the Council the power to implement the provisions of Article 23(2) and (3) of that regulation’, which suffices to fulfil the obligation to state reasons concerning the statement of the legal basis of that provision, which is Article 291(2) TFEU. According to the appellant, the General Court came to that conclusion as a result of a legally flawed interpretation of Article 46(2) of Regulation No 267/2012.
   As the fifth ground of appeal, which is put forward in the alternative in the event that it is held that recourse to Article 291(2) TFEU, as a basis for the adoption of individual restrictive measures, is legally possible in the context of a policy of adopting restrictive measures initially based on Article 215 TFEU, the appellant claims that the General Court erred in paragraph 87 of its judgment by holding that the obligation to state reasons for legal acts of the European Union did not oblige the Council to state expressly that Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 was based on Article 291(2) TFEU, as far as concerns the legal basis of Article 46(2) of Regulation No 267/2012.
   As the sixth ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the General Court erred in law in paragraph 115 of its judgment by holding that the criterion set out in Article 23(2)(d) of Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 (the contested criterion) is compatible with the principles of the rule of law and more generally with EU law since it is ‘neither arbitrary nor discretionary’ and, in paragraph 123 of its judgment that ‘the contested criterion limits the Council’s power of assessment, by providing for objective criteria, and ensures the level of foreseeability required by EU law’. The General Court also infringed the appellant’s rights of defence. The appellant points out first that it is by rewriting the contested criterion that the General Court held it to be compatible with EU law, whereas its lawfulness should be assessed with reference to the way it is expressed in the regulation. It notes next that the fact that the General Court rewrote the contested criterion in order to hold that it is lawful adversely affects the rights of the defence by depriving it of the right to rely on that rewritten text for the purposes of its defence, since it was unaware of the meaning of that rewritten text at the time it developed that defence, while opposing it. Finally, the appellant alleges a lack of consistency in the General Court’s arguments which infringes its obligation to state reasons.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1)

      (2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 16)


title: Case T-55/07: Action brought on 23 February 2007 — Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/52

         Action brought on 23 February 2007 — Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-55/07)
   (2007/C 82/108)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: H.G. Sevenster and D.J.M. de Grave, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul in part the Commission Decision of 14 December 2006 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) in so far as it relates to the Netherlands and more particularly with regard to the financial correction applied in it regarding payment requested for non-subsidisable expenditure in the framework of the EAGGF, Guarantee Section, for the year 2002 in the amount of EUR 5.67 million;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of its application the Netherlands alleges, first, breach of Article 4 of Regulation No 2603/1999 (1), by incorrectly interpreting and applying the concept of ‘multiannual expenditure ’within the meaning of that article.
   Secondly, the applicant complains of breach of Article 44(2) of Regulation 1257/1999 (2), and also the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations through the application of a financial correction of the full amount of the sum concerned, as a consequence of the procedure followed by the Netherlands authorities, when the Commission had previously approved the declaration under the Guarantee section pursuant to the procedure in the framework of the approval of the Netherlands programme document for rural development 2000-2006.
   In the alternative, the applicant complains of breach of Article 7(4) of Regulation No 1258/1999 (3) and of Article 5(2)(c) of Regulation No 729/90 (4), by virtue of the incorrect application of those articles in the contested decision, the Community not having suffered any financial damage as a result of the procedure followed by the Netherlands authorities.
   In the further alternative, the applicant alleges breach of the principle of proportionality because a correction was applied in the full amount of the sum concerned, when those EAGGF monies, as is undisputedly the case, were correctly used by the Netherlands authorities in the sense that the Community did not suffer any financial damage as a result of the procedure followed by the Netherlands authorities.
   Lastly, the applicant alleges breach of the obligation to state reasons because a correction was applied in the full amount of the sum concerned without any reasons being given and contrary to the findings of the conciliation body, when those EAGGF monies, as is undisputedly the case, were correctly used by the Netherlands authorities in the sense that the Community did not suffer any financial damage as a result of the procedure followed by the Netherlands authorities.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2603/1999 of 9 December 1999 laying down rules for the transition to the rural development support provided for by Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 (OJ 1999 L 316, p. 26).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the support of rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain regulations (OJ 1999 L 160, p. 80).

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 1999 L 160, p. 103).

      (4)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 of 21 April 1970 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 1970 L 94, p. 13).


title: Case C-605/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Welmory sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Gdańsku (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 44 — Concept of ‘fixed establishment’ of the recipient of a supply of services — Place where services are deemed to be supplied to taxable persons — Intra-Community transaction)

text:
               22.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/2

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Welmory sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Gdańsku
   (Case C-605/12) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 44 - Concept of ‘fixed establishment’ of the recipient of a supply of services - Place where services are deemed to be supplied to taxable persons - Intra-Community transaction))
   (2014/C 462/03)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Welmory sp. z o.o.

      Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Gdańsku

      Operative part of the judgment

   A first taxable person who has established his business in one Member State, and receives services supplied by a second taxable person established in another Member State, must be regarded as having a ‘fixed establishment’ within the meaning of Article 44 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2008/8/EC of 12 February 2008, in that other Member State, for the purpose of determining the place of taxation of those services, if that establishment is characterised by a sufficient degree of permanence and a suitable structure in terms of human and technical resources to enable it to receive the services supplied to it and use them for its business, which is for the referring court to ascertain.

