title: Case F-19/10: Action brought on 29 March 2010 — Marsili v Commission

text:
               19.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/57

      Action brought on 29 March 2010 — Marsili v Commission
      (Case F-19/10)
      (2010/C 161/91)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Letizia Marsili (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, C. Mereu and M. Velardo, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

      Annulment of the Commission's decision not to place the applicant on the reserve list for Competition EPSO/AST/51/08 and application for damages for the loss suffered by the applicant.

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  Annul the decision of the selection board of 17 December 2009 not to place the applicant on the reserve list for Competition EPSO/AST/51/08 and order the defendant to pay damages, provisionally assessed at 1 euro and which will be more precisely defined during the proceedings, as well as compensatory and default interest at 6.75 %, for the material and non-material loss suffered;

                  —

                  Order the European Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case F-100/13: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 25 September 2014 –Julien-Malvy and Others v EEAS (Civil service — Remuneration — Staff of the EEAS assigned to a third country — Decision of the appointing authority amending the list of third countries in respect of which the living conditions are equivalent to those normally obtaining in the European Union — Measure of general application — Admissibility of the action — Annual assessment of the allowance for living conditions — Abolition)

text:
               10.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 395/64

      Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 25 September 2014 –Julien-Malvy and Others v EEAS
      (Case F-100/13) (1)

      ((Civil service - Remuneration - Staff of the EEAS assigned to a third country - Decision of the appointing authority amending the list of third countries in respect of which the living conditions are equivalent to those normally obtaining in the European Union - Measure of general application - Admissibility of the action - Annual assessment of the allowance for living conditions - Abolition))
      (2014/C 395/77)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Bruno Julien-Malvy (Tokyo, Japan) and Others (represented by: T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

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

         Re:

      Application for annulment of the decision of the EEAS no longer to grant, as of 1 January 2014, the allowance for living conditions to officials assigned to Argentina, Chile, China (Hong Kong), Japan, Malaysia, Singapore and Taiwan

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Tribunal:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Declares that Mr Julien-Malvy and the other applicants whose names are set out in the annex shall bear their own costs;

                  3.

                  Declares that the European External Action Service shall bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 45, 15/2/2014, p. 46.


title: Cases T-141/07, T-142/07, T-145/07 and T-146/07: Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2011 — General Technic-Otis and Others v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for the installation and maintenance of elevators and escalators — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Bid-rigging — Market sharing — Price fixing)

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/44

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2011 — General Technic-Otis and Others v Commission
   (Cases T-141/07, T-142/07, T-145/07 and T-146/07) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for the installation and maintenance of elevators and escalators - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Bid-rigging - Market sharing - Price fixing)
   2011/C 269/97
   Languages of the case: French and English

      Parties

      Applicants: General Technic-Otis Sàrl (Howald, Luxembourg) (represented initially by M. Nosbusch and subsequently by A. Winckler, lawyers, and J. Temple Lang, Solicitor) (Case T-141/07); General Technic Sàrl (Howald) (represented by: M. Nosbusch) (Case T-142/07); Otis SA (Dilbeek, Belgium), Otis GmbH & Co. OHG, (Berlin, Germany), Otis BV (Amersfoort, Netherlands), and Otis Elevator Company (Farmington, Connecticut, United States) (represented by: A. Winckler and J. Temple Lang) (Case T-145/07); and United Technologies Corporation (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: A. Winckler and J. Temple Lang) (Case T-146/07)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented in Cases T-141/07 and T-142/07, by A. Bouquet and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and by A. Condomines, lawyer, and, in Cases T-145/07 and T-146/07, by A. Bouquet, R. Sauer and J. Bourke, acting as Agents, and by A. Condomines)

      Re:

   Applications for annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 512 final of 21 February 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/E 1/38.823 — Elevators and Escalators) or, in the alternative, reduction of the amounts of the fines imposed on the applicants.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Joins Cases T-141/07, T-142/07, T-145/07 and T-146/07 for the purposes of this judgment;

               2.

               Dismisses the actions;

               3.

               In Case T-141/07, orders General Technic-Otis Sàrl to pay the costs;

               4.

               In Case T-142/07, orders General Technic Sàrl to pay the costs;

               5.

               In Case T-145/07, orders Otis SA, Otis GmbH & Co. OHG, Otis BV and Otis Elevator Company to pay the costs;

               6.

               In Case T-146/07, orders United Technologies Corporation to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 140, 23.6.2007.


title: Case T-272/17: Action brought on 5 May 2017 — Webgarden v EUIPO (Dating Bracelet)

text:
               17.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 231/35

         Action brought on 5 May 2017 — Webgarden v EUIPO (Dating Bracelet)
   (Case T-272/17)
   (2017/C 231/43)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Parties

      Applicant: Webgarden Szolgáltató és Kereskedelmi Kft. (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: G. Jambrik, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Design at issue: European Union design ‘Dating Bracelet’ — Application for registration No 14450019

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 March 2017 in Case R 658/2016-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 4 of Regulation No 207/2009.

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009.

               —

               Infringement of Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

               —

               Infringement of Article 21(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.


title: Case T-212/12: Action brought on 21 May 2012 — Ålands Industrihus v Commission

text:
               28.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 227/22

         Action brought on 21 May 2012 — Ålands Industrihus v Commission
   (Case T-212/12)
   2012/C 227/38
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Parties

      Applicant: Ålands Industrihus (Mariehamn, Finland) (represented by: L. Laitinen, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Decision C 6/2008 of 13 July 2011 on measures implemented by the Regional Government of Åland in favour of Ålands Industrihus Ab, and

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging incorrect application of Article 107(1) TFEU — not State aid

                           —

                           The applicant claims that the injection of capital and loan guarantees do not constitute State aid since the aid has not distorted competition to the extent that it affects trade between Member States. The Commission has made a clearly incorrect assessment of the facts of the case, in particular by finding that there is no absolute obstacle to foreign undertakings carrying out their activity in Åland and, indeed, no obstacle which prevents them from investing in the local property market.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging incorrect application of Article 107(1) TFEU as regards the notion of private investor — not State aid

                           —

                           The applicant claims that all the injections of capital were compatible with the market economy investor principle and thus did not distort or was likely to distort competition to the extent that it affects trade between Member States. The Commission has made an incorrect assessment as regards the measure’s compatibility with the market economy investor principle in that the Commission, inter alia, incorrectly and arbitrarily regarded the extent of the expected yield by focussing only on one yearly yield. In the applicant’s submission, the true expected yield was a combination of the yearly yield and the expected increase in value.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging failure to have regard to the existing aid programme relating to the guarantees

                           —

                           The Commission did not take account of the fact that at least two of the guarantees provided were included in an existing aid scheme.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging incorrect assessment of the facts and failure to state reasons

