title: Case C-558/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relaçăo do Porto (Portugal) lodged on 2 November 2015 — Alberto José Vieira de Azevedo and Others v CED Portugal Unipessoal, Lda, Institituto de Seguros de Portugal — Fundo de Garantia Automóvel

text:
               18.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/20

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relaçăo do Porto (Portugal) lodged on 2 November 2015 — Alberto José Vieira de Azevedo and Others v CED Portugal Unipessoal, Lda, Institituto de Seguros de Portugal — Fundo de Garantia Automóvel
   (Case C-558/15)
   (2016/C 016/26)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal da Relaçăo do Porto

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Alberto José Vieira de Azevedo, Maria da Conceiçăo Ferreira da Silva, Carlos Manuel Ferreira Alves, Rui Dinis Ferreira Alves, Vitor José Ferreira Alves

      Defendants: CED Portugal Unipessoal, Lda Institituto de Seguros de Portugal — Fundo de Acidentes de Trabalho

      Intervener: Institituto de Seguros de Portugal — Fundo de Acidentes de Trabalho

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do recital 16A and Article 4 of the Fourth Motor Insurance Directive (Directive 2000/26/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 May 2000, as amended by Directive 2005/14/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005), in the light of paragraphs 4, 5 and 8 of Article 4 (transposed into Portuguese law by Article 43 of Decree Law No 522/85 of 31 December 1985, as amended by Decree Law No 72-A/2003 of 14 April 2003), permit a writ to be served on the representative of an insurance company which does not operate in the country in which an action was brought seeking damages as a result of a road traffic accident, on the basis of compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles taken out in another European Union Member State?

               2.

               If the first question is answered in the affirmative, does the question whether such a writ may be served depend on the specific terms of the representation agreement between the representative and the insurer?

      (1)  Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 May 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (Fourth motor insurance Directive) (OJ 2000 L 181, p. 65).

      (2)  Directive 2005/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 amending Council Directives 72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC, 88/357/EEC and 90/232/EEC and Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 14).


title: Case C-381/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Wien (Austria) lodged on 29 July 2010 — Astrid Preissl KEG v Landeshauptmann von Wien

text:
               9.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Wien (Austria) lodged on 29 July 2010 — Astrid Preissl KEG v Landeshauptmann von Wien
   (Case C-381/10)
   ()
   2010/C 274/18
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Wien

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Astrid Preissl KEG

      Respondent: Landeshauptmann von Wien

      Questions referred

               1.

               Should the requirement in point 4 of Chapter I of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 (1) that ‘[a]n adequate number of washbasins is to be available … with hot and cold running water’ be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘Handwaschbecken’ used in the German language version is to be understood as any hand washing facility (connected to a hot water supply), or only as a washbasin which is used exclusively for hand-washing?

               2.

               What are the criteria for determining whether the hygiene requirements laid down in point 4 of Chapter 1 of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 852/2004, as expressed with the words ‘materials for cleaning hands and for hygienic drying’, are met? Should that provision of the Annex be interpreted as meaning, for example, that a hand dryer or a water tap only meets the hygiene requirements of point 4 of Chapter I of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 if the hand dryer or water tap can be used without touching by hand?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs; OJ 2004 L 139, p. 1.


C 84/54               EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                  6.4.2002
       Removal from the register of Case C-48/01 (1)                     Removal from the register of Case C-119/01 (1)
                        (2002/C 84/95)                                                    (2002/C 84/98)
By order of 23 October 2001 the President of the Court of
                                                                  By order of 22 October 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-48/01: Commission of the
                                                                  from the register of Case C-119/01: Commission of the
European Communities v Ireland.
                                                                  European Communities v Finland.
(1) OJ C 95 of 24.3.2001.
                                                                  (1) OJ C 134 of 5.5.2001.
Removal from the register of Joined Cases C-51/01 and
                           C-52/01 (1)
                                                                         Removal from the register of Case C-244/01 (1)
                        (2002/C 84/96)
                                                                                (2002/C 84/99)
By order of 6 November 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal           By order of 19 November 2001 the President of the Court of
from the register of Joined Cases C-51/01 and C-52/01:            Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Commission of the European Communities v Beta Television          from the register of Case C-244/01: Commission of the
SpA (Videomusic/TMC2) and Internazionale SpA.                     European Communities v French Republic.
(1) OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.                                        (1) OJ C 212 of 28.7.2001.
       Removal from the register of Case C-118/01 (1)
                                                                         Removal from the register of Case C-336/01 (1)
                        (2002/C 84/97)
                                                                                (2002/C 84/100)
By order of 19 November 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                  By order of 19 November 2001 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-118/01: Commission of the
                                                                  Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
European Communities v French Republic.
                                                                  from the register of Case C-336/01: Commission of the
                                                                  European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
(1) OJ C 134 of 5.5.2001.
                                                                  (1) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.


