title: Case T-499/17: Action brought on 4 August 2017 — Esfera Capital Agencia de Valores v Commission and SRB

text:
               2.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 330/17

         Action brought on 4 August 2017 — Esfera Capital Agencia de Valores v Commission and SRB
   (Case T-499/17)
   (2017/C 330/22)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Esfera Capital Agencia de Valores, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Pastor Palomar, F. Arroyo Romero and N. Subuh Falero, lawyers)

      Defendants: Commission and Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017 addressed to the Fund for Orderly Bank Restructuring (FROB) approving a restructuring plan in respect of Banco Popular Español;

               —

               Annul European Commission Decision 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 supporting the resolution plan for Banco Popular Español; and

               —

               By virtue of the provision in Article 340 TFEU, declare that the SRB and European Commission are non-contractually liable and order them to make good the harm caused to the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to the arguments raised in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía y Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board; T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán y Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board; T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board; T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board; T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board and T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board.
   In particular, the applicant claims that the Commission misused its powers in the present case.


title: Case T-366/16: Action brought on 12 July 2016 — Gaki v Europol

text:
               31.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/47

         Action brought on 12 July 2016 — Gaki v Europol
   (Case T-366/16)
   (2016/C 402/56)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Anastasia-Soultana Gaki (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: G. Keisers, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Police Office (Europol)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               what are the circumstances of the alleged act which the applicant is supposed to have committed according to the terms of the European Arrest Warrant which Greece issued and pursuant to which she has, with the support of Europol, been unlawfully wanted for arrest in the European Union since 2011? The applicant claims a reasoned statement of position;

               —

               order the unlawful and incorrect storage of data against her in the Europol information system by the Joint Supervisory Body of Europol (‘the JSB’) to be blocked;

               —

               order the JSB, by exercising its right to access and consult data entered into the SIS II, to review whether, according to the terms of the European Arrest Warrant (‘EAW’), the interference with the applicant’s freedom is permitted;

               —

               require Europol to ask the Greek State Prosecutor at the Court of Appeal of Athens which State Prosecutor ordered the prolongation of the EAW and hence the arbitrary deprivation of the applicant’s liberty from 23 May 2016, and which of the two national warrants (the EAW is a copy of both) is operative. He must also answer how it is possible that the applicant’s address in Germany appears in the EAW, yet both national warrants (the EAW is a copy of both) were issued against the applicant because the applicant’s address was allegedly unknown to the Greek judicial authorities;

               —

               the JSB must provide a reasoned answer as to what action Europol undertook after Europol became aware that a criminal complaint had been laid with the Principal Public Prosecutor for Düsseldorf against the Greek State Prosecutor at the Court of Appeal who had issued the EAW against the applicant;

               —

               award her damages in the amount of EUR 3 000 000.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law: infringement of Article 41 of Decision 2007/533/JHA (1) in conjunction with Article 30(7) and Article 31 and 52 of Decision 2009/371/JHA. (2)

               2.

               Second plea in law: infringement of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in conjunction with Articles 1, 9 and 23 of Act No 29/2009 of the JSB.

      (1)  Council Decision 2007/533/JHA of 12 June 2007 on the establishment, operation and use of the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) (OJ 2007 L 205, p. 63).

      (2)  Council Decision of 6 April 2009 establishing the European Police Office (Europol) (OJ 2009 L 121, p. 37).


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) of 23 February 1995 in Joined Cases C-54/94 and C-74/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale, Macerata: criminal proceedings against Ulderico Cacchiarelli and Gino Stanghellini (Council Directives 76/895/EEC and 90/642/EEC - Maximum permissible levels of pesticide residues on or in potatoes)

text:
 8 . 4 . 95             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 87/3
de Almeida and J.L. Murray, Judges; G. Tesauro,                      products of plant origin, including fruit and vegetables (2) —
Advocate-General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal                     the Court, composed of P.J.G. Kapteyn, President of the
Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on                 Chamber, C.N. Kakouris (Rapporteur) and J.L. Murray,
23 February 1995 , in which it rules:                                Judge; Advocate-General; C.O. Lenz, Registrar, R. Grass,
                                                                     gave a judgment on 23 February 1995 , whose operative part
                                                                     is as follows :
1 . rules which make the export of coins, banknotes or
      bearer cheques conditional upon a prior declaration or
      an    administrative   authorization   and      make      that Council Directive 90/642/EEC of 27 November 1990 on
      requirement subject to criminal penalties do not fall          the fixing ofmaximum levels for pesticide residues in and on
      within the scope of Articles 30 and 59 of the Treaty;          certain products of plant origin, including fruit and
                                                                     vegetables, does not preclude national legislation from
                                                                     setting maximum permissible levels for residues of
2. Articles 1 and 4 of Council Directive 88/361 /EEC of
                                                                     chlorpropham and propham on potatoes and providing for
      24 June 1 988 for the implementation ofArticle 67 ofthe        procedures for checking compliance with those levels,
      Treaty preclude the export ofcoins, banknotes or bearer        subject to the provisions of Articles 30 and 36 of the EC
      cheques being made conditional on prior authorization          Treaty.
      but do not by contrast preclude a transaction of that
      nature being made conditional on a prior declaration;
                                                                     ( x ) OJ No C 103 , 11 . 4 . 1994 .
                                                                     (2 ) OJ No L 350, 14 . 12 . 1990, p . 71 .
3 . Article 1 in conjunction with Article 4 of Directive
      88/361 /EEC may be relied on before national courts and
      render inapplicable national rules which conflict with
      those provisions.
(!) OJ No C 235 , 31 . 8 . 1993 . OJ No C 298 , 4 . 11 . 1993 .
(2 ) OJ No L 178 , 8 . 7. 1988 , p . 5 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 7 March 1995
                                                                     in Case C-68/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the
                                                                     House of Lords ): Fiona Shevill, Ixora Trading Inc.,
                                                                     Chequepoint SARL, Chequepoint International Ltd v.
                                                                                Presse Alliance SA (*)
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                     (Brussels Convention — Article 5 (3) — Place where the
                        (Fourth Chamber)
                                                                       harmful event occurred — Libel by a newspaper article)
                      of 23 February 1995                                                         ( 95/C 87/06 )
in Joined Cases C-54/94 and C-74/94 (reference for a
preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale,
Macerata: criminal proceedings against Ulderico                                      (Language of the case: English)
              Cacchiarelli and Gino Stanghellini i 1 )
(Council Directives 76/895/EEC and 90/642/EEC —
                                                                     In Case C-68/93 : reference to the Court under the Protocol
Maximum permissible levels ofpesticide residues on or in
                             potatoes)                               of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice
                                                                     of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction
                            95/C 87/05 )                             and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial
                                                                     Matters by the House of Lords for a preliminary ruling in
                 (Language of the case: Italian)                     the proceedings pending before that court between Fiona
                                                                     Shevill, Ixora Trading Inc ., Chequepoint SARL,
                                                                     Chequepoint International Ltd and Presse Alliance SA — on
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be         the interpretation of Article 5 ( 3 ) of the abovementioned
           published in the European Court Reports)                  Convention of 27 September 1968 (2 ) as amended by the
                                                                     Convention of 9 October 1978 on the accession of the
                                                                     Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of
In Joined Cases C-54/94 and C-74/94: references to the               Great Britain and Northern Ireland (3 ) and by the
Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the                     Convention of 25 October 1982 on the accession of the
investigating judge of the Pretura Circondariale (District           Hellenic Republic (4) — the Court, composed of G.C.
Magistrate's Court), Macerata, Italy, for a preliminary              Rodriguez Iglesias, President, F.A. Schockweiler
ruling in the criminal proceedings before that court against         ( Rapporteur), P.J.G. Kapteyn and C. Gulmann (Presidents
Gino Stanghellini ( Case C-54/94 ) and Ulderico Cacchiarelli         of Chambers ), G.F. Mancini, C.N. Kakouris, J.C. Moitinho
( Case C-74/94 ) on the interpretation of Council Directive          de Almeida, J.L. Murray, D.A.O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet
90/642/EEC of 27 November 1990 on the fixing of                      and G. Hirsch, Judges; M. Darmon, subsequently P. Leger,
maximum levels for pesticide residues in and on certain              Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the