                           —

                           If, despite everything, the measures in question were to be regarded as constituting State aid, the amounts which are to be recovered are incorrectly calculated. Firstly, the Commission has, on the basis of weak, incomplete and extremely brief reasons, arbitrarily established that the scope of the recovery covers the entire invested capital sum. Secondly, the Commission has, on the basis of incomplete reasons, arbitrarily fixed the amount of the aid elements relating to the guarantees at an unreasonable and unrealistic level. The applicant claims that the lacunae and arbitrariness in the Commission’s reasons makes it almost impossible for the applicant adequately to counter the Commission’s allegations.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging incorrect application of the rules on the reference rate

                           —

                           The Commission has applied, in the calculation of the aid elements relating to the guarantees, its notice on review of the method for setting the reference and discount rates (1) with retroactive effect. That unfair retroactive application has meant that the aid elements relating to the guarantees to be recovered were fixed higher than they would have been had the correct document, which, in the submission of the applicant, is Notice 97/C 273/03 Commission on the method for setting the reference and discount rates (2) which was in force at the time when the guarantees were issued, formed the basis of the calculation.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that the applicant had legitimate expectations as regards the aid

                           —

                           The applicant had, on the basis of the facts set out above under the first, second and third pleas in law, legitimate expectations that the Regional Government’s measures did not constitute unlawful State aid. The applicant none the less raised the question with the Regional Government, which confirmed that the measures were covered by notified aid schemes.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s decision endangers legal certainty and restricts the system of property ownership under Article 345 TFEU

                           —

                           The Commission has totally ignored concurrent investments carried out by the municipality of Mariehamn which makes it impossible for the applicant to treat the shareholders identically in a recovery situation in accordance with binding provisions of Finnish company law. The Commission’s oversight thus distorts the economic end result for those involved in a way which means that the decision infringes Article 345 TFEU, under which the Treaties are in no way to prejudice the rules in Member States governing the system of property ownership.

      (1)  OJ 2008 C 14, p. 6.

      (2)  OJ 1997 C 273, p. 3.


               18.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/28

         Removal from the Register of Case T-187/04 (1)

   (2004/C 314/64)

      (Language of the case: French)

   By order of 13 October 2004, the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-187/04, Pascal Hallez v Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 201 of 7.8.2004.


title: Case T-170/07: Action brought on 8 May 2007 — Opus Arte UK v OHMI — Arte (OPUS ARTE)

text:
               21.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 170/28

         Action brought on 8 May 2007 — Opus Arte UK v OHMI — Arte (OPUS ARTE)
   (Case T-170/07)
   (2007/C 170/56)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Opus Arte UK Ltd (Waldron, England) (represented by: D. McFarland, Barrister, and J.A. Alchin, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Arte G.E.I.E. (Strasbourg, France)
   Form of order sought
   The applicant requests the Court to:

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and Designs) of 8 March 2007 in Case R 733/2005-1; and

               —

               order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The Community figurative mark ‘Opus Arte’ for goods and services in Class 9, 16, 25 and 41 — Application No 2 551 778

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: ARTE G.E.I.E.

      Mark or sign cited: The Community and national figurative and word marks containing the word ‘ARTE’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 25 and 41 among other Classes not concerned by the proceedings

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Upheld the appeal limited to Class 41 for ‘film and television production and distribution’ services and allowed registration to proceed for the remaining goods and services applied for.

      Pleas in law:

   The applicant advances two pleas in law in support of its application.
   On the basis of its first plea, the applicant submits that the contested decision violates Articles 73 and 74 of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (hereinafter ‘the CTMR’). According to the applicant, the Board should have neither refused to take into account relevant facts, evidence and arguments submitted by the applicant, nor based its decision on assumptions of facts not previously raised by either party or on vague and unsubstantiated allegations made by the opponent.
   By its second plea, the applicant contends that the contested decision infringes Article 8(1)(b) CTMR in finding a likelihood of confusion between ‘ARTE’ and ‘OPUS ARTE’. According to the applicant, such a finding could not be based on the arguable similarity of the marks, nor could it properly rebut the presumptions by the positive evidence of lack of confusion and the actual lack of any evidence of confusion and the peaceful co-existence of the marks in the market place in Europe.


title: Case F-23/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 26 September 2011 — Abad-Villanueva and Others v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Appointment — Article 5(2) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations — Internal competitions for transfer from one category to another published before 1 May 2004 — Candidates appearing on reserve lists before 1 May 2006 — Grading — Maintenance of the multiplicaton factor — Loss of promotion points)

text:
               19.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 340/33

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 26 September 2011 — Abad-Villanueva and Others v Commission
   (Case F-23/06) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Appointment - Article 5(2) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations - Internal competitions for transfer from one category to another published before 1 May 2004 - Candidates appearing on reserve lists before 1 May 2006 - Grading - Maintenance of the multiplicaton factor - Loss of promotion points)
   2011/C 340/65
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Roberto Abad-Villanueva and Others (Brussels, Belgium) (represented, initially, by T. Bontinck and J. Feld, lawyers, and subsequently by T. Bontinck and S. Woog, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and H. Krämer, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented, initially, by M. Arpio Santacruz and M. Simm, and subsequently by M. Bauer, J. Monteiro and K. Zieleśkiewicz, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of decisions notifying the applicants of their transfer of category, in so far as they allocate a grade lower than that which would result from the application of the provisions of the Staff Regulations, maintain the multiplication factor and withdraw the promotion points of the applicants.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Each party is ordered to bear its own costs.

               3.

               The Council of the European Union, which has intervened, is ordered to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 108 of 06.05.06, p. 32.