      (1)  OJ C 79, 16.3.2013.


title: Case C-462/11: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from Tribunalul Dâmbovița — Romania) — Victor Cozman v Teatrul Municipal Târgoviște (Reference for a preliminary ruling — First Additional Protocol to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms — Whether national legislation establishing reductions in the salaries of several categories of public-sector employee is lawful — Lack of connection to European Union law — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

text:
               10.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/13

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from Tribunalul Dâmbovița — Romania) — Victor Cozman v Teatrul Municipal Târgoviște
   (Case C-462/11) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - First Additional Protocol to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms - Whether national legislation establishing reductions in the salaries of several categories of public-sector employee is lawful - Lack of connection to European Union law - Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)
   2012/C 73/23
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Tribunalul Dâmbovița

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Victor Cozman

      Defendant: Teatrul Municipal Târgoviște

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunalul Dâmbovița — Interpretation of Article 1 of the First Additional Protocol to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms — Whether national legislation establishing reductions in the salaries of several categories of public-sector employee is lawful — Nature of remuneration rights — Limitations

      Operative part of the order

   The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction to answer the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by Tribunalul Dâmbovița (Romania) by decision of 7 February 2011.

      (1)  OJ C 331, 12.11.2011.


title: Case C-461/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 23 October 2008 — Don Bosco Onroerend Goed BV; other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/16

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 23 October 2008 — Don Bosco Onroerend Goed BV; other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-461/08)
   (2009/C 69/29)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Don Bosco Onroerend Goed BV

      Other Party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 13B(g) in conjunction with Article 4(3)(a) of the Sixth Directive (1) be interpreted as meaning that tax is charged on the supply of a building which has been partly demolished with a view to the replacement of that building with a newly constructed building?

               2.

               Is it relevant to the answer to that question whether it is the vendor or the purchaser of the building who has given the order for demolition and is charged the cost thereof, and thus the supply is taxed only if the vendor has given the order for demolition and is charged the cost thereof?

               3.

               Is it relevant to the answer to the first question whether it is the vendor or the purchaser of the building who has drawn up the plans for the new building, and thus the supply is taxed only if the vendor has drawn up the plans for the new building?

               4.

               If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, is tax then levied on any supply occurring after the date on which the demolition work actually begins or after a later date, especially the date on which the demolition has made substantial progress?

      (1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).


title: Case C-382/07: Action brought on 8 August 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

text:
               22.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/9

         Action brought on 8 August 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-382/07)
   (2007/C 223/12)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: N. Yerrell and M. Telles Romão, Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/51/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 amending Council Directive 91/440/EEC on the development of the Community's railways or, in any event, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposition of the directive into national law expired on 31 December 2005.

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 164, p. 164.


title: Case T-535/10: Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2012 — Organismos Kypriakis Galaktokomikis Viomichanias v OHIM — Garmo (GAZI Hellim) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark GAZI Hellim — Prior collective Community word mark HALLOUMI — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               21.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2012 — Organismos Kypriakis Galaktokomikis Viomichanias v OHIM — Garmo (GAZI Hellim)
   (Case T-535/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark GAZI Hellim - Prior collective Community word mark HALLOUMI - Relative ground for refusal - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2012/C 217/42
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Organismos Kypriakis Galaktokomikis Viomichanias (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented initally by: C. Milbradt and H. Van Volxem, and subsequently by: C. Milbradt and A. Schwarz, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Garmo AG (Stuttgart, Germany)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 September 2010 (Case R 1497/2009-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Organismos Kypriakis Galaktokomikis Viomichanias and Garmo AG.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 20 September 2010 (Case R 1497/2009-4);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.


title: Case C-256/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 9 May 2016 — Deichmann SE v Hauptzollamt Duisburg

text:
               18.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/29

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 9 May 2016 — Deichmann SE v Hauptzollamt Duisburg
   (Case C-256/16)
   (2016/C 260/36)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Deichmann SE

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Duisburg

      Question referred

   Is Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/223 (1) of 17 February 2016 establishing a procedure for assessing certain market economy treatment and individual treatment claims made by exporting producers from China and Vietnam, and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 valid?

      (1)  OJ 2016 L 41, p. 3.


title: Case F-40/10: Action brought on 7 June 2010 — Lebedef v Commission

text:
               31.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/55

         Action brought on 7 June 2010 — Lebedef v Commission
   (Case F-40/10)
   ()
   2010/C 209/87
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Giorgio Lebedef (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the Commission’s decision stating that the applicant exceeded his annual leave entitlement without authorisation by 5,5 days in 2009.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decision of 11 August 2009, by which the General Director of Eurostat gave instructions to his Human Resource Management unit to inform the competent departments of the Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements that the applicant had exceeded his annual leave entitlement by 5,5 days in 2009, to cause him to lose his remuneration for that period;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-293/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal du Travail de Bruxelles by judgment of that Court of 20 May 2003 in the case of Gregorio MY against L'Office National des Pensions (O.N.P.)

