title: Action brought on 10 January 1995 by Frederick Farrugia against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-230/94)

text:
22 . 4. 95            | EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 101 /9
           the period there specified, the applicant should be           — award him compensation of ECU 13 900 for damage
           wound-up by court order without having provided                    sustained .
           that balance.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
4.    The costs are reserved.
                                                                         The applicant challenges the decision of the Commission,
t 1 ) OJ No L 243 , 19 . 9 . 1994, p . 1 .                               dated 26 April 1994, by which the Commission rejected his
                                                                         application for a fellowship at the University of London, in
                                                                         the field of research and technological development, on the
                                                                         basis that, having both British and Greek nationality, he
                 ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT                                  would not satisfy the eligibility requirements, according to
           OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                which the applicant must be :
                       of 24 February 1995                               ( a ) a national of a Community Member State or an
in Case T-40/95 R: Philippe Guebels v. Commission of the                       associated State or a natural person resident in the
                     European Communities                                      Community; and
                             ( 95/C 101 /23
                                                                         ( b ) a national of a country other than that in which the
                  (Language of the case: French)                               laboratory is established and must not have carried out
                                                                               his/her normal activity in that country for more than
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                   two years prior to the date of submission of the
           published in the European Court Reports)                            application.
In Case T-40/95 R: Philippe Guebels, an official of the                  The applicant has neither Greek nor British nationality, is a
Commission of the European Communities, residing at                      'British overseas citizen', and as such, belongs to a specific
Arlon, represented by Jean-Noël Louis, Thierry Demaseure                 category of aliens who need both a residence and a work
and Ariane Tournel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for             permit in order to live and work in the United Kingdom.
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson                 'British overseas citizens' are not treated as European Union
Sari, 1 Rue Glesener, v. Commission of the European                      nationals in any Member State .
Communities (Agent: A. M. Alves Vieira ) — application for
suspension of the implementation of the decision of the
Commission of 18 January 1995 imposing on the applicant                  Consequently, the applicant fulfilled both the nationality
                                                                         and the mobility criteria of eligibility laid down in the
the disciplinary measure of removal from post — the
President of the Court of First Instance made an order on                ' General Conditions Governing Research Training
24 February 1995 , the operative part of which is as                     Fellowships ', since he is a natural person not having the
follows :                                                                nationality of any EC Member State, resident in Greece,
                                                                         seeking to move to the United Kingdom and having never in
 1 , implementation of the decision of the Commission is                 his life carried out a normal activity in the United
      suspended until delivery of the final order in the                 Kingdom.
      proceedings for interim relief;
2 , the costs are reserved.
                                                                         Action brought on 7 February 1995 by 'Atlanta'
                                                                         Handelsgesellschaft Harder & Co GmbH and
Action brought on 10 January 1995 by Frederick Farrugia                  Internationale Fruchtimport Gesellschaft Weichert & Co
    against the Commission of the European Communities                      against the Commission of the European Communities
                          (Case T-230/94 )                                                       (Case T-18/95 )
                               95/C 101 /24 )                                                     ( 95/C 101/25
                  (Language of the case: English)                                         (Language of the case: German)
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                        An action against the Commission of the European
Instance of the European Communities on 10 January 1995                  Communities was brought before the Court of First
 by Frederick Farrugia, represented by L. Sissilianos, of the            Instance of the European Communities on 7 February 1995
Athens Bar, Kanari 4, Athens, Greece.                                    by 'Atlanta ' Handelsgesellschaft Harder & Co GmbH of
                                                                         Bremen ( Federal Republic of Germany) and Internationale
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Frachtimport Gesellschaft Weichert & Co of Hamburg
                                                                          ( Federal Republic of Germany), represented by Erik A.
— annul the decision of the Commission to reject his                     Undritz and Gerrit Schohe, Rechtsanwàlte, with an address
      application for a research training fellowship on                  for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Baden,
      eligibility grounds,                                               24 Rue Marie-Adelaide .


title: Case T-92/04: Action brought on 4 March 2004 by Marta Cristiana Moren Abat against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/43

         Action brought on 4 March 2004 by Marta Cristiana Moren Abat against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-92/04)
   (2004/C 118/95)
   Language of the case: German
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 4 March 2004 by Marta Cristiana Moren Abat, residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented by G. Leibitsch, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare void and annul the decision of the selection board of open competition COM/A/1/02 of 22 April 2003 by which the applicant was refused admission to the next stage of the selection procedure on the basis of the results of the preliminary test;

               —

               declare void and annul the decision of the selection board of the appointing authority of 30 January 2004 concerning the applicant's complaint of 17 July 2003 under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments correspond to those submitted in Case T-91/04 Just v Commission.


title: Case F-128/10: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 28 June 2011 — Mora Carrasco and Others v European Parliament (Civil service — Officials — Inter-institutional transfer in the course of the promotion period during which the official would have been promoted in his institution of origin — Competent institution to decide on the promotion of the transferred official)

text:
               6.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/41

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 28 June 2011 — Mora Carrasco and Others v European Parliament
   (Case F-128/10) (1)

   (Civil service - Officials - Inter-institutional transfer in the course of the promotion period during which the official would have been promoted in his institution of origin - Competent institution to decide on the promotion of the transferred official)
   2011/C 232/73
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Mora Carrasco and Others (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: O. Caisou-Rousseau and J.F. de Wachter, agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of the decisions not to promote the applicants in the 2009 promotion period

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the European Parliament to bear the costs of the applicants in addition to its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 26.2.2011, p. 35.


title: Case C-413/16 P: Appeal brought on 27 July 2016 by Ice Mountain, Ibiza, SL against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 25 May 2016 in Case T-6/15 Ice Mountain Ibiza v EUIPO — Marbella Atlantic Ocean Club (ocean ibiza)

text:
               13.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/11

         Appeal brought on 27 July 2016 by Ice Mountain, Ibiza, SL against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 25 May 2016 in Case T-6/15 Ice Mountain Ibiza v EUIPO — Marbella Atlantic Ocean Club (ocean ibiza)
   (Case C-413/16 P)
   (2017/C 046/14)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Ice Mountain Ibiza, SL (represented by: J. L. Gracia Albero and F. Miazzetto, abogados)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside in its entirety the judgment of the General Court of 25 May 2016, Ice Mountain Ibiza v EUIPO — Marbella Atlantic Ocean Club (ocean ibiza) (T-6/15, not published, EU:T:2016:310);

               —

               Give judgment upholding in their entirety the appellant’s claims made in the proceedings before the General Court;

               —

               Order the European Union Intellectual Property Office to pay the costs, including those incurred to date before the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO, and before the General Court of the European Union.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appeal alleges misapplication of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (1) and is based, in particular, on the following pleas in law and arguments.

               1.