title: Case T-8/04: Action brought on 9 January 2004 by Muswellbrook Limited against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
C 59/36                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                           6.3.2004
Grounds of the appeal:          Wrong application of Article               Pleas in law and main arguments
                                8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/
                                94 (likelihood of confusion), fail-
                                ure to state reasons and misuse            Applicants for the Com-       Friedrich Grimm and Engelbert
                                of powers by manifest error of             munity trade mark:            Rolli
                                assessment and inconsistency
                                with the Examiner’s decision of            Community trade mark          Community trade mark appli-
                                23 November 1999 regarding                 sought:                       cation No 847640 for word mark
                                partial rejection of the registration                                    SNIKE in relation to certain goods
                                of the mark concerned.                                                   in classes 12, 25 and 41 (Vehicles,
                                                                                clothing, footwear, headgear, edu-
                                                                                cation, entertainment,...)
                                                                           Proprietor of mark or         The applicant, Muswellbrook Ltd.
                                                                           sign cited in the oppo-
                                                                           sition proceedings:
Action brought on 9 January 2004 by Muswellbrook                           Mark or sign cited in         The national figurative mark No
Limited against the Office for Harmonisation in the                        opposition:                   88222 for certain goods in
    Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)                                                     class 25 (Stockings, socks, shirts,
                                                                                gloves, coats, footwear, sporting
                           (Case T-8/04)                                                                 footwear, ...)
                          (2004/C 59/57)                                   Decision of the Oppo-         Rejection of the opposition
                                                                           sition Division:
(Language of the case to be determined pursuant to article 131(2) of       Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of the appeal
the Rules of Procedure — language in which the case was submitted:         Appeal:
                              English)
                                                                           Pleas in law:                 Violation of Article 8 (1) (b) of
                                                                                Council Regulation (EC) No 40/
                                                                                941 (1)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                           (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
9 January 2004 by Muswellbrook Limited, Dublin, Ireland,                       Community trade mark (OJ 11, p. 1).
represented by Ms P. Koch Moreno, lawyer. Friedrich Grimm
and Engelbert Rolli were also party to the proceedings before
the Board of Appeal.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     declare that the decision which was issued on 5 November
      2003 by the First Board of Appeal of OHIM, which                     Action brought on5 January 2004 by Carlos Leite Mateus
      dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal against the resolution of             against the Commission of the European Communities
      29 April 2002 in opposition procedure No B 1181/
      2002, which dismissed the opposition that was lodged
      against community trade mark application No 847640                                            (Case T-10/04)
      for the registration of the word SNIKE in relation to all
      the products of class 25 covered by the application, does
      not comply with the EC Regulations on Community                                               (2004/C 59/58)
      Trade Marks, No 40/94, and that the said decision be set
      aside;
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
—     declare that there is a risk of confusion between the
      community trade mark application with No 847640 for
      the word SNIKE in class 25 and Spanish trade mark
      No 88222, consisting of the word NIKE with device,                   An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      which protects identical products that also fall under               ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      class 25;                                                            European Communities on 5 January 2004 by Carlos Leite
                                                                           Mateus, residing in Zaventem (Belgium), represented by Sébas-
—     order the respondent and, if applicable, the intervening             tien Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Étienne
      party to pay the costs of these proceedings.                         Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.


title: Case C-198/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d’appello di Milano (Italy) lodged on 23 April 2010 — Cassina SpA v Alivar Srl and Galliani Host Arredamenti Srl

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d’appello di Milano (Italy) lodged on 23 April 2010 — Cassina SpA v Alivar Srl and Galliani Host Arredamenti Srl
   (Case C-198/10)
   2010/C 179/34
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte d’appello di Milano

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Cassina SpA

      Defendant: Alivar Srl and Galliani Host Arredamenti Srl

      Question referred

               1.

               Must Articles 17 and 19 of Directive 98/71/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that the discretion accorded to the Member State to establish independently the extent to which, and the conditions under which, protection is conferred may include discretion to preclude such protection where a third party — without authorisation from the design copyright holder– had already produced and marketed in that State products based on the designs in question — those designs being in the public domain — before the date on which the national implementing legislation entered into force?

               2.

               Must Articles 17 and 19 of Directive 98/71/EC be interpreted as meaning that the discretion accorded to the Member State to establish independently the extent to which, and the conditions under which, protection is conferred may include discretion to preclude such protection where a third party — without authorisation from the design copyright holder — has already produced and marketed in that State products based on the designs in question, where protection is precluded within the limits of prior use?

      (1)  OJ 1998 L 289, p. 28.


title: Case T-49/10: Order of the General Court of 11 August 2010 — Footwear v OHIM — Reno Schuhcentrum (swiss cross FOOTWEAR)

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/66

      Order of the General Court of 11 August 2010 — Footwear v OHIM — Reno Schuhcentrum (swiss cross FOOTWEAR)
      (Case T-49/10) (1)

      ()
      (2010/C 288/123)
      Language of the case: German
      The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.


title: Case C-53/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from House of Lords (United Kingdom) made on 6 February 2009 — Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v Loyalty Management UK Limited

text:
               18.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from House of Lords (United Kingdom) made on 6 February 2009 — Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v Loyalty Management UK Limited
   (Case C-53/09)
   2009/C 90/20
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   House of Lords

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

      Defendant: Loyalty Management UK Limited

      Questions referred

   ‘In circumstances where a taxable person (the “Promoter”) is engaged in the business of running a multi-participant customer loyalty rewards programme (the “Scheme”), pursuant to which the Promoter enters into various agreements as follows:

               (i)

               Agreements with various companies referred to as “Sponsors” under which the Sponsors issue “Points” to customers of the Sponsors (“Collectors”) who purchase goods or services from the Sponsors and the Sponsors make payments to the Promoter;

               (ii)

               Agreements with the Collectors which include provisions such that, when they purchase goods and/or services from the Sponsors, they will receive Points which they can redeem for goods and/or services; and

               (iii)

               Agreements with various companies (known as “Redeemers”) under which the Redeemers agree, among other things, to provide goods and/or services to Collectors at a price which is less than would otherwise be payable or for no cash payment when the Collector redeems the Points and in return the Promoter pays a “Service Charge” which is calculated according to the number of Points redeemed with that Redeemer during the relevant period.

                           1.

                           How are Articles 14, 24 and 73 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 (1) (formerly Articles 5, 6 and 11(A)(1)(a) of Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 (2)) to be interpreted where payments are made by the Promoter to the Redeemers?

                           2.

                           In particular, are those provisions to be interpreted such that the payments of the kind made by the Promoter to Redeemers are to be characterised as:

                                       (a)

                                       consideration solely for the supply of services by the Redeemers to the Promoter; or

                                       (b)

                                       consideration solely for the supply of goods and/or services by the-Redeemers to the Collectors; or

                                       (c)

                                       consideration in part for the supply of services by the Redeemers to the Promoter and in part for the supply of goods and/or services by the Redeemers to the Collectors?

                           3.

                           If the answer to question 2 is (c), so that the Service Charge is consideration for two supplies by the Redeemers, one to the Promoter and the other to the Collectors, what are the criteria laid down by Community law to determine how a charge such as the Service Charge is to be apportioned between those two supplies?

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

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


title: Case T-152/05: Action brought on 18 April 2005 by John Arthur Slater against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/43

         Action brought on 18 April 2005 by John Arthur Slater against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case T-152/05)
   (2005/C 143/79)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 18 April 2005 by John Arthur Slater, residing in London (United Kingdom), represented by M. J. Gilbert, Solicitor.
   Prime Restaurant Holdings, Inc., established in Mississanga, Ontario (Canada) was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal dated 13 December 2004 in Case R 582/2003-4;

               —

               dismiss Prime Restaurant Holdings, Inc's request for a declaration of invalidity in respect of Community trade mark registration No 447730;

               —

               order the Office and other parties to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant in this application, in appeal No R582/2003-4 and in cancellation proceedings No 232C000447730/1.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity:

               The word mark EAST SIDE MARIO'S for goods and services in classes 25, 26 and 42 — Community trade mark No 447730

               Proprietor of the Community trade mark:

               John Arthur Slater

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

               Prime Restaurant Holdings, Inc.