text:
18.10.2003            EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                               C 251/3
Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court for Trade                rights either from the national scheme to the European
and Industry) of 26 June 2003, received at the Court Registry                scheme or, conversely, from the European scheme to the
on 30 June 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                 national scheme;
between Arch Timber Protection BV and College voor de
toelating van bestrijdingsmiddelen; party to these proceedings:
Stichting Behoud Leefmilieu en Natuur Maas en Waal on the               2.   in that by providing that the worker concerned must
following question:                                                          expressly waive the right to transfer from the Belgian
                                                                             scheme to the European scheme or by causing an
                                                                             administrative practice to that effect, without the afore-
Does the Substances Directive permit a Member State to lay                   mentioned comparison having been made, these provi-
down additional conditions for the placing on the market and                 sions mislead or could mislead the worker;
use of a biocidal product the active substance of which is
included in Annex I to the Substances Directive?
                                                                        3.   and in that these national provisions do not allow years of
                                                                             service as an official of the European Union to be taken
                                                                             into account for the purposes of the grant of an early
                                                                             national pension?
                                                                        (1) English special edition Series-I I Chapter 1968(II) p. 475.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal du
Travail de Bruxelles by judgment of that Court of
20 May 2003 in the case of Gregorio MY against
            L'Office National des Pensions (O.N.P.)
                        (Case C-293/03)                                 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesver-
                                                                        waltungsgerichts by order of that Court of 30 April
                                                                        2003 in the case of Federal Republic of Germany, repre-
                        (2003/C 251/06)                                 sented by the Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und
                                                                        Technologie against ISIS Multimedia Net GmbH und Co.
                                                                            KG and Firma O2 (Germany) GmbH and Co. OHG
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal du
Travail de Bruxelles (Brussels Labour Court) of 20 May 2003,                             (Cases C-327/03 and C-328/03)
received at the Court Registry on 4 July 2003, for a prelimin-
ary ruling in the case of Gregorio MY against L'Office                                             (2003/C 251/07)
National des Pensions (O.N.P.) (National Pensions Office) on
the following questions:
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Are national provisions, such as the Belgian Law of 21 May              European Communities by order of the Bundesverwaltungs-
1991 (establishing a certain relationship between the Belgian           gerichts (Federal Administrative Court) of 30 April 2003,
pension schemes and those of international public law bodies)           received at the Court Registry on 28 July 2003, for a preli-
and the second paragraph of Article 4 of the Belgian Royal              minary ruling in the case of Federal Republic of Germany,
Decree of 23 December 1996 (implementing Articles 15, 16                represented by the Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und
and 17 of the Law of 26 July 1996 modernising social security           Technologie against ISIS Multimedia Net GmbH und Co. KG
and ensuring the viability of the statutory pension schemes), or        and Firma O2 (Germany) GmbH and Co. OHG on the follow-
Article 11 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials          ing questions:
of the European Communities, not contrary to Articles 2, 3,
17, 18, 39, 40, 42 and 283 of the EC Treaty and Article 7
of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on
freedom of movement for workers within the Community (1):               1.   Is Directive 97/13/EC (1) of the European Parliament and
                                                                             of the Council of 10 April 1997 on a common frame-
                                                                             work for general authorisations and individual licences in
1.   in that these national provisions and the Staff Regulations             the field of telecommunications services (OJ 1997 L 117,
     do not allow a citizen of the European Union, such as the               p. 15) to be interpreted as meaning that, in respect of the
     plaintiff, whose professional career has been carried out               allocation of telephone numbers by the national regula-
     first in an undertaking or in a national public service and             tory authority, a fee taking account of the economic value
     then in the European Union civil service, or vice versa, to             of the telephone numbers allocated may be imposed even
     compare the pension benefits which he would obtain                      though a telecommunications undertaking operating on
     under each scheme, be it national or European, through                  the same market and occupying a dominant position on it
     transfer of rights acquired under the other schemes, and                took over free of charge from its predecessor in law, the
     based on this comparison, to request transfer of these                  former State undertaking with a monopoly, a very large


title: Action brought on 31 October 1998 by Georgsmarienhütte Holding GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-181/98) (1999/C 1/33)