                  In the judgment under appeal, the General Court erred in finding that the element ‘OCEAN’ was distinctive

               The General Court misinterpreted the evidence adduced in the case and assessed it illogically.
               In addition, the General Court failed to apply the relevant case-law, namely, the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the judgments in Case C-479/12 (2) (the General Court assessed the evidence adduced too strictly in the light of the difficulty in discharging the burden of proof) and C-24/05 P (3) (it disregarded the impression of the relevant consumer).

               2.

                  In the judgment under appeal, the General Court erred in finding the dominant character of the various elements

               Distortion of the facts. Inconsistency in the reasoning in the judgment under appeal in order to substantiate the dominant character of the word elements.
               Failure to apply the case-law of the Court of Justice in the judgments in C-251/95 (4) and C-342/97 (5) (the General Court used a completely distorted example of a relevant consumer).
               Misapplication of the case-law of the General Court in the judgment in T-134/06 (6) (inconsistent application of the definition given of ‘dominant element’).
               Failure to apply the case-law of the General Court in Joined Cases T-83/11 and T-84/11. (7) In the judgment under appeal, the General Court disregarded the existing case-law, which applies where a particular market is saturated.

               3.

                  In the judgment under appeal, the General Court erred in finding that the marks were similar, by not taking into account the relevant circumstances for the purpose of that analysis

               Failure to apply the case-law of the Court of Justice developed in the judgment in Case C-251/95 together with the judgments of the Court in Cases C-361/04 P (8) and C-342/97. (9)

               4.

                  In the judgment under appeal, the General Court erred in concluding that there was a likelihood of confusion.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

      (2)  Judgment of 13 February 2014, H. Gautzsch Großhandel, C-479/12, EU:C:2014:75.

      (3)  Judgment of 22 June 2006, Storck v OHIM, C-24/05 P, EU:C:2006:421.

      (4)  Judgment of 11 November 1997, SABEL, C-251/95, EU:C:1997:528.

      (5)  Judgment of 22 June 1999, Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer, C-342/97, EU:C:1999:323.

      (6)  Judgment of 13 December 2007, Xentral v OHIM — Pages jaunes (PAGESJAUNES.COM), T-134/06, EU:T:2007:387.

      (7)  Judgment of 13 November 2012, Antrax It v OHIM — THC (Radiateurs de chauffage), T-83/11 and T-84/11, EU:T:2012:592.

      (8)  Judgment of 12 January 2006, Ruiz-Picasso and Others v OHIM, C-361/04 P, EU:C:2006:25.

      (9)  Judgment of 22 June 1999, Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer, C-342/97, EU:C:1999:323.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 March 2005 in Case C-236/04: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directives 2002/19/EC, 2002/20/EC, 2002/21/EC and 2002/22/EC — Electronic communications networks and services — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               14.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 115/7

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 10 March 2005
   in Case C-236/04: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directives 2002/19/EC, 2002/20/EC, 2002/21/EC and 2002/22/EC - Electronic communications networks and services - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2005/C 115/15)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-236/04 Commission of the European Communities (Agent: M. Shotter) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent: S. Schreiner) — Action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 7 June 2004 — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta, President of the Chamber, J. Makarczyk and P. Kūris (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 10 March 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directives 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (Access Directive), 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive), 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive), and 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives.

               2.

               Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 190, 24.07.2004.


title: Case C-507/12: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom — United Kingdom) — Jessy Saint Prix v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 45 TFEU — Directive 2004/38/EC — Article 7 — ‘Worker’  — Union citizen who gave up work because of the physical constraints of the late stages of pregnancy and the aftermath of childbirth)

text:
               25.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/5

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom — United Kingdom) — Jessy Saint Prix v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
   (Case C-507/12) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 45 TFEU - Directive 2004/38/EC - Article 7 - ‘Worker’ - Union citizen who gave up work because of the physical constraints of the late stages of pregnancy and the aftermath of childbirth))
   2014/C 282/07
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Jessy Saint Prix

      Defendants: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

      Intervening party: AIRE Centre

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 45 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a woman who gives up work, or seeking work, because of the physical constraints of the late stages of pregnancy and the aftermath of childbirth retains the status of ‘worker’, within the meaning of that article, provided she returns to work or finds another job within a reasonable period after the birth of her child.

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.


title: Case T-528/13: Judgment of the General Court of 2 December 2015 — Kenzo v OHIM — Tsujimoto (KENZO ESTATE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Community — Word mark KENZO ESTATE — Earlier Community word mark KENZO — Relative ground for refusal — Reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Partial rejection of the opposition)

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/40

         Judgment of the General Court of 2 December 2015 — Kenzo v OHIM — Tsujimoto (KENZO ESTATE)
   (Case T-528/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Community - Word mark KENZO ESTATE - Earlier Community word mark KENZO - Relative ground for refusal - Reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Partial rejection of the opposition))
   (2016/C 027/47)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Kenzo (Paris, France) (represented by: P. Roncaglia, G. Lazzeretti, F. Rossi and N. Parrotta, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Kenzo Tsujimoto (Osaka, Japan) (represented by: A. Wenninger-Lenz, W. von der Osten-Sacken and M. Ring, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 July 2013 (Case R 1363/2012-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Kenzo and Mr K. Tsujimoto.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 3 July 2013 (Case R 1363/2012-2) in so far as it rejected the opposition in respect of the goods in Classes 29 to 31 covered by the international registration applied for;

               2.

               Orders OHIM to pay the costs incurred by Kenzo in the course of the present proceedings;

               3.

               Orders OHIM and Mr Kenzo Tsujimoto to bear the costs which each of them has respectively incurred in the course of the present proceedings;

               4.

               Orders Mr K. Tsujimoto to bear his costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Kenzo for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM.

      (1)  OJ C 367, 14.12.2013.


title: Case C-190/15 P: Appeal brought on 24 April 2015 by Fetim BV against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 11 February 2015 in Case T-395/12: Fetim v OHIM

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/7

         Appeal brought on 24 April 2015 by Fetim BV against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 11 February 2015 in Case T-395/12: Fetim v OHIM
   (Case C-190/15 P)
   (2016/C 048/10)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Fetim BV (represented by: L. Bakers, advocaat)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   By order of 19 November 2015 the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


title: Case C-462/10 P: Appeal brought on 24 September 2010 by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 8 July 2010 in Case T-331/06: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Environmental Agency (EEA)

text:
               20.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 317/24

         Appeal brought on 24 September 2010 by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 8 July 2010 in Case T-331/06: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Environmental Agency (EEA)
   (Case C-462/10 P)
   ()
   2010/C 317/43
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, Δικηγόρος)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Environmental Agency (EEA)

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the decision of the General Court

               —

               annul the decision of the EEA to evaluate the Appellant's bid as not successful and award the contract to the successful contractor;

               —

               order EEA to pay the Appellant's legal expenses incurred in connection with the Application in case T-331/06 and this Appeal, even if the current Appeal is rejected.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               The Appellant argues that the General Court committed an error in law by adopting a wrong interpretation or by not applying Art.97 of the Financial Regulation (1) and Art.138 of the Implementing Rules, since the announcement of the sub-criteria before the submission of the tenders is essential so that tenderers can present their best offer. The General Court erroneously rejected the Appellant's argument concerning the mixing of the selection and award-criteria on the grounds that it was introduced out of time. It is submitted that even if the approach of the General Court was correct it misinterpreted the content of the tender specifications when examining whether the use of the individual CVs in the award phase infringed the tender specifications.