               Rights of the applicant for a declaration of invalidity:

               The national word and figurative marks EAST SIDE MARIO'S

               Decision of the Cancellation Division:

               Invalidity of the Community trade mark

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Dismissal of the appeal

               Pleas in law:

               Violation of Article 51(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94. According to the applicant, the Board erred in finding that the applicant acted for a third person who should be considered to be the applicant for the trade mark, that this third person acted in bad faith and that there is unfair practice.


title: Case T-313/09: Order of the General Court of 2 April 2014 — Onidol v Commission (State aid — Framework system of actions able to be undertaken by the recognised French agricultural interprofessional organisations in favour of members of the agricultural sectors represented — Financing by voluntary levies made compulsory — Decision declaring the aid scheme compatible with the common market — Withdrawal of the decision — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               10.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/43

         Order of the General Court of 2 April 2014 — Onidol v Commission
   (Case T-313/09) (1)

   ((State aid - Framework system of actions able to be undertaken by the recognised French agricultural interprofessional organisations in favour of members of the agricultural sectors represented - Financing by voluntary levies made compulsory - Decision declaring the aid scheme compatible with the common market - Withdrawal of the decision - No need to adjudicate))
   2014/C 175/59
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Organisation nationale interprofessionnel des grains et fruits oléagineux (Onidol) (Paris, France) (represented initially by: B. Le Bret and L. Olza Moreno, and subsequently by: B. Le Bret and C. Renner, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: B. Stromsky and C. Urraca Caviedes, subsequently by: B. Stromsky and S. Thomas, and finally by: B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 7846 final of 10 December 2008 concerning State aid No 561/2008, on the framework system of actions able to be undertaken by the recognised French agricultural interprofessional organisations in favour of members of the agricultural sectors represented

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.

               2.

               The European Commission shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 244, 10.10.2009.


title: Case C-311/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 25 June 2015 — TrustBuddy AB v Lauri Pihjalaniemi

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/38

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 25 June 2015 — TrustBuddy AB v Lauri Pihjalaniemi
   (Case C-311/15)
   (2015/C 294/48)
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Korkein oikeus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: TrustBuddy AB

      Defendant: Lauri Pihjalaniemi

      Question referred

   Is Article 3(b) of Directive 2008/48/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC to be interpreted as meaning that that a trader is to be regarded as a creditor if it markets credit to consumers via the internet in the form of so-called peer-to-peer lending and exercises, as regards the consumers, the decision-making power generally appertaining to creditors with respect to the terms and conditions, the granting of credit and debt recovery, even though the funds for credits come from anonymous private individuals and are kept separate from the trader’s own funds?

      (1)  Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66).


10.8.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 191/23
(and to organise any necessary strikes to that end). Conse-                     Removal from the register of Case C-178/01 (1)
quently, a possible infringement of a fundamental right (the
freedom to form an association) cannot be examined by the                                       (2002/C 191/38)
Community judicature in precisely those cases where such an
infringement concerns, in a general and abstract manner, all
potential holders of the fundamental right, i.e. where it is             By order of 18 April 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
based on a legislative provision.                                        of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
                                                                         register of Case C-178/01: Commission of the European
(1) Not yet published in the European Court Report.                      Communities v Republic of Austria.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 212 of 28.7.2001.
       Removal from the register of Case C-357/00 (1)
                         (2002/C 191/37)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-214/01 (1)
                                                                                (2002/C 191/39)
By order of 16 April 2002 the President of the Sixth Chamber
of the Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered
the removal from the register of Case C-357/00 (Reference for
a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgericht Bremen): Fikri            By order of 15 April 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
Akdenk v Stadtgemeinde Bremen.                                           of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
                                                                         register of Case C-214/01: Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
(1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 212 of 28.7.2001.


title: Case C-293/05: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 91/271/EEC — Pollution and nuisance — Urban waste-water treatment — Province of Varese)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/12

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-293/05) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 91/271/EEC - Pollution and nuisance - Urban waste-water treatment - Province of Varese)
   (2006/C 331/20)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and D. Recchia, Agents)

      Defendant: Italy (represented by: I. M. Braguglia, Agent, M. Fiorilli, avoccato dello Stato)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Article 5(2) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40) — Insufficiently stringent treatment of urban waste-water from the agglomeration of several communes of the Province of Varese situated in the basin of the River Olona
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to take measures to ensure that, as from 31 December 1998, urban waste-water from the agglomeration of several communes of the Province of Varese situated in the basin of the River Olona is subject to more stringent treatment than the secondary treatment or equivalent treatment provided for in Article 4 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(2) and (5) of that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 229, 17.9.2005.


title: Case C-56/00: Action brought on 22 February 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
22.7.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 211/5
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              — Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
— Declare that, by failing to adopt or, in any event, to
    communicate to the Commission, within the prescribed                 Pleas in law and main arguments
    period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
    necessary to comply with European Parliament and
    Council Directive 97/52/EC of 13 October 1997 amending               Under Article 249 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
    Directives 92/50/EEC, 93/36/EEC and 93/37/EEC concern-               directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
    ing the coordination of procedures for the award of public           each Member State to which it is addressed, Member States are
    service contracts, public supply contracts and public works          required to observe the time-limits laid down in directives for
    contracts respectively (1), the Italian Republic has failed to       their transposition. That time-limit expired on 1 July 1998
    fulfil its obligations under that directive; and                     without the Italian Republic having brought into force the
                                                                         necessary provisions in order to comply with the directive
— Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                           referred to in the Commission’s application.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          (1) OJ 1997 L 335, p. 15.
Under Article 249 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
each Member State to which it is addressed, Member States are
required to observe the time-limits laid down in directives for
their transposition. That time-limit expired on 13 October
1998 without the Italian Republic having brought into force
the necessary provisions in order to comply with the directive           Action brought on 27 April 2000 by the Kingdom of the
referred to in the Commission’s application.                             Netherlands against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
(1) OJ 1997 L 328, p. 1.
                                                                                (Case C-156/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 211/09)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Action brought on 22 February 2000 by the Commission                     ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic                 Communities on 27 April 2000 by the Kingdom of the
                                                                         Netherlands, represented by Marc Fierstra, Head of the Euro-
                                                                         pean Law Section in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The
                          (Case C-56/00)
                                                                         Hague, acting as Agent.
                         (2000/C 211/08)
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 February              — Annul the Commission decision of 23 February 2000
2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,                           determining in a particular case that an application for
represented by Richard Wainwright, of its Legal Service, and                  remission of import duties in a specified amount is
Giacinto Bisogni, appeal court judge on secondment to the                     inadmissible and that the remission of import duties in a
Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in               separate amount is unjustified (file REM 23/99);
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner
Centre, Kirchberg.                                                       — Order the Commission to pay the costs.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
— Declare that, by failing to adopt or, in any event, communi-
    cate to the Commission, within the prescribed period, the            — Infringement of Article 589 of Commission Regulation
    laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary                 (EEC) No 2454/93 (1); in the alternative, infringement of
    to comply with Directive 97/63/EC of the European                         the obligation to state reasons laid down in Article 253 EC
    Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 1997                         in so far as the contested decision declared inadmissible
    amending Directives 76/116/EEC, 80/876/EEC, 89/284/                       that part of the application for remission which seeks
    EEC and 89/530/EEC on the approximation of the laws of                    to recover compensatory interest: Article 589(3), fifth
    the Member States relating to fertilizers (1), the Italian                subparagraph, of Regulation No 2454/93 provides that if
    Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that                  the Commission fails to raise an objection against acceding
    directive; and                                                            to the request within two months of the date of