title: Case C-456/08: Action brought on 20 October 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/20

         Action brought on 20 October 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland
   (Case C-456/08)
   (2008/C 313/29)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Zavvos, M. Konstantinidis and D. Kukovec, Agents)

      Defendant: Ireland
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare that, by way of the rules on time limits in the national legislation regulating the exercise of the right of tenderers to judicial review in public procurement procedures and by failing to notify the award decision to the complainant in the award decision in question, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under, concerning the applicable time limits, Article 1(1) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC (1) on the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public work contracts as interpreted by the Court and, concerning the lack of notification, under Article 1(1) of Directive 89/665/EEC as interpreted by the Court and Article 8(2) of council directive 93/37/EEC (2) on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts.

               —

               order Ireland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In the Commission's view Irish law does not appear to be in line with the fundamental principle of legal certainty and the requirement of effectiveness under directive 89/665/EEC which is an application of this principle, since tenderers are left in uncertainty as to their position if they intend to challenge an award decision of a contracting authority in two-phase award procedures where a preferred bidder is selected prior to the final award decision. Ireland must take measures to ensure that tenderers have clarity and certainty as to which decision of the contracting authority they may challenge and from which date time limits are to be considered. It must be made clear to tenderers if Order 84A applies not only to the award decisions but also to interim decisions of a contracting authority taken during the contract award procedure (e.g. regarding the selection of the preferred bidder), with the effect that the circumstances embodied in the interim decision cannot be challenged following the lapse of the time limit reckoned from that interim decision nor may the award decision be challenged on the basis of the circumstances already embodied in the interim decision.
   Order 84A requires that actions need to be brought ‘at the earliest opportunity and in any event within three months’. The Commission considers that this formulation leaves tenderers in uncertainty regarding their position when they consider making use of their Community law right to effective legal remedy against a decision of a contracting authority. In the Commission's view it needs to be made clear for tenderers which deadline applies for bringing an action against the contracting authority's decisions and that, with a view to the obligation to respect the fundamental principle of legal certainty, the applicable time limit needs to be a fixed one which can be interpreted in a clear and foreseeable manner by all tenderers.

      (1)  OJ L 395, p. 33.

      (2)  OJ L 199, p. 42.


title: Case T-511/15: Order of the General Court of 30 August 2016 — Fontem Holdings 4 v EUIPO (BLU ECIGS) (European Union trade mark — Withdrawal of the application for registration — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               31.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/45

         Order of the General Court of 30 August 2016 — Fontem Holdings 4 v EUIPO (BLU ECIGS)
   (Case T-511/15) (1)

   ((European Union trade mark - Withdrawal of the application for registration - No need to adjudicate))
   (2016/C 402/53)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Fontem Holdings 4 BV (Amsterdam, the Netherlands) (represented initially by A. Poulter, and subsequently by A. Dykes and D. Stone, Solicitors)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: H. O’Neill, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 June 2015 (Case R 2697/2014-4), concerning an application for registration.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               Fontem Holdings 4 BV shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

      (1)  OJ C 363, 3.11.2015.


title: Joined Cases C-338/11 to C-347/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 May 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Montreuil (France)) — Santander Asset Management SGIIC SA, on behalf of FIM Santander Top 25 Euro Fi (C-338/11) v Directeur des résidents à l’étranger et des services généraux and Santander Asset Management SGIIC SA, on behalf of Cartera Mobiliaria SA SICAV (C-339/11), Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH, on behalf of Alltri Inka (C-340/11), Allianz Global Investors Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH, on behalf of DBI-Fonds APT no 737 (C-341/11), SICAV KBC Select Immo (C-342/11), SGSS Deutschland Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH (C-343/11), International Values Series of the DFA Investment Trust Co. (C-344/11), Continental Small Co. Series of the DFA Investment Trust Co. (C-345/11), SICAV GA Fund B (C-346/11), Generali Investments Deutschland Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH, on behalf of AMB Generali Aktien Euroland (C-347/11) v Ministre du Budget, des Comptes publics, de la Fonction publique et de la Réforme de l’État (Articles 63 TFEU and 65 TFEU — Undertakings for collective investments in transferable securities (UCITS) — Different treatment of dividends paid to non-resident UCITS, subject to withholding tax, and dividends paid to resident UCITS, not subject to such tax — Whether it is necessary, for the purpose of determining whether the national measure is in conformity with the free movement of capital, to take account of the situation of shareholders — No such need)

text:
               30.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/4

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 May 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Montreuil (France)) — Santander Asset Management SGIIC SA, on behalf of FIM Santander Top 25 Euro Fi (C-338/11) v Directeur des résidents à l’étranger et des services généraux and Santander Asset Management SGIIC SA, on behalf of Cartera Mobiliaria SA SICAV (C-339/11), Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH, on behalf of Alltri Inka (C-340/11), Allianz Global Investors Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH, on behalf of DBI-Fonds APT no 737 (C-341/11), SICAV KBC Select Immo (C-342/11), SGSS Deutschland Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH (C-343/11), International Values Series of the DFA Investment Trust Co. (C-344/11), Continental Small Co. Series of the DFA Investment Trust Co. (C-345/11), SICAV GA Fund B (C-346/11), Generali Investments Deutschland Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH, on behalf of AMB Generali Aktien Euroland (C-347/11) v Ministre du Budget, des Comptes publics, de la Fonction publique et de la Réforme de l’État
   (Joined Cases C-338/11 to C-347/11) (1)