               2.

               Furthermore, the Appellant argues that the fact that the Evaluation Report is drafted in such way as not to demonstrate how the Evaluation Committee arrived at its conclusions cannot be attributed to the Appellant. If the EEA did not apply further weighting to the sub-criteria this should have resulted directly in the annulment of the attacked decision for insufficient motivation since the fact that ‘it is not apparent’ what kind of criteria were used is part of the obligation to state reasons.

               3.

               Concerning environmental policy, it is submitted that the General Court erred in finding that an award criterion worded in such a general way is fulfilled by the simple submission certification which is just one of the ways of providing evidence. The General Court also erred in ignoring the fact that the Environmental Policy can only be examined in the selection phase.

               4.

               The General Court failed to find that EEA infringed Art. 100(2) of the Financial Regulation and Art. 149(2) of the Implementing Rules by not disclosing the full evaluation report to tenderers that submit such a request in order to be in position to assess the reasons for the rejection of their bids.

               5.

               Furthermore, the reasoning of the General Court, apart from being wrong, is not only contrary to the general and pre-existing duty to state reasons, but also to the Lisbon Treaty which gives EU Charter of fundamental rights equal legal force to the Treaties, in particular article 41.

               6.

               Finally the Appellant submits that the contested judgment not only did not sufficiently motivate the rejection of the individual pleas concerning the manifest error of assessment but did not even examine them individually.

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


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 February 2004 in Case C-265/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de justice Benelux): Campina Melkunie BV v Benelux-Merkenbureau (Approximation of laws — Trade marks — Directive 89/104/EEC — Article 3(1) — Ground for refusal to register — Neologism composed of elements each of which is descriptive of characteristics of the goods or services concerned)

text:
3.4.2004                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                                   C 85/3
—     by failing to adopt legislation ensuring the free movement                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      of foodstuffs for daily consumption and foodstuffs intend-
      ed for particular nutritional uses, which are lawfully
      manufactured and/or marketed in other Member States                                             (Sixth Chamber)
      but contain additives (such as vitamins, minerals and
      other ingredients) not provided for under French legis-
      lation;
                                                                                of 12 February 2004
—     by failing to provide for a simplified procedure for having
      a substance included on the national list of authorised               in Case C-265/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
      additives, which is necessary if the above foodstuffs are             the Cour de justice Benelux): Campina Melkunie BV v
      to be marketed in France;                                                                 Benelux-Merkenbureau (1)
—     by hindering the marketing in France of the above                     (Approximation of laws — Trade marks — Directive 89/
      foodstuffs without establishing that their marketing poses            104/EEC — Article 3(1) — Ground for refusal to register
      a risk to public health,                                              — Neologism composed of elements each of which is
                                                                            descriptive of characteristics of the goods or services con-
                                                                                cerned)
the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28
EC), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris,                                                (2004/C 85/03)
acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber, C. Gulmann,
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, R. Schintgen and F. Macken (Rappor-
teur), Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; H. von Holstein,                                     (Language of the case: Dutch)
Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 5 February 2004,
in which it:
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
1.    Declares that, by failing to provide for a simplified procedure
      for having included on the national list of authorised nutrients
      those added to foodstuffs for daily consumption and foodstuffs
      intended for particular nutritional uses which are lawfully
      manufactured and/or marketed in other Member States,                  In Case C-265/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
                                                                            EC by the Benelux-Gerechtshof for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                            proceedings pending before that court between Campina
      and
                                                                            Melkunie BV and Benelux-Merkenbureau, on the interpretation
                                                                            of Articles 2 and 3(1) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of
      by hindering the marketing in France of certain foodstuffs, such      21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member
      as food supplements and dietary products containing the               States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1), the Court
      substances L-tartrate and L-carnitine, and confectionery and          (Sixth Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, acting for the
      drinks to which certain nutrients have been added, without            President of the Sixth Chamber, C. Gulmann, J. N. Cunha
      establishing that the marketing of such foodstuffs entails a real     Rodrigues, R. Schintgen and F. Macken (Rapporteur), Judges;
      risk for public health,                                               D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; H. von Holstein,
                                                                            Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 February 2004,
      the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under        in which it has ruled:
      Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28
      EC);
                                                                            Article 3(1)(c) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 Decem-
                                                                            ber 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application; Orders the Com-           trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that a trade mark
      mission of the European Communities and the French Republic           consisting of a neologism composed of elements, each of which is
      to pay their own costs.                                               descriptive of characteristics of the goods or services in respect of
                                                                            which registration is sought, is itself descriptive of the characteristics
                                                                            of those goods or services for the purposes of that provision, unless
                                                                            there is a perceptible difference between the neologism and the mere
                                                                            sum of its parts: that assumes that, because of the unusual nature of
(1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.
                                                                            the combination in relation to the goods or services, the word creates
                                                                            an impression which is sufficiently far removed from that produced
                                                                            by the mere combination of meanings lent by the elements of which
                                                                            it is composed, with the result that the word is more than the sum of
                                                                            its parts.
 ---pagebreak--- C 85/4                   EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                              3.4.2004
For the purposes of determining whether the ground for refusal set           First, the prior authorisation procedure must be readily accessible and
out in Article 3(1)(c) of Directive 89/104 applies to such a mark, it        capable of being completed within a reasonable time and, if it leads
is irrelevant whether or not there are synonyms capable of designating       to a refusal, the decision of refusal must be open to challenge before
the same characteristics of the goods or services referred to in the         the courts. Secondly, refusal to authorise marketing must be based on
application for registration.                                                a detailed assessment of the risk to public health, based on the most
                                                                             reliable scientific data available and the most recent results of
                                                                             international research.
(1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 108 of 7.4.2001.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         of 5 February 2004
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
in Case C-95/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the tribunal de grande instance de Paris): John Greenham                                             of 12 February 2004
                          v Léonard Abel (1)
                                                                             in Case C-218/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
(Free movement of goods — Articles 28 EC and 30 EC —                            the Bundespatentgericht (Germany): Henkel KGaA (1)
Prohibition on marketing foodstuffs to which vitamins and
minerals have been added — Justification — Proportionality)
                                                                             (Approximation of laws — Trade marks — Directive 89/
                            (2004/C 85/04)                                   104/EEC — Article 3(1)(b), (c) and (e) — Grounds for
                                                                             refusal to register — Three-dimensional shape-of-product
                                                                                mark — Distinctive character
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (2004/C 85/05)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
In Case C-95/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
by the Tribunal de grande instance de Paris (France) for a                                       in the European Court Reports)
preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings pending before
that court against John Greenham and Léonard Abel, on the
interpretation of Articles 28 EC and 30 EC, the Court (Sixth
Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, acting for the President of
the Sixth Chamber, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, F. Macken                   In Case C-218/01: reference to the Court under Article 234
(Rapporteur) and N. Colneric, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate                    EC by the Bundespatentgericht (Germany) for a preliminary
General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a                      ruling in the proceedings brought before that court by Henkel
judgment on 5 February 2004, in which it has ruled:                          KGaA, on the interpretation of Article 3(1)(b), (c) and (e) of
                                                                             First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to
                                                                             approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade
Articles 28 EC and 30 EC must be interpreted as meaning that they            marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1), the Court (Sixth Chamber),
do not preclude a Member State from prohibiting the marketing                composed of C. Gulmann, acting for the President of the
without prior authorisation of foodstuffs lawfully manufactured and          Chamber, J. N. Cunha Rodrigues, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen
marketed in another Member State, where nutrients such as vitamins           and F. Macken (Rapporteur), Judges; Advocate General:
or minerals have been added thereto other than those whose use has           D. Ruíz-Jarabo Colomer, Registrar: L. Hewlett, Principal
been declared lawful in the first Member State, provided that certain        Administrator, has given a judgment on 12 February 2004, in
conditions are satisfied.                                                    which it ruled:


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 May 2001 in Case C-119/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d'instance du VIIe arrondissement de Paris): Hewlett Packard BV v Directeur Général des Douanes et Droits Indirects (Common Customs Tariff — Combined nomenclature — Classification of a multi-function machine combining the functions of printer, photocopier, facsimile machine and computer scanner — Principal function — Validity of Regulation (EC) No 2184/97)

text:
14.7.2001                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 200/19
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Second Chamber)                                                             (Sixth Chamber)
                            of 17 May 2001
                                                                                of 17 May 2001
in Case C-119/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal d’instance du VIIe arrondissement de Paris):                   in Case C-159/99: Commission of the European Communi-
Hewlett Packard BV v Directeur Général des Douanes et                                             ties v Italian Republic (1)
                          Droits Indirects (1)
(Common Customs Tariff — Combined nomenclature —                            (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Classification of a multi-function machine combining the                    Directive 79/409/EEC — Conservation of wild birds —
functions of printer, photocopier, facsimile machine and                                                 Admissibility)
computer scanner — Principal function — Validity of
                    Regulation (EC) No 2184/97)
                                                                                (2001/C 200/34)
                            (2001/C 200/33)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                      (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                          in the European Court Reports)
                     in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            In Case C-159/99: Commission of the European Communities
In Case C-119/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of               (Agent: P. Stancanelli) v Italian Republic (Agents: U. Leanza,
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunal                        assisted by P.G. Ferri and M. Fiorilli) — application for a
d’instance (District Court) du VIIe arrondissement de Paris                 declaration that:
(France) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Hewlett Packard BV and Directeur                  —      by laying down rules permitting the capture and keeping
Général des Douanes et Droits Indirects — on the interpret-                        of three species (Passer italiae, Passer montanus and
ation of point 3 of the Annex to Commission Regulation (EC)                        Sturnus vulgaris), contrary to Articles 5 and 7 of Council
No 2184/97 of 3 November 1997 concerning the classification                        Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conser-
of certain goods in the combined nomenclature (OJ 1997                             vation of wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1) and Annex II
L 299, p. 6) — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of:                            thereto, and by providing that those rules are to apply by
V. Skouris, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen and                             way of a general and permanent derogation, which is
N. Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General;                     contrary to Article 9 of that Directive and engenders an
H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on                         unacceptable degree of legal uncertainty; and
17 May 2001, in which it has ruled:
                                                                            —      by laying down rules concerning the conditions and
                                                                                detailed rules for the application of the derogation from
Consideration of the question referred has disclosed nothing that                  the prohibitions laid down by Directive 79/409 which do
would affect the validity of point 3 of the Annex to Commission                    not fully comply with the requirements under Article 9
Regulation (EC) No 2184/97 of 3 November 1997 concerning the                       thereof, in particular as regards the reasons for dero-
classification of certain goods in the combined nomenclature.                      gation, listed in Article 9(1)(a) and (b),
                                                                            the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
( 1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.                                                  Community law — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
                                                                            C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, V. Skour-
                                                                            is, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and F. Macken, Judges; P. Léger,
                                                                            Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of Division,
                                                                            for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 May 2001, in
                                                                            which it:


title: Judgment of the Court of 23 September 2003 in Case C-192/01: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Denmark (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 28 EC and 30 EC — Prohibition on marketing of foodstuffs to which vitamins and minerals have been added — Justification — Public health — Nutritional need)

text:
C 275/12                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                            15.11.2003
4.   In Case C-172/01 P, orders International Power plc to pay its           marketed in Denmark only if it is shown that such enrichment
     own costs in the proceedings before the Court of Justice                with nutrients meets a need in the Danish population, the
     and those incurred by NALOO in these proceedings. The                   Kingdom of Denmark has failed to fulfil its obligations under
     Commission of the European Communities is to pay its own                Article 28 EC, the Court, composed of: J.-P. Puissochet,
     costs.                                                                  President of the Sixth Chamber, acting for the President,
                                                                             M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen and C.W.A. Timmermans (Presi-
5.   In Case C-175/01 P, orders NALOO to pay its own costs in                dents of Chambers), C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola, F. Macken
     the proceedings before the Court of Justice and those incurred by       (Rapporteur), N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues
     British Coal Corporation and the Commission of the European             and A. Rosas, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; H. von
     Communities in these proceedings.                                       Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 Sep-
                                                                             tember 2003, in which it:
6.   In Case C-176/01 P, orders PowerGen (UK) plc to pay its own
     costs in the proceedings before the Court of Justice and those
                                                                             1.    Declares that by applying an administrative practice which
     incurred by NALOO in these proceedings. The Commission of
                                                                                entails that enriched foodstuffs lawfully produced or marketed
     the European Communities is to pay its own costs.                             in other Member States can be marketed in Denmark only if it
                                                                                is shown that such enrichment with nutrients meets a need in
7.   In Case C-180/01 P, orders each party to pay its own costs in                 the Danish population, the Kingdom of Denmark has failed to
     the proceedings before the Court of Justice.                                  fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC.
8.   Orders the Commission of the European Communities and
                                                                             2.    Orders the Kingdom of Denmark to pay the costs.
     NALOO each to pay their own costs in the proceedings before
     the Court of First Instance. International Power plc, British
     Coal Corporation and PowerGen (UK) plc are each to pay their
                                                                             (1) OJ C 200 of 14.7.2001.
     own costs as interveners in the proceedings before the Court of
     First Instance.
(1) OJ C 200 of 14.07.2001.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                      of 23 September 2003                                                            of 11 September 2003
in Case C-192/01: Commission of the European Communi-                        in Case C-201/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                ties v Kingdom of Denmark (1)                                the Oberster Gerichtshof): Maria Walcher v Bundesamt
                                                                                für Soziales und Behindertenwesen Steiermark (1)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 28
EC and 30 EC — Prohibition on marketing of foodstuffs to                     (Protection of workers — Insolvency of the employer —
which vitamins and minerals have been added — Justifi-                       Scope of Directive 80/987/EEC — National case-law on
         cation — Public health — Nutritional need)                          shareholder loans in lieu of capital contributions — Total
                                                                                loss of entitlement)
                         (2003/C 275/19)
                                                                                (2003/C 275/20)
                   (Language of the case: Danish)
                                                                                (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-192/01, Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: H. C. Støvlbæk) v Kingdom of Denmark (Agent:
J. Molde): Application for a declaration that, by applying an                In Case C-201/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
administrative practice which entails that enriched foodstuffs               EC by the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary
lawfully produced or marketed in other Member States may be                  ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 December 2000 in Case C-482/98: Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Council Directive 92/83/EEC — Harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages — Commission Decision 98/617/EC of 21 October 1998 denying authority to Italy to refuse the grant of exemption to certain products exempt from excise duty under Council Directive 92/83 — Cosmetic products)