text:
C 1/16                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     4.1.1999
     in the alternative declare Article 3 of that directive to       in the Community legal order such as for example the
     be null and void in so far as the ban it lays down              right to property and the right to freedom of expression.
     includes advertising whose effects do not extend
     beyond the territory of the Member State in question,
                                                                     Finally, it is alleged that the duty to state reasons provided
                                                                     for in Article 190 of the EC Treaty has been infringed
     further in the alternative declare Article 3 of that            since, first, no or insufficient grounds were given for
     directive to be null and void in so far as it bans the          regulating essential aspects and, secondly, non of the
     use, in advertising for non-tobacco products, of brand          necessary details as to the principles of subsidiarity and
     names, trade marks and emblems used for tobacco                 proportionality were provided, neither were the real
     products;                                                       reasons for issuing the directive ascertainable.
Ð Order the defendant to pay the costs of the action.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                     Action brought on 31 October 1998 by Georgsmarienhütte
The applicant is a distributor of cinema advertising,                Holding GmbH against the Commission of the European
exclusively in Austrian cinemas. It is the market leader in                                    Communities
Austria in the distribution of cinema advertisements for
tobacco products. Its only client for tobacco-related                                        (Case T-181/98)
advertising is Austria Tabak. Since it is also Austria
                                                                                (1999/C 1/33)
Tabak's only contractor for tobacco-related products, the
applicant is the sole coordinator for the distribution of all
cinema advertisements for tobacco products in Austria.
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
The applicant considers that it will be particularly hard hit
by the economic consequences of the ban on tobacco                   An action against the Commission of the European
advertising because of its position in the market since not          Communities was brought before the Court of First
only will cinema advertisement income for tobacco-related            Instance of the European Communities on 31 October
products dry up immediately but indirect advertising' (as           1998 by Georgsmarienhütte Holding GmbH, whose
it is referred to in the directive) will also be affected, and       registered office is in Georgsmarienhütte (Germany),
these two areas of advertising represent a large part of the         represented by Walter Klosterfelde, Thomas Jestaedt and
applicant's turnover.                                                Martin Sura, Rechtsanwälte, Brussels, with an address for
                                                                     service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt and
                                                                     Medernach, 8Ð10 Rue Mathias Hardt.
The legal arguments relied on by the applicant are as
follows:
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
The directive which, according to its preamble, is based
on Articles 57(2), 66 and 100A of the EC Treaty has no
legal basis in Community law. The principle of limited               1. annul Commission Decision K(1998) 2556 of 29 July
specific authority has thus been infringed. Nor can the                  1998, concerning aids paid by the Land Niedersachsen
disputed directive be based on either Article 129 or                     to Georgsmarienhütte GmbH;
Article 235 of the EC Treaty. Even if Articles 57(2), 66
and 100A of the EC Treaty are to be considered as
appropriate and sufficient legal bases for the disputed              2. order the Commission to pay the costs.
directive, it was none the less adopted in breach of the
principle of subsidiarity established in the second
paragraph of Article 3B of the EC Treaty. In any event,
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
the directive infringes the principle of proportionality
established in the third paragraph of Article 3B of the EC
Treaty.
                                                                     The applicant, a medium-sized steel undertaking, belonged
                                                                     to the Klöckner steel group until the beginning of 1993,
The applicant further alleges infringement of the freedom            and was established following a management buy-out as
of movement of goods and services within the internal                part of composition proceedings opened in respect of that
market and in particular incompatibility with Articles 30            group. At that time, the applicant still owned a number of
et seq. and 59 et seq. of the EC Treaty.                             pieces of land that were not necessary for its business and
                                                                     were therefore to be sold. One piece of land (known as
                                                                     Westerkamp') had previously been used for many years
In addition, the applicant is of the opinion that the                by undertakings of the Klöckner steel group as a dumping
disputed directive infringes certain basic rights protected          ground for blast furnace wastes and converter steel dusts.
 ---pagebreak--- 4.1.1999            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 1/17
At the beginning of 1994, the Niedersächsische Landesent-          The applicant claims that the Court should:
wicklungsgesellschaft mbH (Nileg), which is wholly
owned by the Land Niedersachsen, acquired Westerkamp
along with other pieces of land, but insisted on the               Ð annul the implicit decision of the Commission
removal of the converter steel dusts. The applicant was                 rejecting the applicant's complaint of 6 April 1998;
therefore assigned the task under a business management
contract between it and Nileg of ensuring the appropriate
recycling or disposal of those filter dusts, for which it          Ð declare that complaint admissible and well founded,
received the sum of DEM 61 640 000.                                     and confirm that the applicant is entitled to sickness
                                                                        cover, to have his pension recalculated, to the transfer
                                                                        of his additional retirement pension entitlement
                                                                        acquired by voluntary contributions in France and to
In the contested decision, the Commission regarded the                  an invalidity pension;
payment of that amount to the applicant, inter alia, as aid
incompatible with the ECSC Treaty and the common
market, which was improperly paid without prior                    Ð order the defendant to pay all the costs.
notification to the Commission in accordance with
Article 6 of Decision No 2496/96/ECSC. It further
required the Federal Republic of Germany to annul that             The applicant further claims that the Court should:
aid and demand its repayment.
                                                                   Ð award compensation for the damage suffered by him,
The applicant maintains that the Commission has                         the amount of which he reserves the right to quantify;
misinterpreted Article 4(c) of the ECSC Treaty, and
wrongly assumed in its decision that the payments by
Nileg of DEM 61 640 000 constituted aids.                          Ð order the Commission to pay the sum of FRF 50 000
                                                                        in respect of irrecoverable expenses which it would be
                                                                        inequitable for him to have to bear.
The Commission gave no explanation in the contested
decision as to why the amount paid on the basis of a               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
bilateral contract between the applicant and Nileg
constituted aid. On the contrary, the payments were made
pursuant to a bilateral business management contract               The applicant, a former official of the Commission,
containing no aid elements. Even in the course of the              contests the defendant's refusal to allow his claim
implementation of the exchange contract, no facts arose            concerning, in particular:
which were relevant to aids. In reality, the expenditure
incurred by the applicant in fulfilment of the exchange
contract was significantly higher than the consideration           Ð the transfer to the Community scheme of the
stipulated and paid under the contract.                                 additional pension rights acquired by way of voluntary
                                                                        contributions in France in respect of the period from
                                                                        1972 to 1974, when he worked abroad;
                                                                   Ð the need to recalculate his pension on the basis of his
                                                                        present age;
Action brought on 9 November 1998 by Jean-FrancËois
Ferrandi against the Commission of the European                    Ð his loss of entitlement to national social security cover;
                       Communities                                      and
                     (Case T-183/98)
                      (1999/C 1/34)                                Ð non-payment of an invalidity pension.
                                                                   He states, with regard to his situation, that he was
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                   removed from his post and then subsequently reinstated
                                                                   pursuant to a judgment delivered by the Court of Justice
                                                                   in January 1985. Upon his falling ill following his
An action against the Commission of the European                   reinstatement and applying for the benefits payable under
Communities was brought before the Court of First                  Articles 73 and 78 of the Staff Regulations, only Article 73
Instance of the European Communities on 9 November                 was applied to him. In 1993 he applied for early
1998 by Jean-FrancËoise Ferrandi, residing in Ajaccio              retirement; that application was ultimately granted.
(France), represented by Jean-Baptiste Giuseppi, of the            Finally, the Commission re-employed him on a contractual
Ajaccio Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at          basis for a period of five years, but its financial controller
the Chambers of J. L. Biancarelli, 18 Rue J. P. Brasseur.          did not validate that contract.


title: Case C-470/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 7 September 2015 — Lufthansa Cargo AG; other party: Staatssecretaris van Infrastructuur en Milieu

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/17

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 7 September 2015 — Lufthansa Cargo AG; other party: Staatssecretaris van Infrastructuur en Milieu
   (Case C-470/15)
   (2015/C 398/22)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Lufthansa Cargo AG

      Other party: Staatssecretaris van Infrastructuur en Milieu

      Questions referred

               1.

               Should the first sentence of Article 3(1)(c)(ii) of the Air Transport Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, on the one hand, and the United States of America, on the other hand (OJ 2007 L 134) be interpreted as meaning that it provides an effective right for a Community airline from Member State A to unload cargo, which was loaded in a third country, in another Member State B, following a stopover in the US during which that cargo is not unloaded, and that it is to that extent not necessary to rely on bilateral agreements between Member State B and a third country?

               2.

               Can a Community airline derive rights from the Air Transport Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, on the one hand, and the United States of America, on the other hand, in relation to Member States other than the Member State in which that airline has its principal place of establishment?