               4.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 298/10

         Action brought on 18 August 2010 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland
   (Case E-12/10)
   2010/C 298/08
   An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 18 August 2010 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Xavier Lewis and Ólafur Jóhannes Einarsson, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, rue Belliard/Belliardstraat 35, 1040 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to declare that:

               1.

               by maintaining in force Articles 5 and 7 of Act No 45/2007 on the rights and obligations of foreign undertakings that post workers temporarily in Iceland and on their workers’ terms and conditions of employment, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations arising from Article 36 of the EEA Agreement and Article 3 of the Act referred to at point 30 of Annex XVIII to the EEA Agreement, Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services, as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto;

               2.

               the Republic of Iceland bears the costs of these proceedings.

      Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               the application concerns which requirements the EEA States are permitted to impose regarding the employment conditions of workers posted to their territory,

               —

               it is stated in the Application that Article 3 of Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services, read in conjunction with Article 36 EEA, only allows the imposition of the minimum requirements listed in Article 3(1)(a)-(g) of the Directive,

               —

               the EFTA Surveillance Authority states that the disputed Articles of Act No 45/2007 (the Posting Act) impose conditions not foreseen by any of the subparagraphs of Article 3 and are consequently in breach of Article 3 and Article 36 EEA.


title: Case C-542/13: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle — Belgium) — Mohamed M’Bodj v État belge (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 19(2) — Directive 2004/83/EC — Minimum standards for determining who qualifies for refugee status or subsidiary protection status — Person eligible for subsidiary protection — Article 15(b) — Torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment of an applicant in the country of origin — Article 3 — More favourable standards — Applicant suffering from a serious illness — No appropriate treatment available in the country of origin — Article 28 — Social protection — Article 29 — Health care)

text:
               23.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/12

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle — Belgium) — Mohamed M’Bodj v État belge
   (Case C-542/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 19(2) - Directive 2004/83/EC - Minimum standards for determining who qualifies for refugee status or subsidiary protection status - Person eligible for subsidiary protection - Article 15(b) - Torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment of an applicant in the country of origin - Article 3 - More favourable standards - Applicant suffering from a serious illness - No appropriate treatment available in the country of origin - Article 28 - Social protection - Article 29 - Health care))
   (2015/C 065/16)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour constitutionnelle

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Mohamed M’Bodj

      Defendant: État belge

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 28 and 29 of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted, read in conjunction with Articles 2(e), 3, 15, and 18 of that directive, are to be interpreted as not requiring a Member State to grant the social welfare and health care benefits provided for in those measures to a third country national who has been granted leave to reside in the territory of that Member State under national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allows a foreign national who suffers from an illness occasioning a real risk to his life or physical integrity or a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment to reside in that Member State, where there is no appropriate treatment in that foreign national’s country of origin or in the third country in which he resided previously, unless such a foreign national is intentionally deprived of health care in that country.

      (1)  OJ C 367, 14.12.2013.


title: Case T-157/13: Action brought on 15 March 2013 — Sorinet Commercial Trust Bankers v Council

text:
               25.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 147/23

         Action brought on 15 March 2013 — Sorinet Commercial Trust Bankers v Council
   (Case T-157/13)
   2013/C 147/42
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sorinet Commercial Trust Bankers Ltd (Kish Island, Iran) (represented by: L. Defalque and C. Malherbe, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul paragraph I.I.12 (under the heading ‘Entities’) of the Annex to Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran;

               —

               Annul paragraph I.I.12 (under the heading ‘Entities’) of the Annex to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran; and,

               —

               Order that the Council pays the Applicant’s costs of this application.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Council has breached the obligation to state reasons. The statement of reasons of the disputed decision and resolution is vague and general and does not indicate the specific and actual reasons why, in the exercise of its broad discretion, the Council considered that the Applicant should be subject to the disputed restrictive measures.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Council has violated the Applicant’s rights of defence, right to a fair hearing and right to effective judicial protection. The Applicant has neither been informed nor notified of any possible evidence adduced against it to justify the measure adversely affecting it. The Council neither granted the Applicant access to its file nor provided it with the requested documents (including precise and personalised information justifying the disputed restrictive measures) nor disclosed to it the possible evidence adduced against it. The Applicant was denied to be heard by the Council as the Applicant expressly requested it. The abovementioned violation of the Applicant’s rights of defence — notably the failure to inform the Applicant of the evidence adduced against it — results in a violation of the Applicant’s right to effective judicial protection.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Council made a manifest error of assessment when adopting the restrictive measures against the Applicant. The reasons relied on by the Council against the Applicant do not constitute an adequate statement of reasons. Moreover, the Council has produced neither evidence nor information to establish the reasons it invoked to justify the disputed restrictive measures, which are based on mere allegations.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the disputed restrictive measures are vitiated and tainted with illegality due to the defects in the Council’s assessment prior their adoption. The Council did not carry out a genuine assessment of the circumstances of the case, but it has restricted itself to following the UNSC’s recommendations and adopting the proposals submitted by the Member States.


title: Case T-462/13: Action brought on 30 August 2013 — Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco and Itelazpi v Commission

text:
               19.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 304/24

         Action brought on 30 August 2013 — Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco and Itelazpi v Commission
   (Case T-462/13)
   2013/C 304/42
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco (Spain) and Itelazpi SA (Bizkaia, Spain) (represented by: J. Buendía Sierra, A. Lamadrid de Pablo, M. Muñoz de Juan and N. Ruiz García, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               declare admissible and well-founded the grounds of annulment relied on in support of the present action;

               —

               annul the contested decision, in particular Article 1, in so far as it finds that there is a State aid incompatible with the internal market;

               —

               consequently, annul the recovery orders provided for in Articles 3 and 4 of the decision; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The decision contested in the present case is the same as that at issue in Case T-461/13, Spain v Commission.
   In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging an error of law in classifying the process of digitalisation as State aid.

                           —

                           The applicants claim, in that regard, that the Commission carried out an incorrect analysis of Article 171(1) TFEU, having regard in particular to the case-law in Altmark concerning Services of General Economic Interests (SGEI), and that it was therefore wrong to conclude that there was State aid in the present case.

                           —

                           They add, in that context, that the measures examined in the contested decision were intended solely to ensure transmission of the digital television signal in the so-called ‘Zone II’ area (part of the territory that is not served by commercial operators and in which the population, in the absence of intervention by public authorities, would be deprived of access to television).