text:
C 79/6                     EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                             10.3.2001
A Member State may prohibit imports of bovine heads containing              and Vingrau, France, contrary to Article 6(2) to (4) of Council
material presenting risks as regards bovine spongiform encephalopa-         Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of
thy, by way of an interim protective measure within the meaning of          natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206,
the fourth subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Council Directive                p. 7), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
89/662/EEC of 11 December 1989 concerning veterinary checks in              under the EC Treaty — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed
intra-Community trade with a view to the completion of the internal         of: C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), President of the Sixth Chamber,
market, where the Commission has adopted, pursuant to Article 9(4)          V. Skouris and R. Schintgen, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate
of that directive, a decision such as Commission Decision 97/534/EC         General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for
of 30 July 1997 on the prohibition of the use of material presenting        the Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 December 2000, in
risks as regards transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, requiring       which it:
the removal of, and prohibiting the use of, such material but where
the date on which the measures laid down by that decision are to            1.    Declares that, by not classifying any part of the Basses Corbières
become applicable has been postponed.                                             site as a special protection area and by not adopting special
                                                                                conservation measures for that site sufficient in their geographi-
                                                                                cal extent, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
(1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.                                                         under Article 4(1) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April
                                                                                1979 on the conservation of wild birds;
                                                                            2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;
                                                                            3.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                    (1) OJ C 378 of 5.12.1998.
                            (Sixth Chamber)
                          of 7 December 2000
in Case C-374/98: Commission of the European Communi-                                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       ties v French Republic (1)
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
(Failure of Member State to fulfil its obligations — Direc-
tives 79/409/EEC and 92/43/EEC — Conservation of wild
                 birds — Special protection areas)                                                  of 7 December 2000
                                                                            in Case C-482/98: Italian Republic v Commission of the
                             (2001/C 79/10)
                                                                                European Communities (1)
                      (Language of the case: French)                        (Action for annulment — Council Directive 92/83/EEC —
                                                                            Harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol
                                                                            and alcoholic beverages — Commission Decision 98/617/EC
                                                                            of 21 October 1998 denying authority to Italy to refuse the
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                            grant of exemption to certain products exempt from excise
                     in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             duty under Council Directive 92/83 — Cosmetic products)
In Case C-374/98: Commission of the European Communities                                                (2001/C 79/11)
(Agents: P. Stancanelli and O. Couvert-Castéra) v French
Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger and R. Nadal) — appli-
cation for a declaration, first, that, by failing to classify the
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
Basses Corbières site, France, as a special protection area for
the conservation of certain species of birds listed in Annex I to
Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the
conservation of wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1) and of certain             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
migratory species not listed in that Annex, and by also failing                                 in the European Court Reports)
to adopt special conservation measures concerning their
habitat, contrary to Article 4(1) and (2) of that directive, and,           In Case C-482/98: Italian Republic (Agents: Professor U. Lean-
second, that, by failing to take appropriate steps in relation to           za, assisted by O. Fiumara) v Commission of the European
the Basses Corbières to avoid disturbance of the species                    Communities (Agent: E. Traversa) — application for annulment
protected on that site and deterioration of their habitat likely            of Commission Decision 98/617/EC of 21 October 1998
to have a significant effect, as a result of the opening and                denying authority to Italy to refuse the grant of exemption to
working of limestone quarries in the municipalities of Tautavel             certain products exempt from excise duty under Council
 ---pagebreak--- 10.3.2001               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                                C 79/7
Directive 92/83/EEC on the harmonisation of the structures of              The term ‘party concerned’ used in Article 7(5) of Commission
excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages (OJ 1998                  Regulation (EEC) No 2169/86 of 10 July 1986 laying down
L 295, p. 43) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A.                 detailed rules for the control and payment of the production refunds
La Pergola, President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur)             in the cereals and rice sectors, as amended by Commission Regulation
and D.A.O. Edward, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate                (EEC) No 165/89 of 24 January 1989, is to be construed as
General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given           meaning that it does not refer to a purchaser of esterified or etherified
a judgment on 7 December 2000, in which it:                                starch who has undertaken to his supplier to use that product
                                                                           exclusively for the manufacture of products other than those listed in
1.    Dismisses the application;                                           Annex I to that regulation. Such a purchaser cannot therefore have
                                                                           imposed on him the penalty provided for in Article 7(5) of that
2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                        regulation, namely, payment of an amount equal to 105 % of the
                                                                           highest production refund applicable to the product in question
                                                                           during the previous 12-month period.
(1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (First Chamber)                                                       ORDER OF THE COURT
                       of 7 December 2000
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
in Case C-2/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Hessisches Finanzgericht, Kassel): Döhler GmbH v                                              of 27 September 2000
                  Hauptzollamt Darmstadt (1)
                                                                           in Case C-456/99 P: J v Commission of the European
(Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets —                                                   Communities (1)
Production refunds — Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No
2169/86, as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 165/89 —
Esterified or etherified starch — Proper use — Penalties —                 (Officials — Place of recruitment — Habitual residence at
                  Meaning of ‘party concerned’)                            the time of recruitment — Legal characterisation of the facts
                                                                                found — Manifestly inadmissible appeal)
                           (2001/C 79/12)
                                                                                (2001/C 79/13)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                           In Case C-456/99 P: J, an official of the Commission of the
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           European Communities, residing in Brussels, represented by
                                                                           G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, of the Brussels Bar, with an
In Case C-2/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Société de
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Hessisches                     Gestion Fiduciaire, 2-4 Rue Beck — appeal against the
Finanzgericht (Finance Court, Hessen), Kassel, Germany, for a              judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                  Communities (Third Chamber) of 28 September 1999 in Case
court between Döhler GmbH and Hauptzollamt Darmstadt —                     T-28/98 J v Commission (not yet published in the European
on the interpretation of Article 7(5) of Commission Regulation             Court Reports), seeking to have that judgment set aside and to
(EEC) No 2169/86 of 10 July 1986 laying down detailed rules                obtain relief in the form of order sought by the appellant in
for the control and payment of the production refunds in the               the proceedings at first instance, the other party to the
cereals and rice sectors (OJ 1986 L 189, p. 12), as amended by             proceedings being the Commission of the European Communi-
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 165/89 of 24 January 1989                   ties (Agent: J. Currall, assisted by D. Waelbroeck) — the Court
(OJ 1989 L 20, p. 14) — the Court (First Chamber), composed                (Fifth Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward, President of the
of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, P. Jann (Rapporteur)            Chamber, L. Sevón, A. La Pergola, P. Jann and M. Wathelet,
and L. Sevón, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General; D. Louter-             Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
man-Hubeau, Head of Division, for the Registrar, has given a               made an order on 27 September 2000, the operative part of
judgment on 7 December 2000, in which it has ruled:                        which is as follows:


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 16 September 1998 in Case T-193/96: Lars Bo Rasmussen v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Staff report - Reiteration of the contents of the previous report - Belated inclusion in the personal file of the person concerned)

text:
7.11.98                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 340/19
Commission Decision C (96)1185 of 14 August 1996                     personal file Ð the Court of First Instance (Fourth
reducing the amount of aid granted in Decision C(89)                 Chamber), composed of: P. Lindh, President, and K.
0570 of 22 March 1989, and of Commission Decision                    Lenaerts and J. D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio GonzaÂlez,
C(96) 1186 of 14 August 1996 reducing the amount of                  Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
aid granted in Decision C(89) 0570 of 22 March 1989 Ð                16 September 1998, in which it:
the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of:
V. Tiili, President, C. P. BrieÈt and A. Potocki, Judges; B.
Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a           1. orders the Commission to pay the sum of BFR 35 000
judgment on 15 September 1998 in which it:                                which it has agreed to award to the applicant, if it has
                                                                          not already made that payment;
1. joins Cases T-180/96 and T-181/96 for the purposes of             2. dismisses the remainder of the action;
    the judgment;
                                                                     3. orders the parties to bear their own costs.
2. in Case T-180/96, annuls Commission Decision
    C(96)1185 of 14 August 1996 in so far as it relates to
                                                                     (1) OJ C 40 of 8.2.1997.
    sub-heading 14.3.12 of the applicant's request for
    payment, and for the rest dismisses the application;
3. dismisses the application in Case T-181/96;
                                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
4. orders the parties to bear their own costs in Case
    T-180/96;                                                                             of 30 September 1998
                                                                     in Case T-43/97: Isabelle Adine-Blanc v. Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
5. orders the applicant to pay the costs in Case T-181/96.
                                                                     (Officials Ð Auxiliary staff Ð Duration of contract Ð
                                                                     Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations Ð
(1) OJ C 26 of 25.1.1997.                                            Duty to have regard for the welfare and interests of
                                                                             officials Ð Principle of sound administration)
                                                                                (98/C 340/35)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                     of 16 September 1998                            In Case T-43/97: Isabelle Adine-Blanc, residing in Paris,
                                                                     represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis, Thierry Demaseure and,
in Case T-193/96: Lars Bo Rasmussen v. Commission of                 initially, Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an
                the European Communities (1)                         address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fidu-
                                                                     ciaire Myson SARL, 30 rue de Cessange, v. Commission
(Officials Ð Staff report Ð Reiteration of the contents of           of the European Communities (Agents: Christine Berardis-
the previous report Ð Belated inclusion in the personal              Kayser and Florence Clotuche) Ð application, first, for
                 file of the person concerned)                       annulment of the Commission's decision of 20 June 1996
                          (98/C 340/34)                              reducing from 36 months to 3 months the duration of a
                                                                     contract offering the applicant a position as a member of
                                                                     the auxiliary staff and, second, for compensation for the
               (Language of the case: French)                        material and non-material damage suffered by the
                                                                     applicant as a result of that decision Ð the Court of First
                                                                     Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J. Azizi, President,
In Case T-193/96: Lars Bo Rasmussen, an official of the              and R. García-Valdecasas and M. Jaeger, Judges; A. Mair,
Commission of the European Communities, residing at                  Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
Dalheim (Luxembourg), represented by Carlo Revoldini,                30 September 1998, in which it:
of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the latter's Chambers, 180 Route de
                                                                     1. dismisses the application;
Longwy, v. Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: Christine Berardis-Kayser and Alberto Dal Ferro)
Ð application, first, for annulment of the decision of the           2. orders the parties to bear their own costs.
Commission of 23 October 1995 rejecting the applicant's
request for the drawing-up of his staff report for the
                                                                     (1) OJ C 142 of 10.5.1997.
period 1991Ð1993 and, second, for compensation for the
non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as
a result of the belated inclusion of that staff report in his


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 September 2001 in Case C-253/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Bremen): Bacardi GmbH v Hauptzollamt Bremerhaven (Community Customs Code and implementing regulation — Repayment of import duties — Favourable tariff treatment — Post-clearance production of certificate of authenticity — Alteration of the tariff classification stated in the customs declaration — Concept of "special situation")