               3.

               Does Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 847/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the negotiation and implementation of air service agreements between Member States and third countries (OJ 2004 L 195; corrigendum in OJ 2007 L 204) preclude a requirement being laid down, in the assessment as to whether the criterion of establishment referred to in Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and defined in detail in the case-law of the Court of Justice has been satisfied, that, inter alia, a Community airline having its principal place of establishment in Member State A must have part of its fleet, comprising at least two aircraft, stationed in Member State B?


               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/54

         Removal from the Register of Case T-251/99 (1)

   (2004/C 300/105)

      (Language of the case: Dutch)

   By order of 5 October 2004, the President of the Second Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-251/99, Texaco Nederland B.V. and Others v Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.


title: Case C-136/15 P: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 19 June 2015 — Mohammad Makhlouf v Council of the European Union (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Article 169(2) — Content required in the application initiating an appeal — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/11

         Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 19 June 2015 — Mohammad Makhlouf v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-136/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Article 169(2) - Content required in the application initiating an appeal - Manifest inadmissibility))
   (2015/C 398/13)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Mohammad Makhlouf (represented by: G. Karouni, avocat)

      Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: G. Étienne and M.-M. Joséphidès, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Mohammad Makhlouf shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

      (1)  OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.


title: Case T-393/14: Action brought on 4 June 2014  — Ingeperfil v Commission

text:
               28.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/29

         Action brought on 4 June 2014 — Ingeperfil v Commission
   (Case T-393/14)
   2014/C 245/39
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Ingeperfil, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J.C. García Muñoz, J.I. Jiménez-Blanco Carrillo de Albornoz and J. Corral García, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order the Commission to pay all the costs incurred in the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are those put forward in Case T-392/14.


title: Case T-544/11: Action brought on 12 October 2011 — Spectrum Brands (UK) v OHIM — Philips (STEAM GLIDE)

text:
               7.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/17

         Action brought on 12 October 2011 — Spectrum Brands (UK) v OHIM — Philips (STEAM GLIDE)
   (Case T-544/11)
   2012/C 6/33
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Spectrum Brands (UK) Ltd (Manchester, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV (Eindhoven, Netherlands)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 July 2011 in case R 1289/2010-1; and

               —

               Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear their own costs and those incurred by the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The word mark ‘STEAM GLIDE’, for goods in class 9 — Community trade mark registration No 5167382

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal filed a request for a declaration of invalidity on the basis of Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with the absolute grounds of refusal of Article 7(1)(a), (b) and (c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the request for a declaration of invalidity

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and declared the Community trade mark registration invalid

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in relation to the meaning and syntax of the mark and its component parts, as well as its aptness or otherwise as an immediate and direct descriptive term for the goods in question. Further the Board of Appeal failed to consider the general interest that underlies Article 7(1)(c) CTMR. Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal failed to consider the essential function of the mark, failed to consider the perspective of the average consumer, failed to consider Article 7(1)(b) separately from Article 7(1)(c), failed to consider the general interest that underlies Article 7(1)(b) CTMR and failed to analyse the mark as a whole.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) of 28 May 1998 in Case C-62/97 P: Commission of the European Communities v María Lidia Lozano Palacios (Appeal - Officials - Former national export on detachment - Installation allowance)