   (Articles 63 TFEU and 65 TFEU - Undertakings for collective investments in transferable securities (UCITS) - Different treatment of dividends paid to non-resident UCITS, subject to withholding tax, and dividends paid to resident UCITS, not subject to such tax - Whether it is necessary, for the purpose of determining whether the national measure is in conformity with the free movement of capital, to take account of the situation of shareholders - No such need)
   2012/C 194/06
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal administratif de Montreuil

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Santander Asset Management SGIIC SA, on behalf of FIM Santander Top 25 Euro Fi (C-338/11), Santander Asset Management SGIIC SA, on behalf of Cartera Mobiliaria SA SICAV (C-339/11), Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH, on behalf of Alltri Inka (C-340/11), Allianz Global Investors Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH, on behalf of DBI-Fonds APT no 737 (C-341/11), SICAV KBC Select Immo (C-342/11), SGSS Deutschland Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH (C-343/11), International Values Series of the DFA Investment Trust Co. (C-344/11), Continental Small Co. Series of the DFA Investment Trust Co. (C-345/11), SICAV GA Fund B (C-346/11), Generali Investments Deutschland Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH, on behalf of AMB Generali Aktien Euroland (C-347/11)

      Defendants: Directeur des résidents à l’étranger et des services généraux, Ministre du Budget, des Comptes publics, de la Fonction publique et de la Réforme de l’État

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal administratif de Montreuil — Interpretation of Articles 63 and 65 TFEU — Different tax treatment of non-resident undertakings for collective investments in transferable securities (UCITS), subject to withholding tax, and resident undertakings, not subject to such tax — Obstacle to the free movement of capital — Whether it is necessary, for the purpose of determining whether withholding tax is in conformity with that principle, also to take account of the situation of shareholders

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 63 TFEU and 65 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding the legislation of a Member State which provides for the taxation, by means of withholding tax, of nationally-sourced dividends when they are received by undertakings for collective investments in transferable securities resident in another State, whereas such dividends are exempt from tax when received by undertakings for collective investments in transferable securities resident in the Member State in question.

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.


title: Case C-12/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 14 January 2015  — Universal Music International Holding BV v Michael Tétreault Schilling and Others

text:
               16.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/12

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 14 January 2015 — Universal Music International Holding BV v Michael Tétreault Schilling and Others
   (Case C-12/15)
   (2015/C 089/13)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Universal Music International Holding BV

      Respondents: Michael Tétreault Schilling, Irwin Schwartz, Josef Brož

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) be interpreted as meaning that the ‘place where the harmful event occurred’ can be construed as being the place in a Member State where the damage occurred, if that damage consists exclusively of financial damage which is the direct result of unlawful conduct which occurred in another Member State?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:

                           (a)

                           What criterion or what perspectives should the national court apply, when assessing its jurisdiction on the basis of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, in order to determine whether in the present case there has been financial damage which is the direct result of unlawful conduct (‘initial financial damage’ or ‘direct financial damage’) or whether there has been financial damage which is the result of initial damage which occurred elsewhere or damage which has resulted from damage which occurred elsewhere (‘consequential damage’ or ‘derived financial damage’)?

                           (b)

                           What criterion or what perspectives should the national court apply, when assessing its jurisdiction on the basis of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, in order to determine where, in the present case, the financial damage — whether it be direct or derived financial damage — occurred or is deemed to have occurred?

               3.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: must Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 be interpreted as meaning that the national court which is required to determine whether it has jurisdiction pursuant to that regulation in the present case is obliged, when making its determination, to proceed on the basis of the relevant submissions of the claimant or applicant in that regard, or is it obliged also to take into account the arguments put forward by the defendant to refute those submissions?

      (1)  Council Regulation of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).


title: Case C-471/16 P: Appeal brought on 24 August 2016 by Staatliche Porzellan-Manufaktur Meissen GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 14 June 2016 in Case T-789/14, Staatliche Porzellan-Manufaktur Meissen GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

text:
               5.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 454/15

      Appeal brought on 24 August 2016 by Staatliche Porzellan-Manufaktur Meissen GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 14 June 2016 in Case T-789/14, Staatliche Porzellan-Manufaktur Meissen GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      (Case C-471/16 P)
      (2016/C 454/29)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Appellant: Staatliche Porzellan-Manufaktur Meissen GmbH (represented by: O. Spuhler and M. Geitz, Rechtsanwälte)

         Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Meissen Keramik GmbH

         Form of order sought

      The appellant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 14 June 2016 in Case T-789/14 and annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the respondent of 29 September 2014 in Cases R 1182/2013-4 and R 1245/2013-4;

                  —

                  in the alternative, set aside that judgment of the General Court of the European Union and refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

                  —

                  order the respondent to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Grounds of appeal and main arguments

                  1.

                  By the present appeal, the appellant claims that the General Court repeatedly infringed the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and Regulation No 207/2009 (1) in the judgment under appeal.

                  2.

                  First of all, the appellant alleges infringement of the principle of fair procedure under Article 6(1) TEU, in conjunction with the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The General Court, it submits, failed to consider documents that were submitted in the context of the statement of claim. Those documents merely supplemented the present matters of fact or law. The General Court also did not justify the failure to examine those documents, but merely adopted formulaic wording from another judgment that does not apply to the present case.

                  3.

                  The General Court hereby breached the appellant’s right to fair procedure under Article 6(1) TEU, in conjunction with the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter.

                  4.

                  In addition, the appellant alleges infringement of Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 by reason of a distortion of the facts. The General Court based its decision on, inter alia, the ground that certain goods were supposedly not listed in the submitted evidence of use. Those goods were, in fact, listed in the evidence of use.

                  5.

                  The General Court hereby distorted the factual basis for the proceedings and therefore infringed Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009.

                  6.