title: Case T-328/00: Action brought on 24 October 2000 by Mario Costacurta against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 372/14              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                  23.12.2000
Action brought on 20 October 2000 by ICAT Food SpA                        The authorities in question in fact endorsed the validity of the
  against the Commission of the European Communities                      ATR 1 certificates issued, proving that they were not misled
                                                                          by declarations made by the exporting companies. The main
                                                                          argument put forward by the Commission that in the present
                        (Case T-327/00)                                   case there was no ‘inward-processing’ error on the part of the
                                                                          authorities thus fails.
                        (2000/C 372/28)
                                                                          The question as to whether the other two conditions laid down
                                                                          in Article 222 were fulfilled was contested by the Commission
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                        only indirectly.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 So far as concerns the alleged error of interpretation of the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                rule against intermingling, the applicant claims that the
European Communities on 20 October 2000 by ICAT Food                      Commission’s certainty that mingling of Turkish and Com-
SpA, represented by Roberto Delfino, of the Genoa Bar,                    munity goods was prohibited caused the Community inspec-
Massimo Merola, of the Rome Bar, Flora Santaniello, of the                tors to fail to calculate the proportion of raw material
Lecce Bar, Daniele P. Domenicucci, of the Pescara Bar, with an            originating in third countries and to verify to what extent, if
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alain                any, it exceeded the tolerance level (10 %) provided for by the
Lorang, 51 Rue Albert I                                                   Decision of the EEC-Turkey Association Council.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul Commission Decision C(2000)1612 of 19 June
      2000 rejecting the request not to proceed with the
      post-clearance recovery, under Article 220(2)(b) of the
      Community Customs Code, of import duties in respect
      of three consignments of tuna from Turkey covered by                Action brought on 24 October 2000 by Mario Costacurta
      IM4 documents No 548/P of 8 September 1995,                           against the Commission of the European Communities
      No 866/E of 9 January 1996, and No 2656/H of
      24 January 1996;
                                                                                (Case T-328/00)
—     order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.
                                                                                (2000/C 372/29)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
The present case concerns the challenge by the Community
authorities of the ATR 1 certificates issued by Turkey in respect         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
of the release into free circulation, by customs at Genoa, of             ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
three consignments of tinned tuna purchased from the Turkish              European Communities on 24 October 2000 by Mario
undertaking Kervitas. The Community authorities argued that               Costacurta, residing in Luxembourg, represented by Marc Petit,
most of the raw material used in the manufacture of the                   of the Luxembourg Bar.
exported products was not of exclusively Turkish origin and
that the undertakings involved had not physically separated               The applicant claims that the Court should:
the raw material of Turkish origin from the rest.
                                                                          —    annul the implied rejection of the Commission of the
In support of its claims, the applicant alleges infringement of                European Communities of his request of 6 June 2000;
Article 220(2)(b) of the Community Customs Code, breach of
the principle of proportionality and of the obligation to                 —    order that the applicant be re-assigned to a third country
provide a statement of reasons as provided for in Article 253                  with effect from 1 September 2000, pursuant to Article 3
of the EC Treaty.                                                              of Annex X to the Staff Regulations;
So far as concerns Article 220 of the abovementioned Code,                —    order the Commission of the European Communities to
the applicant claims that, assuming that the post-clearance                    pay all the costs of the proceedings;
recovery of the duties was well-founded (which is at the very
least doubtful) and that the Turkish authorities had committed            —    reserve to the applicant all other rights, dues, pleas and
an error when issuing the certificate of origin, such an error                 actions, in particular with regard to compensation for
should be characterised as an ‘inward-processing error’.                       damage.
 ---pagebreak--- 23.12.2000            EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 372/15
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         The applicant accuses the Commission of infringing its right
                                                                        to a hearing, because on its inspection of the files it was
                                                                        not presented with all the relevant supporting documents.
The applicant, who is assigned to the Office for Official               Moreover, because of the improper conduct of the Spanish
Publications of the European Communities, is contesting the             authorities and the Commission, particularly in the area of
decision rejecting his request to be assigned to a third country        quota administration, special circumstances existed within the
pursuant to Article 3 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations of            meaning of Article 13 of the Regulation. It also maintains that
officials.                                                              there is no proof or any convincing evidence of alleged forgery,
                                                                        and that the Commission has explained the facts in a defective
The pleas in law and main arguments are largely identical with          and incomplete manner.
those relied upon in Case T-202/00.
                                                                        (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 of 2 July 1979 on the
                                                                            repayment or remission of import or export duties (OJ 1979
                                                                            L 175, p. 1).
Action brought on 25 October 2000 by Bonn Fleisch
Ex- und Import GmbH against the Commission of the
                    European Communities
                                                                        Action brought on 26 October 2000 by Stefano Cocchi
                        (Case T-329/00)
                                                                        and Evi Hainz against Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
                        (2000/C 372/30)
                                                                                (Case T-330/00)
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (2000/C 372/31)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 25 October 2000 by Bonn Fleisch                                    (Language of the case: French)
Ex- und Import GmbH, established in Troisdorf, Germany,
represented by Dietrich Ehle, Rechstsanwalt, Cologne.                   An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 26 October 2000 by Stefano
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        Cocchi and Evi Hainz, residing in Italy, represented by Georges
                                                                        Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of the Brussels Bar.
—     annul Commission Decision K(2000) 2207 endg. of
      25 July 2000 (REM 49/99);
                                                                        The applicants claim that the Court should:
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                        —     annul the decisions of the Authority Empowered to
                                                                              Conclude Contracts (AECC) of 16 March 2000 and of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               22 February 2000 not to accept the applicants’ candi-
                                                                              dature for the posts advertised in vacancy notices
                                                                              COM/R/5530/00 of 24 February 2000 and
The action is brought against the Commission’s decision of                    COM/R/5500/00 of 24 January 2000, or, in the alterna-
25 July 2000, in which the latter refused the application by                  tive, to annul those vacancy notices;
the Federal Republic of Germany to grant the applicant
remission of import duties for the importation of beef on the           —     annul the appointments made by the AECC, of unknown
basis of Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 (1). The                   date, in the context of the recruitment procedures put in
Commission maintains in the contested decision that the                       motion by those two vacancy notices;
extracts submitted by the applicant at the time of import
clearance were forgeries, and that licence forgeries fall within
the business risk of the applicant. Neither the Spanish auth-           —     order the defendant to pay one euro by way of damages
orities which issued the licences nor the Commission had                      for the damage suffered as a result of that decision, such
acted improperly, so the normal business risk to be borne by                  sum being set ex aequo et bono and provisionally;
importers of goods benefiting from customs advantages was
not exceeded.                                                           —     order the defendant to pay the whole of the costs.