                           —

                           Moreover, the applicants observe that the principle of ‘technological neutrality’ may not lead to depriving the Member States of the discretion conferred on them by the Treaties to organise the provision of SGEIs.

                           —

                           In any event, the national authorities have favoured terrestrial technology over satellite technology in Zone II because that option was clearly more logical, economical and effective, taking into account the pre-existing analogue terrestrial network, funded by public funds, which already covered Zone II.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an error of law when assessing the compatibility of the aid

                           —

                           In the alternative, should it be found that there is a State aid, the applicants argue that that aid should be considered compatible with the internal market in accordance with Articles 106(2) and Article 107(3)(c) TFEU.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging an error on the part of the Commission when assessing the existing aid.

                           —

                           In that regard, the applicants argue, also in the alternative, that in any event, the aid granted in the present case should be regarded as an existing aid. Given that a public television network already existed, it was in fact a simple modification and updating of that network, without any change in its function.


title: Case T-214/02: Action brought on 15 July 2002 by María-Angeles Martínez Valls against European Parliament

text:
C 219/24              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     14.9.2002
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant submitted a tender for the delivery of buoys
to harbours in Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan                   —     annul the decision of the Selection Board in competition
following the supply procurement notice issued by the Com-                     PE/90/A of 3 April 2002 refusing to admit the applicant
mission. The notice was subject to a corrigendum, after which                  to the next stages in the competition for having obtained
the applicant was given the opportunity to modify its tender.                  insufficient marks in one of the written tests (test C) and
Since the corrigendum did not give rise to any changes as                      annul the decision of the Selection Board in competition
regards the applicant, it sent back the same tender unchanged                  PE/90/A of 31 May 2002 confirming its decision of
to the Commission. After this, the applicant was informed that                 3 April 2002 and rejecting the applicant’s request seeking
its tender was rejected, since it did not comply with the 90-                  access to certain documents;
day validity period fixed for a tender from the date of its
submission.
                                                                         —     annul the whole of the competition;
The applicant considers that this Decision contains an error of
fact. The end date of the validity of the tender, i.e. 28 July
2002, was calculated from the date of the initial deadline of
29 April 2002. This date was not altered by the second                   —     at the very least, annul all the aspects and acts of the
submission of the tender, following the corrigendum of the                     competition subsequent to the unlawful elements of the
notice by the Commission, since the applicant sent back the                    individual decisions of 3 April 2002 and 31 May 2002,
same tender. The applicant claims, however, that it was clear                  in particular, the list of successful candidates and the
from the surrounding circumstances and other indications in                    appointments made on the basis of that list;
the tender that the tender was valid for 90 days from the
revised deadline of 11 June 2002 onwards.
                                                                         —     in any event, order the defendant to adopt all the
                                                                               necessary measures in order to restore the applicant’s
Furthermore, the applicant claims that the Commission has
                                                                               rights as a candidate who has passed tests A, B and C of
violated paragraph 19.5 of the Instructions to Tenderers, the
                                                                               the competition in question;
duty of care and the principle of proportionality. According to
paragraph 19.5 of these Instructions, the Commission can
require Tenderers to provide clarification of a tender within
24 hours. The applicant claims that other statements in the              —     failing that, order the defendant to pay damages assessed,
tender and the surrounding circumstances in general should
                                                                               at the material time, at EUR 10 389,46, subject to
have given rise to doubt which required clarification of the
                                                                               increment;
duration of the tender’s validity. The Commission has not,
however, made use of this possibility.
                                                                         —     order the defendant to produce the corrected copy of
                                                                               test C and general and objective assessment criteria, to
                                                                               identify the publicly accessible documents which the
                                                                               Board used when marking test C and to produce the
                                                                               Board’s reasoned report;
Action brought on 15 July 2002 by María-Angeles Martí-
            nez Valls against European Parliament
                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                        (Case T-214/02)
                        (2002/C 219/56)
                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
An action against the European Parliament was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
15 July 2002 by María-Angeles Martínez Valls, residing in
Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure                  The applicant alleges breach of the duty to provide reasons,
Levi, lawyers.                                                           breach of the general principle of transparency, breach of the
 ---pagebreak--- 14.9.2002            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 219/25
principle patere legem quem ipse fecisti and breach of the                    Removal from the register of Case T-124/00 (1)
principle of non-discrimination. According to the applicant,
the European Parliament was required to allow her access to                                   (2002/C 219/57)
her corrected written paper and to the criteria on which the
Board assessed it.                                                                       (Language of the Case: Italian)
The applicant further alleges infringement of the competition         By order of 21 June 2002 the President of the Second Chamber
notice and a manifest error of assessment. In her view, the           of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
Selection Board laid down for itself too strict a set of criteria     ordered the removal from the register of Case T-124/00:
against which to assess the test.                                     Federazione Associazioni Imprese Distribuzione and Others v
                                                                      Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                      (1 ) OJ C 192 of 8.7.2000.


title: Case T-397/06: Action brought on 16 December 2006 — DOW AgroSciences v EFSA

text:
               24.2.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/33

         Action brought on 16 December 2006 — DOW AgroSciences v EFSA
   (Case T-397/06)
   (2007/C 42/58)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: DOW AgroSciences Ltd (Hitchin, United Kingdom) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and C. Mereu, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Order the annulment of EFSA Conclusion titled ‘Conclusion regarding the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance Haloxyfop-R’;

               —

               order the defendant to compensate the applicant for the damages incurred as a result of the contested measure, and in the meantime, to hold at this stage by interlocutory statement that the defendant is obliged to compensate the applicant for the damages they incurred and to reserve the fixing of the amount of compensation either by agreement between the parties or by the Court in the absence of such an agreement;

               —

               order the defendant to pay all the costs and expenses in these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments relied on by the applicant are similar to those relied on in Case T-311/06 FMC Chemical and Arysta Lifesciences v EFSA.


title: Case C-418/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Costituzionale (Italy) lodged on 23 July 2013 — Napolitano and Others v Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca

text:
               26.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/7

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Costituzionale (Italy) lodged on 23 July 2013 — Napolitano and Others v Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca
   (Case C-418/13)
   2013/C 313/13
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte Costituzionale

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Carla Napolitano, Salvatore Vittorio Perrella, Gaetano Romano, Donatella Cittadino, Gemma Zangari

      Defendant: Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must clause 5(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP annexed to Council Directive No 1999/70/EC (1) be interpreted as precluding the application of Article 4(1) infine and (11) of Law No 124 of 3 May 1999 adopting urgent provisions concerning school employees (Legge No 124, disposizioni urgenti in material di personale scolastico) which, after laying down rules on the allocation of annual replacements for ‘posts that are in fact vacant and free by 31 December’, goes on to provide that this is to be done by allocating annual replacements ‘pending the completion of competition procedures for the recruitment of permanent members of the teaching staff’ — a provision that permits fixed-term contracts to be used without a definite period being fixed for completing the competition, and in a clause that provides no right to compensation for damage?