                  Furthermore, the appellant alleges infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009. The General Court based its decision on the fact that the Meissen® trade mark was an indication of geographical origin. The Meissen® trade mark was registered by the respondent pursuant to Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 by virtue of acquired distinctive character. The respondent thereby established in law that the Meissen® trade mark was specifically not an indication of geographical origin but rather an indication of trade origin.

                  7.

                  By registering the Meissen® trade mark on the basis of acquired distinctive character, the respondent accorded that mark protection in accordance with Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009. The General Court classified the Meissen® trade mark as a purely geographical indication of origin. The General Court hereby effectively deprived the Meissen® trade mark once more of its protection.

                  8.

                  The appellant also alleges infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009. The General Court denied the intervention of protection based on reputation under Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 with the argument that there was no similarity of the goods and services at issue. Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 explicitly provides that the existence of similarity between goods or services is not necessary. By its decision, the General Court thus turned Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 into its opposite.

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


C 278/34             EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                  5.9.98
      Removal from the register of Case C-403/97 (1)                   Removal from the register of Case C-406/97 (1)
                        (98/C 278/71)                                                     (98/C 278/74)
By order of 25 May 1998 the President of the Court of            By order of 15 June 1998 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the              Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-403/97: Commission           removal from the register of Case C-406/97: Commission
of the European Communities v. Federal Republic of               of the European Communities v. Grand Duchy of
Germany.                                                         Luxembourg.
(1) OJ C 26, 24.1.1998.
                                                                 (1) OJ C 41, 7.2.1998.
      Removal from the register of Case C-291/95 (1)                   Removal from the register of Case C-411/97 (1)
                        (98/C 278/72)                                                     (98/C 278/75)
By order of 15 June 1998 the President of the Court of           By order of 16 June 1998 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the              Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-291/95: Kingdom of           removal from the register of Case C-411/97: Commission
Belgium v. Commission of the European Communities.               of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium.
(1) OJ C 268, 14.10.1995.
                                                                 (1) OJ C 55, 20.2.1998.
      Removal from the register of Case C-155/97 (1)                   Removal from the register of Case C-105/97 (1)
                        (98/C 278/73)                                                     (98/C 278/76)
By order of 15 June 1998 the President of the Court of           By order of 25 June 1998 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the              Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-155/97: Commission           removal from the register of Case C-105/97 (reference for
of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium.               a preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
                                                                 Trento): Leonardo Gulli v. Ente Poste Italiane.
(1) OJ C 181, 14.6.1997.
                                                                 (1) OJ C 142, 10.5.1997.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 18 December 2003 in Case T-215/02: Santiago Gómez-Reino v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Investigation carried out by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) — Duty to assist — Action for annulment and for damages clearly inadmissible and clearly unfounded in law)

text:
C 85/26                 EN                            Official Journal of the European Union                                           3.4.2004
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                    established in Bremen (Germany), and Hauptverband der
                                                                              Deutschen Bauindustrie eV, established in Berlin (Germany),
                      of 18 December 2003                                     represented by Professor H.-P. Schneider, against the Com-
                                                                              mission of the European Communities (Agents: K. Wiedner
in Case T-215/02: Santiago Gómez-Reino v Commission                           and A. Böhlke) — application under Article 243 EC for interim
                of the European Communities (1)                               measures, seeking extension of the period of coexistence of
                                                                              national standards and European standards EN 13162:2001 to
(Officials — Investigation carried out by the European Anti-                  13171:2001 which is provided for by the Commission
Fraud Office (OLAF) — Duty to assist — Action for                             Communication of 22 May 2003 published in the framework
annulment and for damages clearly inadmissible and clearly                    of the implementation of Council Directive 89/106/EEC (OJ
                         unfounded in law)                                    2003 C 120, p. 17) — the President of the Court of First
                                                                              Instance made an order on 28 November 2003 the operative
                           (2004/C 85/50)                                     part of which is as follows:
                    (Language of the case: French)                            1.    The application for interim measures is dismissed.
                                                                              2.    The costs are reserved.
In Case T-215/02: Santiago Gómez-Reino, official of the
Commission of the European Communities, resident in Brus-
sels (Belgium), represented by M.-A. Lucas, lawyer, against the
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: H.-
P. Hartvig and J. Currall) — application, first, for annulment of
a series of measures relating to investigations carried out by
the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and to requests for                           ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
assistance under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of officials
of the European Communities and, second, for compensation                                            of 2 December 2003
in respect of the alleged damage — the Court of First
Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President,                 in Case T-334/02 Viomikhania Siskevasias Tipopiisis kai
A. W. H. Meij and N. J. Forwood, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,                  Sintirisis Agrotikon Proïonton AE against the Com-
made an order on 18 December 2003, the operative part of                                mission of the European Communities (1)
which is as follows:
                                                                              (FEOGA — Improvement of the conditions under which
1.    The action is dismissed as clearly inadmissible and as clearly          agricultural products are processed and marketed — Request
      unfounded in law.                                                       for abolition of Community financial assistance — Inaction
2.    The parties shall each bear their own costs, including those             on the part of the Commission — Action for failure to act)
      incurred in the proceedings for interim relief in Case T-215/02
      R and Case C-471/02 P(R).                                                                          (2004/C 85/52)
(1) OJ C 247, 12.10.2002.                                                                          (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                              In Case T-334/02: Viomikhania Siskevasias Tipopiisis kai
                                                                              Sintirisis Agrotikon Proïonton AE, established in Athens
                                                                              (Greece), represented by I. Stamoulis, lawyer, with an address
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                                  for service in Luxembourg, against the Commission of the
                             INSTANCE                                         European Communities (Agent: M. Kondou-Durande) — appli-
                                                                              cation for a declaration under Article 232 EC that the
                      of 28 November 2003                                     Commission failed to act in that, first, it did not initiate the
                                                                              procedure for failure to fulfil obligations in relation to the
in Case T-264/03 R: Jürgen Schmoldt and Others against                        Hellenic Republic for a breach of Community law which
       the Commission of the European Communities                             harmed the applicant’s economic interests and, second, it did
                                                                              not abolish ex tunc the financial assistance of the European
(Application for interim measures — Admissibility —                           Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) which
                              Urgency)                                        was granted for the purposes of the co-financing of the
                                                                              applicant’s investment project as approved by Decision
                           (2004/C 85/51)                                     No 324986/505 of the Greek authorities of 17 February 1994
                                                                              — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of
                   (Language of the case: German)                             J. Azizi, President, M. Jaeger and F. Dehousse, Judges; H. Jung,
                                                                              Registrar, made an order on 2 December 2003, the operative
                                                                              part of which is as follows:
In Case T-264/03 R: Jürgen Schmoldt, resident in Dallgow-
Döberitz (Germany), Kaefer Isoliertechnik GmbH & Co. KG,                      1.    The action is dismissed as clearly inadmissible.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 11 August 1995 in Case C-431/92: Commission of the European Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Failure by public authorities to apply a directive which has not yet been transposed - Council Directive 85/337/EEC - Assessment of the effects of projects on the environment - Großkrotzenburg thermal power station - Consent for the construction of a new block)