title: Case C-115/07: Action brought on 27 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Czech Republic

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/29

         Action brought on 27 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Czech Republic
   (Case C-115/07)
   (2007/C 95/54)
   Language of the case: Czech
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by B. Stromsky and M. Šimerdová, Agents)

      Defendant: Czech Republic
   Form of order sought
   The Court is asked to:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/27/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, or in any event by not communicating such measures to the Commission, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of that directive;

               —

               order the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposing the directive into national law expired on 30 October 2005.

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 136, p. 34.


title: Case T-789/14: Action brought on 28 November 2014 — Staatliche Porzellan-Manufaktur Meissen v OHIM — Meissen Keramik (MEISSEN)

text:
               20.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 127/29

         Action brought on 28 November 2014 — Staatliche Porzellan-Manufaktur Meissen v OHIM — Meissen Keramik (MEISSEN)
   (Case T-789/14)
   (2015/C 127/41)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Staatliche Porzellan-Manufaktur Meissen GmbH (Meißen, Germany) (represented by: O. Spuhler and M. Geitz, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Meissen Keramik GmbH (Meißen, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

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

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘MEISSEN’ — Application No 9 413 527

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 September 2014 in Cases R 1182/2013-4 and R 1245/2013-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-115/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Koblenz — Germany) — RegioPost GmbH & Co. KG v Stadt Landau in der Pfalz (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 56 TFEU — Freedom to provide services — Restrictions — Directive 96/71/EC — Article 3(1) — Directive 2004/18/EC — Article 26 — Public procurement — Postal services — Legislation of a regional entity of a Member State requiring tenderers and their subcontractors to undertake to pay a minimum wage to staff performing the services covered by the public contract)

text:
               18.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/6

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Koblenz — Germany) — RegioPost GmbH & Co. KG v Stadt Landau in der Pfalz
   (Case C-115/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 56 TFEU - Freedom to provide services - Restrictions - Directive 96/71/EC - Article 3(1) - Directive 2004/18/EC - Article 26 - Public procurement - Postal services - Legislation of a regional entity of a Member State requiring tenderers and their subcontractors to undertake to pay a minimum wage to staff performing the services covered by the public contract))
   (2016/C 016/06)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Koblenz