               2.

               Do the requirements of the organisation of the Italian school system set out above constitute objective reasons within the meaning of clause 5(1) of Directive No 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 of such a kind as to render compatible with the law of the European Union legislation, such as the Italian legislation, that does not provide a right to compensation for damage in respect of the appointment of school staff on fixed-term contracts?

      (1)  Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43).


title: Case C-106/02: Action brought on 22 March 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

text:
C 131/6                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           1.6.2002
at least partial security. The Federal Republic temporarily              The Commission claims that the Court should:
waived enforcement of its existing claims against the guarantor
association AIST only on the condition that the association              1.     Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
continued to be liable with an appropriate own share and                        and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
assigned its claims against the reinsurer by way of security.                   Council Directive 97/43/Euratom (1) of 30 June 1997 on
Consequently, the claims arising in 1995 and the subsequent                     health protection of individuals against the dangers of
years were secured and should, to the extent that they had not                  ionising radiation in relation to medical exposure, and
been contested within the time-limit provided, have been                        repealing Directive 84/466/Euratom, in the field of
entered, at least partly, in the ‘A’ accounts and transferred.                  medical exposure in the operation of radiological instal-
                                                                                lations, and in any event by failing to notify the Com-
                                                                                mission of them, the Federal Republic of Germany has
                                                                                failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
The German authorities have not as yet supplied substantiated
proof for their submission that they acted vicariously in the
                                                                         2.     Order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
Community interest to prevent a collapse of the TIR system.
If, however, actual evidence of such a serious crisis existed, it
is difficult to see why the German authorities did not, in the
Community interest, consult the Commission and the other
Member States before reaching their decision temporarily to              Pleas in law and main arguments
waive collection of the claims. The unilateral action of the
German authorities is just as much an infringement of the
duty of co-operation laid down in Article 10 of the EC Treaty            It follows from the binding nature of directives under the third
as the fact that it was only in their response to the letter setting     paragraph of Article 161 EA and from the first paragraph of
the deadline that the German authorities complied with the               Article 192 EA that the Member States to which a directive is
Commission’s repeated request for notification of the details            addressed are obliged to transpose its provisions into national
of the agreement concluded by the Federal Republic with the              law in such a way that they become fully effective in practice
guarantor association and of further agreements with other               from the date of expiry of the period for transposition.
security providers.
                                                                         In accordance with Article 14 of the directive, the Member
                                                                         States were obliged to comply with it before 13 May 2000.
(1) OJ L 155 of 7.6. 1989, p. 1.                                         Although the Federal Republic of Germany has now largely
(2) OJ L 130 of 31.5.2000, p. 1.                                         transposed the directive by means of the Strahlenschutzverord-
                                                                         nung of 20 July 2001, the necessary provisions for the
                                                                         operation of radiological installations are still lacking.
                                                                         (1) OJ L 180 of 9.7.1997, p. 22.
Action brought on 22 March 2002 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Federal Republic
                            of Germany                                   Action brought on 22 March 2002 by the Commission of
                                                                         the European Communities against the Federal Republic
                                                                                of Germany
                         (Case C-106/02)
                                                                                (Case C-108/02)
                         (2002/C 131/11)
                                                                                (2002/C 131/12)
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                    An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-             brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 22 March 2002 by the Commission of the European                  ties on 22 March 2002 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Götz zur Hausen, Legal Adviser               Communities, represented by Götz zur Hausen, Legal Adviser
of the Commission of the European Communities, with an                   of the Commission of the European Communities, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Luis Escobar          address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Luis Escobar
Guerrero, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.          Guerrero, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.


title: Case T-293/16: Action brought on 7 June 2016 — Kaane American International Tobacco v EUIPO — Global Tobacco (GOLD MONT)

text:
               1.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/37

         Action brought on 7 June 2016 — Kaane American International Tobacco v EUIPO — Global Tobacco (GOLD MONT)
   (Case T-293/16)
   (2016/C 279/52)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Kaane American International Tobacco Co. Ltd. (Jebel Ali, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: G. Hinarejos Mulliez, I. Valdelomar, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Global Tobacco FZCO (Dubai, United Arab Emirates)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘GOLD MONT’ – EU trade mark No 11 803 831

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 April 2016 in Case R 2699/2014-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               accept the present appeal;

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               declare the suspension of the Appeal R 2699/2014-4 until a decision on the parallel proceedings R 1857/2015-4 (which is currently appealed before the General Court) becomes definitive;

               —

               condemn EUIPO (The Boards of Appeal) or subsidiary the other party in the proceedings to bear the costs and fees of the present proceedings.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of the principles of equality before the law and impartiality.


title: Case T-406/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance 17 October 2006 — Bonnet v Court of Justice (Officials — Recruitment — Member of the temporary staff — Reader of judgments — Article 2(c) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants — Measure adversely affecting an official — Relationship of trust)

text:
               16.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 310/14

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance 17 October 2006 — Bonnet v Court of Justice
   (Case T-406/04) (1)

   (Officials - Recruitment - Member of the temporary staff - Reader of judgments - Article 2(c) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants - Measure adversely affecting an official - Relationship of trust)
   (2006/C 310/27)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: André Bonnet (Saint-Pierre-de-Vassols, France) (represented by: H. de Lepinau, lawyer)

      Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Communities (represented by: M. Schauss, Agent)
   Re:
   First, application for annulment of the Court of Justice's measures of 11 February and 4 March 2004 ending, as regards the applicant, the procedure for recruitment to the post of reader of judgments at the Chambers of the President of the Court and of the decision making an appointment to the post at issue, and, secondly, an application for damages.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 300, 4.12.2004.


title: Case C-56/10 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 June 2011 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Figurative marks 100 and 300 — Refusal of registration — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) — Distinctive character — Descriptive character — Article 38(2) — Disclaimer of any exclusive right to a non-distinctive element of a trade mark applied for)

text:
               19.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 340/5

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 June 2011 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-56/10 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Figurative marks 100 and 300 - Refusal of registration - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) - Distinctive character - Descriptive character - Article 38(2) - Disclaimer of any exclusive right to a non-distinctive element of a trade mark applied for)
   2011/C 340/08
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Appellant: Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. (represented by: D. Rzążwska radca prawny)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis, Agent)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 19 November 2009 in Joined Cases T-425/07 and T-426/07 Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v OHIM, by which that Court dismissed two actions brought against the decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 September 2007 (Cases R 1274/2006-4 and R 1275/2006-4), concerning the applications for registration of the word marks 100 and 300 as Community trade marks — Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c), and Article 38(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1), as replaced by Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1) — Descriptive character of marks composed exclusively of figures.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed,

               2.

               Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 1.05.2010.


title: Case T-167/03: Action brought on 13 May 2003 by Angeliki Beazoglou-Varvagiannis and Others against European Parliament

text:
2.8.2003               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 184/39
Action brought on 12 May 2003 by Stefanos Alexiou and                      The pleas in law and main arguments put forward by the
            Others against the European Parliament                         applicants in support of their application are similar to those
                                                                           of the applicants in Cases T-221/02 (1) and T-44/03 (2).
                          (Case T-166/03)
                                                                           (1) OJ C 247 12.10.02, p. 17.
                                                                           (2) OJ C 101 26.04.03, p. 40.
                          (2003/C 184/87)
                    (Language of the case: French)
An action against the European Parliament was brought before               Action brought on 13 May 2003 by Angeliki Beazoglou-
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                     Varvagiannis and Others against European Parliament
12 May 2003 by Stefanos Alexiou, residing in Luxembourg,
and 7 other officials, represented by G. Bounéou, lawyer, with
an address for service in Luxembourg.                                                                 (Case T-167/03)
The applicants claim that the Court should:                                                          (2003/C 184/88)
—     annul the decision of the competent hierarchical authority                                (Language of the case: French)
      changing, with effect from a year not further specified
      (1993, 1996, 1997, or another year, and for the period
      during which the applicants were officials of the
      European Parliament), the procedure for calculating the              An action against the European Parliament was brought before
      annual expense of travelling to Greece in respect of the             the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
      journey via Brindisi, as taken into consideration for the            13 May 2003 by Angeliki Beazoglou-Varvagiannis, residing in
      Greek islands, when travel must be through Athens or                 Uebersyren (Luxembourg) and three other officials, represented
      Piraeus;                                                             by Gilles Bounéou, lawyer, with an address for service in
                                                                           Luxembourg.
      or, in the alternative,
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the competent hierarchical authority
      to reimburse, with effect from a year not further specified          —     annul the decision of the competent hierarchical authority
      (1993, 1996, 1997, or another year, and for the period                     changing, from an unspecified year (1993, 1996, 1997 or
      during which the applicants were officials of the                          another year but, in any event, the period during which
      European Parliament), the cost of the sea passage from                     the applicants were officials of the European Parliament),
      Brindisi to various Greek frontier points (Corfu, Igoume-                  the procedure used for the calculation of annual expense
      nitsa, Patras) on the basis of an ‘aircraft type seat’ ticket;             of travelling to Greece in respect of the route via Brindisi
                                                                                taken into consideration for destinations to the Greater
                                                                                Athens area;
—     annul all the applicants' pay slips implementing the
      decisions annulment of which is sought;
                                                                                alternatively:
—     reimburse to the applicants all the amounts not paid                 —     annul the decision of the competent hierarchical authority
      following implementation of the decisions annulment of                     to reimburse, from an unspecified year (1993, 1996, 1997
      which is sought, together with legal interest;                             or the period during which the applicants were officials
                                                                                of the European Parliament), the cost of sea passage from
—     make the appropriate ruling as to costs and order the                      Brindisi to various Greek frontier posts (Corfu, Igoume-
      Parliament to pay those costs.                                             nitsa, Patras) on the basis of an ‘aircraft type seat’ ticket;
                                                                           —     annul all the applicants' reimbursement statements imple-
                                                                                menting the decisions whose annulment is sought;
                                                                           —     pay the applicants the entire amount not received as a
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                  result of the implementation of the decisions whose
                                                                                annulment is sought, together with interest at the legal
                                                                                rate;
The applicants in this case seek the annulment of the Parlia-
ment's decision changing the method of calculating annual                  —     order the Parliament to pay the costs, expenses and fees
travel expenses to Greece.                                                       incurred.
 ---pagebreak--- C 184/40               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          2.8.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            —     make the appropriate ruling as to costs and order the
                                                                                Parliament to pay those costs.
The applicants in the present case, seek the annulment of the
Parliament's decision amending the method used for the calcu-
lation of annual travel costs to Greece.
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
The pleas in law and arguments submitted by the applicants in
support of their action are similar to those put forward by the            The applicants in this case seek the annulment of the Parlia-
applicants in Cases T-221/02 (1) and T-44/03 (2).                          ment's decision changing the method of calculating annual
                                                                           travel expenses to Greece.
(1) OJ 2002 C 247, p. 17.
(2) OJ 2003 C 101, p. 40.                                                  The pleas in law and main arguments put forward by the
                                                                           applicants in support of their application are similar to those
                                                                           of the applicants in Cases T-221/02 (1) and T-44/03 (2).
                                                                           (1) OJ C 247 12.10.02, p. 17.
                                                                           (2) OJ C 101 26.04.03, p. 40.
Action brought on 13 May 2003 by Grigorios Gian-
    noutsos and Others against the European Parliament
                          (Case T-168/03)
                                                                           Action brought on 12 May 2003 by Nicole Heurtaux
                                                                                against Commission of the European Communities
                          (2003/C 184/89)
                                                                                (Case T-172/03)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (2003/C 184/90)
An action against the European Parliament was brought before                                  (Language of the case: French)
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
13 May 2003 by Grigorios Giannoutsos, residing in Luxem-
bourg, and 4 other officials, represented by G. Bounéou,
lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                         An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
                                                                           nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 12 May 2003 by Nicole Heurtaux,
The applicants claim that the Court should:                                residing in Brussels, represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Albert
                                                                           Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Étienne Marchal, lawyers, with an
—     annul the decision of the competent hierarchical authority           address for service in Luxembourg.
      changing, with effect from a year not further specified
      (1993, 1996, 1997, or another year, and for the period               The applicant claims that the Court should:
      during which the applicants were officials of the
      European Parliament), the procedure for calculating the
      annual expense of travelling to Greece in respect of the             —     annul the Commission decision not to include the appli-
      journey via Brindisi, as taken into consideration for desti-               cant's name on the list of officials promoted to grade 2
      nations in the Pelopponese;                                                for the 2002 promotion exercise, its decision being
                                                                                apparent from the publication of administrative notice
                                                                                No 9-2002 of 14 August 2002
      or, in the alternative,
                                                                           —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
—     annul the decision of the competent hierarchical authority
      to reimburse, with effect from a year not further specified
      (1993, 1996, 1997, or another year, and for the period
      during which the applicants were officials of the
      European Parliament), the cost of the sea passage from               Pleas in law and main arguments
      Brindisi to various Greek frontier points (Corfu, Igoume-
      nitsa, Patras) on the basis of an ‘aircraft type seat’ ticket;       In support of her application, the applicant argues breach of
                                                                           the obligation to provide a statement of reasons and infringe-
—     annul all the applicants' pay slips implementing the                 ment of Article 5 of the Staff Regulations, breach of the
      decisions annulment of which is sought;                              principle of equal treatment, the principle that officials should
                                                                           have reasonable career prospects and the principle of good
—     reimburse to the applicants all the amounts not paid                 administration and sound management.
      following implementation of the decisions annulment of
      which is sought, together with legal interest;