text:
C 258/2               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      15.8.98
uniform basis of assessment (OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1)            Belgium (Agent: Annie Snoecx) Ð application for a
and of Articles 6 and 59 of the EC Treaty Ð the Court                declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of               and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
the Chamber, M. Wathelet, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida                  Council Directive 94/57/EC of 22 November 1994 on
(Rapporteur), D. A. O. Edward and J.-P. Puissochet,                  common rules and standards for ship inspection and
Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate General; D. Louterman-                 survey organisations and for the relevant activities of
Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has              maritime administrations (OJ L 319 of 12.12.1994, p. 20),
given a judgment on 7 May 1998, in which it has ruled:               the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                     under that directive and the EC Treaty Ð the Court (Fifth
                                                                     Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann (Rapporteur),
1. The term fixed establishment' in Article 9(1) of the             President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet, J. C. Moitinho de
     Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977               Almeida, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; F. G. Jacobs,
     on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member                  Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
     States relating to turnover taxes Ð Common system of            judgment on 14 May 1998, in which it:
     value added tax: uniform basis of assessment must be
     interpreted in such a way that an undertaking
     established in one Member State which hires out or
                                                                     1. Declares that, by failing to adopt within the period
     leases a number of vehicles to clients established in
                                                                          prescribed, the laws, regulations and administrative
     another Member State does not possess a fixed
                                                                          provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
     establishment in that other State merely by engaging in
                                                                          94/57/EC of 22 November 1994 on common rules and
     that hiring out or leasing.
                                                                          standards for ship inspection and survey organisations
                                                                          and for the relevant activities of maritime
2. It is contrary to Article 59 of the EC Treaty for                      administrations, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to
     national rules to provide that taxable persons not                   fulfil its obligations under Article 16(1) of that
     established in a Member State, who apply for a refund                Directive;
     of VAT in accordance with the Eighth Council
     Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the
     harmonisation of the laws of the Member States                  2. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
     relating to turnover taxes Ð Arrangements for the
     refund of value added tax to taxable persons not
                                                                     (1) OJ C 370 of 6.12.1997.
     established in the territory of the country, are entitled
     to interest only from such time as notice to pay was
     served on that Member State and at a lower rate than
     that applied to the interest paid to taxable persons
     established in the territory of that State automatically
     on the expiry of the statutory time-limit for
     reimbursement.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
( ) OJ C 40 of 8.2.1997.
 1                                                                                (Fourth Chamber)
                                                                                of 28 May 1998
                                                                     in Case C-62/97 P: Commission of the European
                                                                            Communities v María Lidia Lozano Palacios (1)
                                                                     (Appeal Ð Officials Ð Former national export on
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                              detachment Ð Installation allowance)
                        (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                (98/C 258/04)
                        of 14 May 1998
in    Case    C-368/97: Commission of the European                                    (Language of the case: French)
            Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (1)
(Failure to fulfil obligations Ð Failure to transpose
                      Directive 94/57/EC)
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                         (98/C 258/03)                                          published in the European Court Reports)
                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                     In Case C-62/97 P: Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities (Agent: Julian Currall, assisted by Denis
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       Waelbroeck) Ð appeal against the judgment of the Court
          published in the European Court Reports)                   of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 12 December 1996
                                                                     in Case T-33/95 Lozano Palacios v Commission [1996]
                                                                     ECR-SC II-1535, seeking to have that judgment set aside,
In Case C-368/97: Commission of the European                         the other party to the proceedings being: María Lidia
Communities (Agent: Berend Jan Drijber) v Kingdom of                 Lozano Palacios, official of the Commission of the
 ---pagebreak--- 15.8.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 258/3
European Communities, residing in Brussels, represented              Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 of 12 June 1996 on the
by Jean-NoeÈl Louis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address            registration of geographical indications and designations
for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire               of origin under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of
Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange Ð the Court (Fourth                   Regulation No 2081/92 (OJ L 148 of 21.6.1996, p. 1) Ð
Chamber), composed of: H. Ragnemalm, President of the                the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias,
Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn and K. M. Ioannou                          President, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), H. Ragnemalm and
(Rapporteur), Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate General; R.               M. Wathelet (Presidents of Chambers), J. C. Moitinho de
Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 May 1998,               Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, J.-P. Puissochet,
in which it:                                                         G. Hirsch, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; A. La Pergola,
                                                                     Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
                                                                     Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 June 1998, in which
1. Dismisses the appeal;                                             it has ruled:
2. Orders the Commission of the European Communities                 1. Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July
     to pay the costs.                                                    1992 on the protection of geographical indications
                                                                          and designations of origin for agricultural products
                                                                          and foodstuffs must be interpreted as meaning that,
(1) OJ C 108 of 5.4.1997.
                                                                          since its entry into force, a Member State may not, by
                                                                          adopting provisions of national law, alter a
                                                                          designation of origin for which it has requested
                                                                          registration in accordance with Article 17 and protect
                                                                          that designation at national level.
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                 2. As regards a compound' designation of origin, the
                        of 9 June 1998                                    fact that there is no footnote in the annex to
                                                                          Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 of 12 June
in Joined Cases C-129/97 and C-130/97 (reference for a                    1996 on the registration of geographical indications
preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance,                  and designations of origin under the procedure laid
Dijon): criminal proceedings against Yvon Chiciak and                     down in Article 17 of Regulation No 2081/92
Fromagerie Chiciak, Jean-Pierre Fol, third parties:                       specifying that registration is not sought for one of the
       Syndicat de DeÂfense de l'EÂpoisses and Others (1)                 parts of that designation does not necessarily mean
(Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 on the protection of                         that each of its constituent parts is protected.
geographical indications and designations of origin for
agricultural products and foodstuffs Ð Exclusive                     (1) OJ C 142 of 10.5.1997.
competence of the Commission Ð Scope of the protection
             of names comprising several terms)
                        (98/C 258/05)
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                               of 11 June 1998
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                     in Joined Cases C-232/95 and C-233/95: Commission of
                                                                           the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (1)
In Joined Cases C-129/97 and C-130/97: reference to the
Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the                    (Failure to fulfil obligations Ð Directive 76/464/EEC Ð
Tribunal de Grande Instance (Regional Court), Dijon                              Water pollution Ð Non-transposition)
(France), for a preliminary ruling in the criminal                                            (98/C 258/06)
proceedings pending before that court against Yvon
Chiciak and Fromagerie Chiciak (C-129/97), Jean-Pierre
Fol (C-130/97), third parties: Syndicat de DeÂfense de                                (Language of the case: Greek)
l'EÂpoisses (C-129/97 and C-130/97), Institut National des
Appellations d'Origine ContrôleÂes (INAO) (C-129/97 and
C-130/97), Association Nationale d'Appellation d'Origine
LaitieÁre FrancËaise (ANAOF) (C-129/97 and C-130/97),                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Laiterie de la Côte SARL and Others (C-130/97) Ð on the                        published in the European Court Reports)
interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of
14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications
and designations of origin for agricultural products and             In Joined Cases C-232/95 and C-233/95: Commission of
foodstuffs (OJ L 208 of 24.7.1992, p. 1) and Commission              the European Communities (Agent: Maria Condou-


title: Case C-22/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Rechtbank te Rotterdam by order of that Court of 21 January 2003 in the proceedings between Optiver BV and 38 Others against Stichting Autoriteit Financiële Markten