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: RegioPost GmbH & Co. KG

      Respondent: Stadt Landau in der Pfalz

      Intervening parties: PostCon Deutschland GmbH, Deutsche Post AG

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 26 of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1251/2011 of 30 November 2011, must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a regional entity of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which requires tenderers and their subcontractors to undertake, by means of a written declaration to be enclosed with their tender, to pay staff who are called upon to perform the services covered by the public contract in question a minimum wage laid down in that legislation.

               2.

               Article 26 of Directive 2004/18, as amended by Regulation No 1251/2011, must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a regional entity of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the exclusion from participation in a procedure for the award of a public contract of tenderers and their subcontractors who refuse to undertake, by means of a written declaration to be enclosed with their tender, to pay staff who are called upon to perform the services covered by the public contract in question a minimum wage laid down in that legislation.

      (1)  OJ C 175, 10.6.2014.


C 113/8               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    11.4.98
    the exercise of its discretion, an application by a              d'Appello di Torino (Court of Appeal, Turin) of
    Turkish national to remain in its territory, is that             19 November 1997, which was received at the Court
    competent authority obliged to take into account the             Registry on 16 February 1998, for a preliminary ruling in
    existence of the Agreement together with the                     the case of SA ReÂgie Nationale des Usines Renault v. SpA
    additional Protocol?                                             Maxicar and Orazio Formento on the following questions:
5. If the answer to question No 4 is yes', is the
    competent authority in the Member State required to
    have regard to the principle of proportionality in               1. Are Articles 30 to 36 of the EC Treaty to be
    exercising its discretion?                                           interpreted as precluding the holder of industrial or
                                                                         intellectual design rights in a Member State from
6. If the answer to question No 5 is yes', what factors                 asserting the corresponding exclusive right so as to
    are to be taken into account by the competent                        prevent third parties from manufacturing, selling and
    national authority in determining whether deportation                exporting to another Member State component parts
    is proportionate?                                                    which, taken as a whole, make up the bodywork of a
                                                                         car already on the market, that is to say, component
                                                                         parts intended to be sold as spare parts for that car?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura di Roma            2. Is Article 86 of the EC Treaty to be applied so as to
by order of that court of 6 October 1997 in the case of                  prohibit the abuse of the dominant position held by
            Kazemi Nava against Confcommercio                            each car manufacturer in the market for spare parts
                                                                         for cars of its manufacture, which consists in seeking
                        (Case C-11/98)                                   to eliminate any competition from independent
                         (98/C 113/18)                                   manufacturers of spare parts through the exercise of
                                                                         its industrial and intellectual design rights and the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   attendant judicial penalties?
European Communities by order of the Pretura di Roma
(Rome Magistrate's Court) of 6 October 1997, which was
received at the Court Registry on 15 January 1998, for a             3. Is, therefore, a judgment handed down by a court of a
preliminary ruling in the case of Kazemi Nava against                    Member State to be considered contrary to public
Confcommercio on the following question.                                 policy within the meaning of Article 27 of the Brussels
                                                                         Convention if it recognises industrial or intellectual
Must the term employer' contained in Article 1 of
                                                                         design rights over such component parts which, taken
Directive 75/129/EEC (1) of 17 February 1975 be
                                                                         as a whole, make up the bodywork of a car and
understood as including non-profit-making organisations,
                                                                         affords protection to the holder of such purported
which act on behalf of their own members who are,
                                                                         exclusive rights by preventing third parties trading in
moreover, required periodically to pay a subscription, and
                                                                         another Member State from manufacturing, selling,
which represent and protect the interests of undertakings
                                                                         transporting, importing or exporting in that Member
and politicial, social, economic and trade union
                                                                         State such component parts which, taken as a whole,
organisations and serve to further the economic and social
                                                                         make up the bodywork of a car already on the
interests of undertakings: in other words, those
                                                                         market, or, in any event, by sanctioning such conduct?
organisations, such as Confcommercio, which may also be
defined as associations of trade unions in the light of the
objects set forth in their memoranda of association. If the
reply is in the affirmative, is the national court required to
disapply the concept of undertaking' as mentioned in Law
No 223/1991?
(1) OJ L 48, 22.7.1975, p. 29.
                                                                     Action brought on 24 February 1998 by the Kingdom of
                                                                          Spain against the Council of the European Union
                                                                                (Case C-45/98)
                                                                                (98/C 113/20)
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte
d'Appello di Torino (Court of Appeal, Turin) by order of
that court of 19 November 1997 in the case of SA ReÂgie