text:
C 317/2                  EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        10.11.2001
court between Hans Schwarzkopf GmbH & Co. KG and                             a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbg eV — on                       court between Rudy Grzelczyk and Centre public d’aide sociale
the interpretation of the last sentence of Article 6(1)(d) of                d’Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve — on the interpretation of
Council Directive 76/768/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the                          Articles 6, 8 and 8a of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to                   Articles 12 EC, 17 EC and 18 EC) and Council Directive
cosmetic products (OJ 1976 L 262, p. 169), as amended by                     93/96/EEC of 29 October 1993 on the right of residence for
Council Directive 93/35/EEC of 14 June 1993 (OJ 1993 L 151,                  students (OJ 1993 L 317, p. 59) — the Court, composed of:
p. 32), in conjunction with Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty              G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, M. Wathelet
(now, after amendment, Articles 28 EC and 30 EC) — the                       and V. Skouris (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward.
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola, President                 (Rapporteur), P. Jann, L. Sevón, R. Schintgen and F. Macken,
of the Chamber, M. Wathelet, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur),                     Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,
P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General;                  Head of Division, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
H.A: Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given             20 September 2001, in which it has ruled:
a judgment on 13 September 2001, in which it has ruled:
                                                                             Articles 6 and 8 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 12
It is not ‘impossible for practical reasons’, within the meaning of the      EC and 17 EC) preclude entitlement to a non-contributory social
last sentence of Article 6(1)(d) of Council Directive 76/768/EEC of          benefit, such as the minimex, from being made conditional, in the
27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member                  case of nationals of Member States other than the host State where
States relating to cosmetic products, as amended by Council Directive        they are legally resident, on their falling within the scope of
93/35/EEC of 14 June 1993, to set out the compulsory warnings                Regulation No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on the
in full on the container and packaging of a cosmetic product in the          freedom of movement for workers within the Community when no
language or languages prescribed in the Member State in which it is          such condition applies to nationals of the host Member State.
to be marketed, where the producer or distributor wishes to label the
product in nine languages, including eight official languages of the
Community, for economic considerations and in order to facilitate the
movement of the product within the Community, and this entails               (1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.
abbreviating those warnings on the container and packaging.
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                       of 20 September 2001                                                       of 27 September 2001
in Case C-184/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                    in Case C-253/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal du travail de Nivelles): Rudy Grzelczyk                         the Finanzgericht Bremen): Bacardi GmbH v Hauptzoll-
v Centre public d’aide sociale d’Ottignies-Louvain-la-                                              amt Bremerhaven (1)
                               Neuve (1)
(Articles 6, 8 and 8a of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,                (Community Customs Code and implementing regulation —
Articles 12 EC, 17 EC and 18 EC) — Council Directive                         Repayment of import duties — Favourable tariff treatment
93/96/EEC — Right of residence for students — National                       — Post-clearance production of certificate of authenticity —
legislation which guarantees a minimum subsistence allow-                    Alteration of the tariff classification stated in the customs
ance only for nationals, persons covered by Regulation (EEC)                           declaration — Concept of ‘special situation’)
No 1612/68 and stateless persons and refugees — Foreign
student who has met his own living expenses during the first                                           (2001/C 317/04)
                         years of his studies)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                           (2001/C 317/03)
                     (Language of the case: French)                          (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-253/99: reference to the Court under Article 234
                                                                             EC from the Finanzgericht Bremen (Germany) for a preliminary
In Case C-184/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunal du                      Bacardi GmbH and Hauptzollamt Bremerhaven — on the
travail de Nivelles (Industrial Tribunal, Nivelles), (Belgium) for           interpretation of Articles 236 and 239 of Council Regulation
 ---pagebreak--- 10.11.2001                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 317/3
(EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the                                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1), and of
Article 905(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93
of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation                                            (Fifth Chamber)
of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (OJ 1993 L 253,
p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1676/96                                             of 4 October 2001
of 30 July 1996 (OJ 1996 L 218, p. 1) — the Court
(Sixth Chamber) composed of: C. Gulmann, President of
the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur),                     in Case C-294/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
F. Macken and N. Colneric, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate                     the Diikitiko Protodikio Athinon): Athinaiki Zithopiia AE
General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,                             v Elliniko Dimosio (Greek State) (1)
gave a judgment on 27 September 2001, the operative part of
which is as follows:
                                                                              (Taxation of company profits — Parent companies and
                                                                              subsidiaries — Directive 90/435/EEC — Concept of with-
                                                                                holding tax)
1.    Article 236(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of
      12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code                                            (2001/C 317/05)
      does not permit the repayment of import duties where, after a
      complete customs declaration has been accepted by the customs                                (Language of the case: Greek)
      authorities and the goods covered by it have been released into
      free circulation, the declarant presents a certificate of authenticity
      by virtue of which the goods would, supposing the certificate to        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
      have been produced with the goods, have been eligible for                                   in the European Court Reports)
      favourable tariff treatment.
                                                                              In Case C-294/99: reference to the Court under Article 234
                                                                              EC from the the Diikitiko Protodikio Athinon (Administrative
2.    The fact that repayment or remission of duties pursuant to              Court of First Instance, Athens), Greece, for a preliminary
      Article 236(1) of Regulation No 2913/92 is excluded because             ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
      one of the legal conditions laid down for that repayment or             Athinaiki Zithopiia AE and Elliniko Dimosio (Greek State) —
      remission has not been satisfied does not, of itself, exclude           on the interpretation of Article 5(1) of Council Directive
      repayment or remission of those duties on the basis of                  90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of
      Articles 239(1) of Regulation No 2913/92 and                            taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and
      Article 905(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93                subsidiaries of different Member States (OJ 1990 L 225, p. 6)
      of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation            — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola,
      of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92, as amended by Commission                President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur),
      Regulation (EC) No 1676/96 of 30 July 1996, provided                    D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; S. Alber,
      however that the legal conditions for the application of those          Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar,
      provisions are satisfied.                                               has given a judgment on 4 October 2001, in which it has
                                                                              ruled:
      Factors ‘which might constitute a special situation resulting
      from circumstances in which no deception or obvious negligence          There is a withholding tax, within the meaning of Article 5(1) of
      may be attributed to the person concerned’ for the purposes of          Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common
      Article 905(1) of Regulation No 2454/93, as amended by                  system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and
      Regulation No 1676/96, exist where, having regard to the                subsidiaries of different Member States, where national legislation
      objective of fairness underlying Article 239 of Regulation              provides that, in the event of distribution of profits by a subsidiary (a
      No 2913/92, factors liable to place the applicant in an                 public limited company or equivalent company) to its parent company,
      exceptional situation as compared with other operators engaged          in order to determine the taxable profits of the subsidiary its total net
      in the same business are found to exist. It is for the national         profits, including income which has been subject to special taxation
      court to assess, on the basis of that criterion, whether factors        entailing extinction of tax liability and non-taxable income, must be
      which might constitute such a special situation do exist,               reincorporated into the basic taxable amount, when income falling
      necessitating examination of the file by the Commission.                within those two categories would not be taxable on the basis of the
                                                                              national legislation if they remained with the subsidiary and were not
                                                                              distributed to the parent company.
(1) OJ C 265 of 18.9.1999.
                                                                              (1) OJ C 314 of 30.10.1999.


title: Case T-176/13: Action brought on 22 March 2013 — DTL Corporación v OHIM — Vallejo Rosell (Generia)

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/46

         Action brought on 22 March 2013 — DTL Corporación v OHIM — Vallejo Rosell (Generia)
   (Case T-176/13)
   2013/C 156/85
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: DTL Corporación, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Zuazo Araluze, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mar Vallejo Rosell (Pinto, Spain)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 24 January 2013 in Case R 661/2012-4, dismissing the appeal brought against the rejection of the application for Community trade mark No 8 830 821‘Generia’ in respect of all of the goods and services in Classes 9, 37, 40, 41 and 42 and in respect of some of the services in Class 35;