text:
No C 248/2               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    23 . 9 . 95
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         of 11 August 1995                                                        ( Second Chamber)
       in Case C-431/92 : Commission of the European                                            of 11 August 1995
       Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany ( ] )
                                                                        in Case C-453/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
(Failure ofa Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure           the Gerechtshof, Amsterdam ): W. Bulthuis-Griffioen v.
by public authorities to apply a directive which has not yet                            Inspecteur der Omzetbelasting ( l )
been transposed — Council Directive 85/337/EEC —
                                                                        (Common system ofvalue added tax — Sixth VA TDirective
Assessment of the effects ofprojects on the environment —
                                                                        — Exemption — Services of social nature performed by a
Großkrotzenburg thermal power station — Consent for the
                  construction of a new block)
                                                                                private person — Exclusion)
                                                                                ( 95/C 248/03 )
                             ( 95/C 248/02 )
                (Language of the case: German)                                            (Language of the case: Dutch)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-431 /92 : Commission of the European
Communities ( Agents : initially Ingolf Pernice, then Rolf
Wagenbaur, assisted by Alexander Böhlke, of the Brussels                In Case C-453/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
Bar ) v. Federal Republic of Germany ( Agent: Ernst Röder,              of the EEC Treaty from the Gerechtshof ( Regional Court of
assisted by Dieter Sellner, Rechtsanwalt), supported by                 Appeal ), Amsterdam, for a preliminary ruling in the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,                   proceedings pending before that court between
( Agent: S. Lucinda Hudson ) — application for a declaration            W. Bulthuis-Griffioen and Inspecteur der Omzetbelasting
that, by granting development consent by decision of                    — on the interpretation of Article 13A of the Sixth Council
31 August 1989 for the construction of a new block at the               Directive ( 77/388/EEC ) of 17 May 1977 on the
Großkrotzenburg thermal power station without a                          harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
preliminary environmental impact assessment, the Federal                 turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:
Republic of Germany has failed to comply with its                        uniform basis of assessment ( 2 ) — the Court ( Second
obligations under Articles 5 and 189 of the EEC Treaty read              Chamber ), composed of: F. A. Schockweiler ( Rapporteur ),
in conjunction with Council Directive 85/377/EEC of                      President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini and G. Hirsch,
27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain                Judges; G. Kosmas, Advocate General ; H. von Holstein,
public and private projects on the environment (2 ), and in              Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
particular Articles 2 , 3 and 8 of that Directive — the Court,           11 August 1995 , in which it rules :
composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, F.
A. Schockweiler and P. J. G. Kapteyn ( Presidents of
 Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, C. N. Kakouris ( Rapporteur,
J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward
 and J. -P. Puissochet, Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate                    Article 13 A (1 ) of Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of
 General ; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on                  17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the
 11 August 1995 , in which it:                                           Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common
                                                                         system of value added tax: uniform basis ofassessment is to
                                                                         be interpreted as meaning that a trader who is a natural
                                                                         person cannot claim exemption under paragraph (g) of that
 1 . dismisses the application;                                          provision, which expressly reserves the exemption to bodies
                                                                         governed by public law or other oganizations recognized as
                                                                         charitable by the Member State concerned.
 2 . orders the parties, including the intervener, to bear their
       own costs .
                                                                          (') OJ No C 18 , 21 . 1 . 1994 .
                                                                          ( 2 ) OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 .
  (•) OJ No C 29 , 2 . 2 . 1993 .
 ( 2 ) OJ No L 175 , 5 . 7 . 1985 , p . 40 .


title: Case C-433/14: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 April 2016 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bari — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Domenico Rosa (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Identical questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Articles 49 and 56 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Betting and gaming — National legislation — Reorganisation of the licensing system through the alignment of licence expiry dates — New call for tenders — Licences for a shorter term than that of the former licences — Transfer, free of charge, of the rights to use tangible and intangible assets owned constituting the network for the management and collection of bets — Restriction — Overriding reasons in the public interest — Proportionality)

text:
               25.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/4

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 April 2016 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bari — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Domenico Rosa
   (Case C-433/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Identical questions referred for a preliminary ruling - Articles 49 and 56 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Freedom to provide services - Betting and gaming - National legislation - Reorganisation of the licensing system through the alignment of licence expiry dates - New call for tenders - Licences for a shorter term than that of the former licences - Transfer, free of charge, of the rights to use tangible and intangible assets owned constituting the network for the management and collection of bets - Restriction - Overriding reasons in the public interest - Proportionality))
   (2016/C 270/04)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Bari

      Criminal proceedings against

   Domenico Rosa

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU and the principles of equal treatment and effectiveness must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation on betting and gaming, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the organisation of a new call for tenders for the award of licences with a shorter period of validity than that of the licences awarded in the past on account of the reorganisation of the system through the alignment of licence expiry dates.

               2.

               Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a restrictive national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which requires a licensee of a betting and gambling service to transfer, free of charge, on the cessation of business as a result of the expiry of the final term of the licence, the rights to use tangible and intangible assets which he owns and which constitute his network for the management and collection of bets, in so far as that restriction goes beyond what is necessary to attain the objective actually pursued by that provision, which is for the referring court to verify.