text:
C 70/8                   EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                        22.3.2003
       construed individually or in conjunction to mean that                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
       they make the itinerant selling on Belgian territory                   Ordinario di Torino, Sezione IV Penale by order of that
       by both Belgian nationals and other EU nationals of                    Court of 13 January 2003 in the case brought against
       subscriptions to periodicals subject to prior authorisation                               Michel Mulliez and Others
       by the Minister, or a Grade 1 official delegated by
       him, failing which a punishable offence is committed
       thereunder, where under those national provisions a
       German company selling or wishing to sell through the                                           (Case C-23/03)
       intermediary of vendors established in Belgium subscrip-
       tions to periodicals is required to obtain such prior
       provisional authorisation or, if it does not do so commits
       an offence under those provisions?                                                              (2003/C 70/14)
(b)    Does it make any difference to the answer to the first
       question that that law of 25 June 1993 does not make
       the sale of newspapers, periodicals and also subscriptions
       to newspapers subject to such prior authorisation?
                                                                              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                              European Communities by order of the Tribunale Ordinario di
                                                                              Torino, Sezione IV Penale (District Court, Turin — Criminal
                                                                              Section IV) of 13 January 2003, received at the Court Registry
                                                                              on 23 January 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case
                                                                              brought against Michel Mulliez and Others on the following
                                                                              questions:
                                                                              1.   May Article 6 of Directive 68/151/EEC (1) be interpreted
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Rechtbank te
                                                                                as imposing an obligation upon the Member States to
Rotterdam by order of that Court of 21 January 2003 in
                                                                                establish appropriate penalties not only for failure on the
the proceedings between Optiver BV and 38 Others
                                                                                part of commercial companies to publish their balance
        against Stichting Autoriteit Financiële Markten
                                                                                sheet and profit and loss statement but also for publishing
                                                                                inaccurate versions of those statements or of other
                                                                                company information addressed to shareholders or the
                            (Case C-22/03)                                         public or of any other information concerning their
                                                                                economic, asset or financial position which they are
                                                                                required to provide and which concern the company
                           (2003/C 70/13)                                          itself or the group of companies to which it belongs?
                                                                              2.   With reference to the obligation upon each Member State
                                                                                to adopt ‘appropriate penalties’ for the infringements
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                             provided for in the First Directive 68/151/EEC and the
European Communities by order of the Rechtbank te Rotter-                          Fourth Directive 78/660/EEC ( 2), must those directives
dam (District Court, Rotterdam) of 21 January 2003, received                       and, in particular, the combined provisions of
at the Court Registry on 23 January 2003, for a preliminary                        Article 44(2)(g) of the Treaty Establishing the European
ruling in the proceedings between Optiver BV and 38 Others                         Community, Article 2(1)(f) and Article 6 of the First
against Stichting Autoriteit Financiële Markten on the follow-                     Directive and Article 2(2), (3) and (4) of the Fourth
ing question:                                                                      Directive, as amended by Directive 83/349/EEC ( 3) and
                                                                                Directive 90/605/EEC ( 4), be interpreted as precluding the
                                                                                legislation of a Member State under which no penalty
                                                                                may be imposed for breach of the duty to publish true
Does the Directive ( 1), and in particular the interpretation of                   and fair company documents (including the balance sheet
Articles 11 and 12, preclude the imposition of a levy as                           and profit and loss statement) where:
described above on securities institutions in respect of their
gross profit from securities-related activities?
                                                                                (a)    the falsehood is qualitative only,
( 1) Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning
     indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ L 249 of 03.10.1969,             (b) the falsehood in, or omission from, the company
     p. 25).                                                                              statement in question gives rise to a distortion of
                                                                                year-end profits or of the value of net company
                                                                                assets that, nevertheless, remains below a certain
                                                                                threshold expressed in percentage terms,


title: Case T-173/13: Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2014  — Selo Medical v OHIM — biosyn Arzneimittel (SELOGYN) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark SELOGYN — Earlier national word mark SELESYN — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Refusal to register)

text:
               9.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/47

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2014 — Selo Medical v OHIM — biosyn Arzneimittel (SELOGYN)
   (Case T-173/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark SELOGYN - Earlier national word mark SELESYN - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Refusal to register))
   (2015/C 046/58)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Selo Medical GmbH (Unternberg, Austria) (represented by: T. Schneider, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: biosyn Arzneimittel GmbH (Fellbach, Germany) (represented by: R. Kunz-Hallstein and H. Kunz-Hallstein, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 January 2013 (Case R 2601/2011-4), relating to opposition proceedings between biosyn Arzneimittel GmbH and Selo Medical GmbH.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders Selo Medical GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 141, 18.5.2013.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 March 2001 in Case C-278/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Criminal proceedings against Georgius van der Burg (Technical standards and regulations — Non-approved transmitting equipment — Advertising)