               —

               in accordance with Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, order the costs of this action to be paid by OHIM and the other parties to the proceedings who oppose this action.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘Generia’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 11, 35, 37, 40, 41 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 8 830 821

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Mar Vallejo Rosell

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative mark in grey and white with the word elements ‘Generalia generación renovable’ for goods and services in Classes 7, 35 and 40

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b), Article 63(2) and Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case C-549/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven Administrativen Sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 2 November 2011 — Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — grad Burgas pri Tsentralno Upravlenie na Natsionalnata Agentsia za Prihodite v Orfey Balgaria EOOD

text:
               14.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven Administrativen Sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 2 November 2011 — Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — grad Burgas pri Tsentralno Upravlenie na Natsionalnata Agentsia za Prihodite v Orfey Balgaria EOOD
   (Case C-549/11)
   2012/C 13/14
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Varhoven Administrativen Sad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — grad Burgas pri Tsentralno Upravlenie na Natsionalnata Agentsia za Prihodite

      Defendant: Orfey Balgaria EOOD

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 63 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax to be interpreted as meaning that it does not permit a derogation where the chargeable event relating to the performance of work for the construction of certain individual properties in a building occurs before the actual performance of the construction work and that that (chargeable event) is linked to the time of the occurrence of the chargeable event relating to the transaction to be performed in return, which consists in the establishment of a building right relating to other properties in that building, which also forms the consideration for the construction work?

               2.

               Is national legislation which provides that, whenever the consideration is fully or partly expressed as goods and services, the taxable amount for the transaction is the open market value of the goods or services supplied, compatible with Articles 73 and 80 of Directive 2006/112?

               3.

               Is Article 65 of Directive 2006/112 to be interpreted as meaning that it does not permit VAT to be charged on the value of a payment on account in cases where the payment is not made in the form of money, or is that provision to be interpreted broadly, the assumption being that VAT is also chargeable in such cases and that it is to be charged at the level of the financial equivalent of the transaction performed in return?

               4.

               If, in the third question, the second variant given is correct, can the building right established in the present case be regarded, in view of the specific circumstances, as a payment on account within the meaning of Article 65 of Directive 2006/112?

               5.

               Do Articles 63, 65 and 73 of Directive 2006/112 have direct effect?

      (1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 September 2002 in Case C-351/01: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 98/5/EC — Practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was acquired)

text:
C 289/4                  EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                        23.11.2002
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Third Chamber)
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                        of 26 September 2002
                                                                                of 3 October 2002
in Case C-351/01: Commission of the European Communi-
                      ties v French Republic ( 1)
                                                                              in Case C-394/01: French Republic v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Directive 98/5/EC — Practice of the profession of lawyer on
a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in                        (State aid — Development assistance — Cruise vessel Le
              which the qualification was acquired)
                                                                              Levant operating in Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon — Action
                                                                              for annulment of the Commission decision on State aid
                                                                                implemented by the French Republic)
                            (2002/C 289/06)
                     (Language of the case: French)                                                     (2002/C 289/07)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-351/01, Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: M. Patakia) v French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues
and C. Bergeot-Nunes): Application for a declaration that, by
failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative
provisions necessary to comply with Directive 98/5/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998                    In Case C-394/01, French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues and
to facilitate practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent
                                                                              F. Million) v Commission of the European Communities
basis in a Member State other than that in which the                          (Agent: G. Rozet): Application for annulment of Commission
qualification was obtained (OJ 1998 L 77, p. 36), the French
                                                                              Decision 2001/882/EC of 25 July 2001 on the State aid
Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive,
                                                                              implemented by France in the form of development assistance
the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: F. Macken, President                  for the cruise vessel Le Levant, built by Alstom Leroux Naval
of the Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur) and J.-P. Puissochet,
                                                                              for operation in Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon (OJ 2001 L 327,
Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has                  p. 37), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann,
given a judgment on 26 September 2002, in which it:
                                                                              President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), M. Wathe-
                                                                              let, C.W.A. Timmermans and A. Rosas, Judges; J. Mischo,
                                                                              Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and            on 3 October 2002, in which it:
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with Direc-
      tive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
      16 February 1998 to facilitate practice of the profession of
      lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that           1.    Dismisses the application;
      in which the qualification was obtained, the French Republic
      has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
                                                                              2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                              (1 ) OJ C 369 of 22.12.2001.
( 1) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.


title: Case C-500/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Torino (Italy) lodged on 10 November 2014  — Ford Motor Company v Wheeltrims srl

text:
               9.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/22

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Torino (Italy) lodged on 10 November 2014 — Ford Motor Company v Wheeltrims srl
   (Case C-500/14)
   (2015/C 046/28)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale ordinario di Torino

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ford Motor Company

      Defendant: Wheeltrims srl

      Questions referred

               1)

               Is it compatible with [EU] law to interpret Article 14 of Directive 98/71 (1) and Article 110 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 (2) as conferring on producers of replacement parts and accessories the right to use trade marks registered by third parties in order to allow the end purchaser to restore the original appearance of a complex product and, therefore, also when the proprietor of the trade mark applies the distinctive sign in question to a replacement part or accessory intended to be mounted on the complex product in such a way that it is externally visible and thus contributes to the external appearance of the complex product?

               2)

               Is the repair clause set out in Article 14 of Directive 98/71 and Article 110 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 to be interpreted as constituting a subjective right for third-party producers of replacement parts and accessories and, if so, does that subjective right include the right for such third parties to use the trade mark registered by another party in respect of replacement parts and accessories, by way of derogation from the rules laid down in Regulation No 207/2009 (3) and Directive (EEC) 89/104 (4) and, therefore, when the proprietor of the trade mark also applies the distinctive sign in question to a replacement part or accessory intended to be mounted on the complex product in such a way that it is externally visible and thus contributes to the external appearance of the complex product?

      (1)  Directive 98/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 on the legal protection of designs (OJ 1998 L 289, p. 28).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs (OJ 2002 L 3, p. 1).

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

      (4)  First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1).


title: Case T-465/17: Action brought on 26 July 2017 — VKR Holding v EUIPO (VELUX)

text:
               18.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 309/37

         Action brought on 26 July 2017 — VKR Holding v EUIPO (VELUX)
   (Case T-465/17)
   (2017/C 309/49)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: VKR Holding A/S (Søborg, Denmark) (represented by: J. Heebøll, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘VELUX’ — Recordal application No T 2 299 611

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 May 2017 in Case R 1927/2016-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               overturn the decision of the Board to dismiss the appeal and thereby allow recordal request no. T 2 299 611 relating to EUTM 000651869 (VELUX),

               —

               alternatively, refer the case back to the Board.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 34(2) and Rule 28 of EUTMIR.