      (1)  OJ C 448, 15.12.2014.


title: Case F-89/10: Action brought on 28 September 2010 — Bovagnet v Commission

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/61

         Action brought on 28 September 2010 — Bovagnet v Commission
   (Case F-89/10)
   ()
   2010/C 328/99
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: François-Carlos Bovagnet (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: M. Korving, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the defendant’s decision not to reimburse fully the education costs in respect of the applicant’s children

      Form of order sought

               —

               Uphold the applicant’s complaint and grant him full reimbursement of all the disputed invoices relating to the school year 2009/2010, namely, payment of the sum of EUR 2 580 by the PMO;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-610/10: Action brought on 22 December 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               5.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/12

         Action brought on 22 December 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-610/10)
   2011/C 72/21
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Commission Decision 91/1/EEC of 20 December 1989 concerning aids in Spain which the central and several autonomous governments have granted to Magefesa, producer of domestic articles of stainless steel, and small electric appliances (OJ 1991 L 5, p. 18; ‘Decision 91/1’) and under Article 260 TFEU, since it has failed to take all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of 2 July 2002 in Case C-499/99 Commission v Spain [2002] ECR I-603 (‘the 2002 judgment’), concerning the Kingdom of Spain’s failure to fulfil its obligations under Decision 91/1;

               —

               Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay to the Commission a penalty payment of EUR 131 136 for each day of delay in complying with the 2002 judgment, running from the day on which judgment is delivered in the present proceedings until the day on which the 2002 judgment is fully complied with;

               —

               Order the Kingdom of Spain to make a lump sum payment to the Commission, to be calculated by multiplying a daily amount of EUR 14 343 by the number of days over which the infringement continued, from the date of the 2002 judgment until:

                           —

                           the date on which the Kingdom of Spain recovered the aids declared unlawful by Decision 91/1, if the Court of Justice finds that those aids have in fact been recovered before judgment is delivered in the present proceedings;

                           —

                           the date of judgment in the present proceedings, if the 2002 judgment has not been fully complied with by that date.

               —

               Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The measures adopted by Spain have not resulted in immediate enforcement of the 2002 judgment or Decision 91/1; nor have they resulted in full and immediate recovery of the unlawful and incompatible aid.
   According to settled case-law, the only defence available to a Member State which has failed to fulfil its obligations is to plead that it was absolutely impossible for it properly to implement the decision.
   In the present case, in the course of an extremely lengthy correspondence between the Commission’s staff and the Spanish authorities concerning the measures adopted for the purpose of complying with Decision 91/1, the Spanish authorities have not claimed that it is absolutely impossible to enforce that decision and have merely referred to imprecise internal difficulties.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 4 November 2002 in Case T-90/99: Salzgitter AG v Commission of the European Communities (ECSC — State aid — Decision to initiate the procedure provided for in Article 6(5) of Decision 2496/96/ECSC — No need to adjudicate)

text:
22.2.2003               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 44/29
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                        ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 18 November 2002
                      of 4 November 2002
                                                                            in Case T-190/99 DEP: Sniace SA v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
in Case T-90/99: Salzgitter AG v Commission of the                                                    (Taxation of costs)
                    European Communities ( 1)
                                                                                (2003/C 44/57)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
(ECSC — State aid — Decision to initiate the procedure
provided for in Article 6(5) of Decision 2496/96/ECSC —
                      No need to adjudicate)
                                                                            In Case T-190/99 DEP: Sniace SA, established in Madrid,
                                                                            represented by J.L. Baró Fuentes, M.A. Gómez de Liaño y
                                                                            Botella and F. Rodriguez Carretero, Lawyers, against Com-
                          (2003/C 44/56)                                    mission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Rozet and
                                                                            J.L. Buendia Sierra) — application for taxation of the costs to
                                                                            be paid by the defendant to the applicant following the order
                                                                            of the President of the Fifth Chamber, Enlarged Composition,
                   (Language of the case: German)                           of the Court of First Instance of 4 April 2001 in Case T-190/
                                                                            99 Sniace v Commission — the Court of First Instance (Fifth
                                                                            Chamber), composed of M.R. García-Valdecasas, President,
                                                                            and P. Lindh. R.M. Moura Ramos, J.D. Cooke and H. Legal,
                                                                            Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 18 November
                                                                            2002, in which it:
In Case T-90/99: Salzgitter AG, established in Salzgitter                   Fixes the total costs to be paid by the Commission to the applicant in
(Germany), represented by J. Sedemund, lawyer, with an                      Case T-199/99 at EUR 14 300.
address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of
the European Communities (Agents: D. Triantafyllou and
P. Nemitz) — application for the annulment of Commission                    (1 ) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.
Decision SG (99) D/1542 of 3 March 1999 to initiate the
procedure provided for under Article 6(5) of Commission
Decision No 2496/96/ECSC of 18 December 1996 establishing
Community rules for State aid to the steel industry (OJ 1996
L 338, p. 42) with regard to aid under the German Zonal
Border Development Areas Act to Salzgitter AG, Preussag
Stahl AG and iron and steel subsidiaries of the ‘SAG — Stahl                       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
und Technologie’ Group (OJ 1999 C 113, p. 9) — the Court
of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition),                                          of 27 November 2002
composed of V. Tiili, President, J. Pirrung, P. Mengozzi,
A.W.H. Meij and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made
an order on 4 November 2002, the operative part of which is                 in Case T-291/01: Dessauer Versorgungs- und Verkehrsge-
as follows:                                                                 sellschaft mbH and Others v Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities ( 1)
                                                                            (Actions for failure to act — Action devoid of purpose — No
1.    There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application.                    need to give judgment — Payment of costs)
                                                                                (2003/C 44/58)
2.    Each of the parties will bear its own costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
( 1) OJ C 174 of 19.6.1999.
                                                                            In Case T-291/01: Dessauer Versorgungs- und Verkehrsge-
                                                                            sellschaft mbH, a company established in Dessau, Germany,
                                                                            Neubrandenburger Stadtwerke GmbH, established in Neu-
                                                                            brandenburg, Germany, Stadtwerke Tübingen GmbH, estab-
                                                                            lished in Tübingen, Germany, Stadtwerke Uelzen GmbH,