text:
C 173/16                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          16.6.2001
Article 19(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June            1.    Declares that, by failing to take the necessary measures to
1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed                   ensure that the quality of surface water intended for the
persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families               abstraction of drinking water conforms to the values laid down
moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council                   pursuant to Article 3 of Council Directive 75/440/EEC of
Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, and the                            16 June 1975 concerning the quality required of surface water
corresponding provisions of the other sections of Chapter 1 of Title III         intended for the abstraction of drinking water in the Member
of that regulation preclude entitlement to Pflegegeld (care allowance)           States, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
under the Bundespflegegeldgesetz (Austrian Federal Law on care                   under Article 4 of that directive;
allowance) from being subject to the condition that the person reliant
on care must be habitually resident in Austria.                            2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                           of 8 March 2001
in Case C-266/99: Commission of the European Communi-                                               of 8 March 2001
                      ties v French Republic (1)
                                                                           in Case C-278/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
(Failure of Member State to fulfil its obligations — Quality               the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Criminal proceedings
of surface water intended for the abstraction of drinking                                  against Georgius van der Burg (1)
water — Directive 75/440/EEC — Conditions of drinking
                   water abstraction in Brittany)
                                                                           (Technical standards and regulations — Non-approved
                                                                                transmitting equipment — Advertising)
                           (2001/C 173/26)
                                                                                (2001/C 173/27)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
In Case C-266/99: Commission of the European Communities                                      in the European Court Reports)
(Agent: M. Nolin) v French Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-
Bellanger and D. Colas) — application for a declaration that,
by failing to take the necessary measures to ensure that the               In Case C-278/99: reference to the Court under Article 234 of
quality of surface water intended for the abstraction of drinking          the EC Treaty from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Nether-
water complied with the standards laid down under Article 3                lands) for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings
of Council Directive 75/440/EEC of 16 June 1975 concerning                 pending before that court against Georgius van der Burg — on
the quality required of surface water intended for the abstrac-            the interpretation of Article 1 of Council Directive 83/189/EEC
tion of drinking water in the Member States (OJ 1975 L 194,                of 28 March 1983 laying down a procedure for the provision
p. 26), the French Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under         of information in the field of technical standards and regu-
that directive, and in particular Article 4 thereof — the Court            lations (OJ 1983 L 109, p. 8) — the Court (Sixth Chamber),
(Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of                     composed of: C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), President of the
the Chamber, V. Skouris, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and                Chamber, V. Skouris, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and N. Col-
F. Macken (Rapporteur), Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate Gen-               neric, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General;
eral; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a            R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 March 2001, in
judgment on 8 March 2001, in which it:                                     which it has ruled:
 ---pagebreak--- 16.6.2001                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 173/17
National legislation such as Article C.11.1(1) of the Besluit radio-        1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed periods,
elektrische inrichtingen, which prohibits commercial advertising for              all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary
transmitting equipment of a non-approved type, does not constitute,               to comply with the provisions referred to in the first subpara-
for the purposes of Council Directive 83/189/EEC of 28 March                      graph of Article 4(1) of Council Directive 96/43/EC of 26 June
1983 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in                  1996 amending and consolidating Directive 85/73/EEC in
the field of technical standards and regulations, a technical regulation          order to ensure financing of veterinary inspections and controls
which should have been notified to the Commission prior to its                    on live animals and certain animal products and amending
adoption.                                                                         Directives 90/675/EEC and 91/496/EEC, the Federal Repub-
                                                                                lic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
                                                                                subparagraph;
(1) OJ C 265 of 18.9.1999.
                                                                            2.    Dismisses the remainder of the action;
                                                                            3.    Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 299 of 16.10.1999.
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (First Chamber)                                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           of 8 March 2001                                                            (Fourth Chamber)
                                                                                of 8 March 2001
in Case C-316/99: Commission of the European Communi-
              ties v Federal Republic of Germany(1)
                                                                            in Case C-97/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v French Republic (1)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Directive 96/43/EC — Failure to transpose within the                        (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure
                           prescribed period)                                                to transpose Directive 97/52/EC)
                            (2001/C 173/28)                                                             (2001/C 173/29)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            In Case C-97/00: Commission of the European Communities
                                                                            (Agent: M. Nolin) v French Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-
In Case C-316/99: Commission of the European Communities                    Bellanger and S. Pailler) — application for a declaration
(Agent: K.-D. Borchardt) v Federal Republic of Germany                      that, by failing to communicate the laws, regulations and
(Agents: W.-D. Plessing and C.-D. Quassowski) — application                 administrative provisions necessary to comply with all the
for declaration that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed             provisions of European Parliament and Council Directive
period all the measures necessary to comply with Council                    97/52/EC of 13 October 1997 amending Directives
Directive 96/43/EC of 26 June 1996 amending and consolidat-                 92/50/EEC, 93/36/EEC and 93/37/EEC concerning the coordi-
ing Directive 85/73/EEC in order to ensure financing of the                 nation of procedures for the award of public service contracts,
veterinary inspections and controls on live animals and certain             public supply contracts and public works contracts respectively
animal products and amending Directives 90/675/EEC and                      (OJ 1997 L 328, p. 1), or by failing to adopt the measures
91/496/EEC (OJ 1996 L 162, p. 1), the Federal Republic of                   necessary to comply therewith, the French Republic has failed
Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty            to fulfil its obligations under that directive — the Court (Fourth
and that directive — the Court (First Chamber), composed of:                Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola, President of the
M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, P. Jann (Rapporteur)                 Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and S. von Bahr (Rapporteur),
and L. Sevón, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass,              Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 March 2001, in which it:               given a judgment on 8 March 2001, in which it:


title: Case C-50/08: Action brought on 12 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

text:
               24.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 128/18

         Action brought on 12 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic
   (Case C-50/08)
   (2008/C 128/31)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J.-P. Keppenne and M H. Støvlbæk, Agents)

      Defendant: French Republic
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by laying down a nationality requirement for access to the profession of notary, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty, in particular Articles 43 EC and 45 EC;

               —

               order the French Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By its action, the Commission alleges that the defendant, by laying down a nationality requirement for access to the profession of notary and its practice, disproportionately restricts the freedom of establishment laid down in Article 43 EC. Admittedly, Article 45 EC exempts from the application of the chapter relating to the right of establishment activities connected directly and specifically with the exercise of public authority. According to the Commission, the tasks entrusted to notaries under French law are so distantly connected to the exercise of public authority that they do not fall within the scope of that article or warrant such a restriction of the freedom of establishment.
   First, those tasks do not in fact confer on notaries a genuine power of coercion and the respective rights and duties of a judge and notary are completely separate.
   Secondly, less restrictive measures than a nationality requirement could be laid down by the national legislature, such as subjecting the operators concerned to strict conditions for access to the profession, specific professional duties and/or a specific test.


title: Case T-445/10: Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2012 — HerkuPlast Kubern v OHIM — How (eco-pack) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community trade mark eco-pack — Earlier national and international word marks ECOPAK — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the goods — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               10.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2012 — HerkuPlast Kubern v OHIM — How (eco-pack)
   (Case T-445/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community trade mark eco-pack - Earlier national and international word marks ECOPAK - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the goods - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2012/C 343/25
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: HerkuPlast Kubern GmbH (Ering, Germany) (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Heidi A.T. How (Harrow, United Kingdom)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 July 2010 (Case R 2014/2009-4) concerning opposition proceedings between HerkuPlast Kubern GmbH and Heidi A.T. How.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 27 July 2010 (Case R 2014/2009-4);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to pay the costs incurred by HerkuPlast Kubern GmbH and to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.