title: Case T-205/03: Action brought on 11 June 2003 by Nicolas Georgiopoulos and Others against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 184/52               EN                            Official Journal of the European Union                                             2.8.2003
giving it the opportunity to be heard, contrary to the rights of             Community       trade    mark     Figurative trade mark ‘COMP
defence and the principle of sound administration. As to                     sought:                           USA’      —     Application    no
substance, the applicant alleges, first misapplication of                                                      2 133 202 for goods in
Article 93(c) and (f) of Regulation No 1605/03 and, secondly,                                                  Classes 9 and 37 (items related
infringement of Article 96 of that regulation and of the                                                       to computers)
principle of proportionality in determining the level of sanc-
tions. The applicant further alleges a defective statement of
reasons in respect of the latter claims.
                                                                             Proprietor of mark or sign        The applicant
The applicant thus seeks compensation for the damage caused                  cited in the opposition pro-
by the sanctions unlawfully imposed by the contested decision;               ceedings:
such damage is not only economic in nature but is also
detrimental to the image and reputation of the company.
(1) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002            Mark or sign cited in op-         The figurative English trade
    on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the      position:                         mark ‘COMP USA’ for goods in
    European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1).                                                                Class 39 (transport)
                                                                             Decision of the Opposition        Rejection of the opposition
                                                                             Division:
Action brought on 2 June 2003 by Alecansan, S.L. against
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
              (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)                               Decision of the Board of          Dismissal of the appeal
                                                                             Appeal:
                          (Case T-202/03)
                         (2003/C 184/109)
                                                                             Pleas in law:                     Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b)
                                                                                of Regulation (EC) No 40/94
                    (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                                (likelihood of confusion)
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
2 June 2003 by Alecansan, S.L., with its registered office in
                                                                             Action brought on 11 June 2003 by Nicolas Georgio-
Madrid, represented by María Baylos Morales, Pedro Merino
                                                                             poulos and Others against the Commission of the
Baylos and Jesús Arribas García, lawyers at the Madrid Bar.
                                                                                European Communities
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                            (Case T-205/03)
—     annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM                                         (2003/C 184/110)
      of 24 March 2003 in Case R 711/2002-1;
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
—     annul the decision of OHIM's Opposition Division of
      17 June 2002;
                                                                             An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
—     declare the mark claimed and the applicant's trade mark                nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      with priority incompatible pursuant to Article 8(1)(b) of              European Communities on 11 June 2003 by Nicolas Georgio-
      Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark;                       poulos, residing in Brussels, and 4 other officials, represented
                                                                             by G. Bounéou and F. Frabetti, lawyers, with an address for
—     refuse registration of the Community trade mark ‘COMP                  service in Luxembourg.
      USA’, no 849 497, for Classes 9 and 37; and
                                                                             The applicants claim that the Court should:
—     order the defendant, and the intervener if he intervenes in            —     annul the decision of the competent hierarchical authority
      the action for annulment, to pay the costs.                                  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 Commis-
                                                                                sion of the European Communities), the procedure for
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                    calculating the annual expense of travelling to Greece in
                                                                                respect of the journey via Brindisi, as taken into consid-
Applicant for Community           CompUSA Management Com-                          eration for destinations in the Pelopponese;
trade mark:                       pany                                             or, in the alternative,
 ---pagebreak--- 2.8.2003               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 184/53
—     annul the decision of the competent hierarchical authority                 sion of the European Communities), the procedure for
      to reimburse, with effect from a year not further specified                calculating the annual expense of travelling to Greece in
      (1993, 1996, 1997, or another year, and for the period                     respect of the journey via Brindisi, as taken into consid-
      during which the applicants were officials of the Commis-                  eration for the destination of Athens;
      sion of the European Communities), the cost of the sea
      passage from Brindisi to various Greek frontier points                     or, in the alternative,
      (Corfu, Igoumenitsa, Patras) on the basis of an ‘aircraft
      type seat’ ticket;                                                   —     annul the decision of the competent hierarchical authority
                                                                                to reimburse, with effect from a year not further specified
—     annul all the applicants' pay slips implementing the                       (1993, 1996, 1997, or another year, and for the period
      decisions annulment of which is sought;                                    during which the applicants were officials of the Commis-
                                                                                sion of the European Communities), the cost of the sea
—     reimburse to the applicants all the amounts not paid                       passage from Brindisi to various Greek frontier points
      following implementation of the decisions annulment of                     (Corfu, Igoumenitsa, Patras) on the basis of an ‘aircraft
      which is sought, together with legal interest;                             type seat’ ticket;
—     make the appropriate ruling as to costs and order the                —     annul all the applicants' pay slips implementing the
      Commission of the European Communities to pay those                        decisions annulment of which is sought;
      costs.
                                                                           —     reimburse to the applicants all the amounts not paid
                                                                                following implementation of the decisions annulment of
                                                                                which is sought, together with legal interest;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           —     make the appropriate ruling as to costs and order the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities to pay those
The applicants in this case seek the annulment of the Commis-
                                                                                costs.
sion's decision changing the method of calculating annual
travel expenses to Greece.
The pleas in law and main arguments put forward by the
applicants in support of their application are similar to those            Pleas in law and main arguments
of the applicants in Cases T-221/02 (1) and T-44/03 (2).
                                                                           The applicants in this case seek the annulment of the Commis-
 1
( ) OJ C 247, 12.10.2002, p. 17.                                           sion's decision changing the method of calculating annual
(2) OJ C 101, 26.4.2003, p. 40.                                            travel expenses to Greece.
                                                                           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.
Action brought on 11 June 2003 by Panayotis Adamo-                         (2) OJ C 101, 26.04.03, p. 40.
poulos and Others against the Commission of the
                      European Communities
                          (Case T-206/03)
                         (2003/C 184/111)
                                                                           Action brought on 11 June 2003 by Athanassios Rammos
                    (Language of the case: French)                            against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-207/03)
An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                                        (2003/C 184/112)
European Communities on 11 June 2003 by Panayotis Adamo-
poulos, residing in Brussels, and 118 other officials, represented
by G. Bounéou and F. Frabetti, lawyers, with an address for                                    (Language of the case: French)
service in Luxembourg.
The applicants claim that the Court should:                                An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
                                                                           nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
—     annul the decision of the competent hierarchical authority           European Communities on 11 June 2003 by Athanassios
      changing, with effect from a year not further specified              Rammos, residing in Uccle (Belgium), represented by
      (1993, 1996, 1997, or another year, and for the period               G. Bounéou and F. Frabetti, lawyers, with an address for service
      during which the applicants were officials of the Commis-            in Luxembourg.


title: Case C-442/04: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 May 2008 — Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Union (Fisheries — Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 — Regulation (EC) No 1415/2004 — Management of the fishing effort — Fixing of the maximum annual fishing effort — Reference period — Community fishing areas and resources — Biologically sensitive areas — Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties — Plea of illegality — Admissibility — Principle of non-discrimination — Misuse of powers)

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/2

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 May 2008 — Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-442/04) (1)

   (Fisheries - Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 - Regulation (EC) No 1415/2004 - Management of the fishing effort - Fixing of the maximum annual fishing effort - Reference period - Community fishing areas and resources - Biologically sensitive areas - Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties - Plea of illegality - Admissibility - Principle of non-discrimination - Misuse of powers)
   (2008/C 171/02)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: E. Braquehais Conesa and A. Sampol Pucurull, Agents)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J. Monteiro and F. Florindo Gijón, Agents)

      Intervener: Commission of the European Communities (represented by T. van Rijn and F. Jimeno Fernández, Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of Articles 1 to 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1415/2004 of 19 July 2004 fixing the maximum annual fishing effort for certain fishing areas and fisheries (OJ 2004 L 258, p. 1) — Infringement of the principle of non-discrimination — Misuse of powers
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 300, 4.12.2004.


title: Case C-164/07: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 June 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande Instance de Nantes — Commission d'Indemnisation des Victimes d'infractions — France) — James Wood v Fonds de Garantie des victimes des actes de Terrorisme et d'autres Infractions (Article 12 EC — Discrimination on grounds of nationality — Compensation awarded by the Fonds de garantie des victimes des actes de terrorisme et d'autres infractions — Not included)

text:
               19.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/3

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 June 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande Instance de Nantes — Commission d'Indemnisation des Victimes d'infractions — France) — James Wood v Fonds de Garantie des victimes des actes de Terrorisme et d'autres Infractions
   (Case C-164/07) (1)

   (Article 12 EC - Discrimination on grounds of nationality - Compensation awarded by the Fonds de garantie des victimes des actes de terrorisme et d'autres infractions - Not included)
   (2008/C 183/05)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Tribunal de Grande Instance de Nantes — Commission d'Indemnisation des Victimes d'infractions
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: James Wood

      Defendant: Fonds de Garantie des victimes des actes de Terrorisme et d'autres Infractions
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal de grande instance de Nantes (France) — Commission d'Indemnisation des Victimes d'infractions — Interpretation of Article [12] of the EC Treaty — Compatibility, with regard to the general principle of non-discrimination, of national legislation which excludes a national of another Member State of the Union, lawfully residing in France and father of a child holding French nationality who died outside French territory, from the right to compensation paid by a Fonds de garantie, on the sole ground of his nationality
   Operative part of the judgment
   Community law precludes legislation of a Member State which excludes nationals of other Member States who live and work in its territory from the grant of compensation intended to make good losses resulting from offences against the person where the crime in question was not committed in the territory of that State, on the sole ground that they do not have the nationality of that State.

      (1)  OJ C 129, 9.6.2007.


title: Case T-46/12: Action brought on 1 February 2012 — Chrysamed Vertrieb v OHIM — Chrysal International (Chrysamed)

text:
               31.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/25

         Action brought on 1 February 2012 — Chrysamed Vertrieb v OHIM — Chrysal International (Chrysamed)
   (Case T-46/12)
   2012/C 98/41
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Chrysamed Vertrieb GmbH (Salzburg, Austria) (represented by: T. Schneider, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Chrysal International B.V. (Naarden, Netherlands)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               uphold the action, annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of 22 November 2011 in Case R 0064/2011-1 and reject the opposition against the application for the Community trade mark;

               —

               order OHIM or the potential intervener to pay the costs pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Chrysamed’ for goods in Class 5 (application No 6 387 071)

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Chrysal International B.V.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the international word mark ‘CHRYSAL’ for goods in Classes 1, 5 and 31 (trade mark No 645 337), the international word mark ‘CHRYSAL’ for goods in Class 1 (trade mark No 144 634) and the international figurative mark ‘CHRYSAL’ for goods in Classes 1, 3, 5 and 31 (trade mark No 877 785)

      Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 as there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue


title: Case C-47/11: Order of the President of the Court of 14 September 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Timișoara — Romania) — SC Volksbank România SA v Autoritatea Națională Pentru Protecția Consumatorilor CRPC ARAD TIMIȘ

text:
               8.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 379/19

         Order of the President of the Court of 14 September 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Timișoara — Romania) — SC Volksbank România SA v Autoritatea Națională Pentru Protecția Consumatorilor CRPC ARAD TIMIȘ
   (Case C-47/11) (1)

   2012/C 379/32
   Language of the case: Romanian
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 9.4.2011.


title: Case T-621/14: Action brought on 14 August 2014 — Infocit v OHIM — DIN (DINKOOL)

text:
               6.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 351/26

         Action brought on 14 August 2014 — Infocit v OHIM — DIN (DINKOOL)
   (Case T-621/14)
   2014/C 351/33
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Infocit — Prestação de Serviços, Comércio Geral e Indústria, Lda (Luanda, Angola) (represented by: A. Oliveira, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: DIN — Deutsches Institut für Normung eV (Berlin, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 4 June 2014 given in Case R 1312/2013-2.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘DINKOOL’ for goods in Classes 1-3, 5-7, 12, 16, 20 and 21 — Community trade mark application No 1 0465 946

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: International trade mark registration No 2 29  048 and earlier non-registered sign in Germany ‘DIN’

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

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the contested CTM application in its entirety

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR.


title: Case C-193/09 P: Appeal brought on 1 June 2009 by Kaul GmbH against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 25 March 2009 in Case T-402/07: Kaul GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) — Bayer AG

text:
               15.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/8

         Appeal brought on 1 June 2009 by Kaul GmbH against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 25 March 2009 in Case T-402/07: Kaul GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) — Bayer AG
   (Case C-193/09 P)
   2009/C 193/08
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Kaul GmbH (represented by: R. Kunze, Rechtsanwalt and Solicitor, G. Würtenberger, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Bayer AG

      Form of order sought

   The appellant requests that:

               —

               the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 25 March 2009 in Case T-402/07 Kaul GmbH v OHIM — Bayer (the judgment under appeal), by which that court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trademarks & Designs) (OHIM) of 1 August 2007 upholding the decision of the Opposition Division, by which the opposition directed against Community trademark application no. 000 195 370‘ACRCOL’ was rejected, be set aside;

               —

               following the conclusion of the written proceedings, an oral hearing before the Court of Justice be scheduled;

               —

               the Defendant pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant submits that the Court of First Instance's decision constitutes an infringement of the pertinent provisions of Regulation EC 40/94 (1) and, moreover, is in breach of fundamental procedural principles. Hence, the appeal directed against the decision issued by the Court of First Instance dated 25 March 2009 is well founded on the ground that

               —

               the Court of First Instance has incorrectly interpreted Article 74(2) Community Trademark Regulation 40/94/EC, and hence was in breach of said provision when issuing the judgment under appeal;

               —

               the Court of First Instance in the judgment under appeal, according to which an infringement of the right to be heard was immaterial for the outcome of the proceedings, is flawed and in breach of Article 61(2) and Article 73 of Community Trademark Regulation 40/94/EC, AND

               —

               the Court of Justice was incorrect in upholding the Board of Appeal's assessment pertaining to the criteria of likelihood of confusion pursuant to Article 8(1)(b) Community Trademark Regulation 40/94/EC.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark OJ L 11, p. 1