Nationale des Usines Renault v. SpA Maxicar and Orazio               An action against the Council of the European Union was
                           Formento                                  brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                        (Case C-38/98)                               Communities on 24 February 1998 by the Kingdom of
                                                                     Spain, represented by Rosario Silva de Lapuerta, abogado
                         (98/C 113/19)                               del Estado, of the State Legal Service responsible for
                                                                     representing the Spanish Government before the Court of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the               Justice, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
European Communities by an order of the Corte                        Spanish Embassy, 4Ð6 boulevard E. Servais.
 ---pagebreak--- 11.4.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 113/9
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        103/EC, expired on 23 October 1995 without Belgium
                                                                   having brought into force the necessary provisions.
Ð annul the element concerning anchovy in Annex I to
    Council Regulation (EC) No 45/98 of 19 December                (1) OJ L 307, 13.12.1993, p. 1.
    1997 fixing, for certain fish stocks and groups of fish
    stocks, the total allowable catches for 1998 and
    certain conditions under which they may be fished (1),
Ð order the defendant institution to pay the costs.
                                                                   Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supremo
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                Tribunal Administrativo by judgment of that court of
                                                                   21 January 1998 in the case of Modelo SGPS SA against
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to                           Director-Geral dos Registos e Notariado
those in Case C-179/95 (2).                                                                 (Case C-56/98)
                                                                                (98/C 113/22)
(1) OJ L 12, 19.1.1998, p. 1.
(2) OJ C 208, 12.8.1995, p. 10.
                                                                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                   European Communities by judgment of the Supremo
                                                                   Tribunal Administrativo (Supreme Administrative Court)
                                                                   of 21 January 1998, which was received at the Court
                                                                   Registry on 24 February 1998, for a preliminary ruling in
Action brought on 20 February 1998 by the Commission
                                                                   the case of Modelo SGPS against Director-Geral dos
of the European Communities against the the Kingdom of
                                                                   Registos e Notariado on the following questions.
                            Belgium
                        (Case C-47/98)
                         (98/C 113/21)                             1. Is it open to an individual to rely on Article 10 of
                                                                        Council Directive 69/335/EEC (1) in his relations with
                                                                        the State where the latter has not transposed that
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                    Directive into its national legal system?
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
on 20 February 1998 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Marie Wolfcarius, acting as            2. Are the transactions referred to in Article 4(3) of
Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                 Directive 69/335/EEC to be regarded as covered by the
office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,                       prohibition contained in Article 10 thereof to the
Kirchberg.                                                              effect that the levying is prohibited not only of capital
                                                                        duty but also of any other charge, in whatever form?
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                   3. Must Articles 10 and 12(1)(e) of Directive 69/335/EEC
Ð declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force                be interpreted as precluding that notarial fees for
    within the prescribed period the laws, regulations                  drawing up a (legally binding) official document
    or administrative provisions necessary to comply                    attesting to resolutions to increase capital or to amend
    with Council Directive 93/103/EC of 23 November                     articles of association from being varied according to
    1993 concerning the minimum safety and health                       the amount of the capital or the increase therein,
    requirements for work on board fishing vessels (1), the             respectively, rather than according to the cost of the
    Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations             service provided?
    under that Directive,
Ð order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                   4. If so, is it permissible, in the light of Articles 10 and
                                                                        12(1)(e) of Directive 69/335/EEC, for the amount of
                                                                        the aforementioned fees manifestly and unreasonably
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     to exceed the actual cost of the specific service
                                                                        provided?
The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third
paragraph of Article 189 and the first paragraph of                (1) Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969, concerning
Article 5 of the EC Treaty requires Member States to                   indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ L 249, 3.10.1969,
adopt the measures necessary to transpose directives                   p. 25).
addressed to them into their domestic law before the
expiry of the period prescribed for doing so. That period,
which is laid down in Article 13 of Council Directive 93/


title: Case C-29/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 19 January 2017 — Novartis Farma SpA v Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA)

text:
               19.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/9

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 19 January 2017 — Novartis Farma SpA v Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA)
   (Case C-29/17)
   (2017/C 195/13)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Novartis Farma SpA

      Respondent: Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA)

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do the provisions of Directive 2001/83/EC, (1) as subsequently amended, and in particular Articles 5 and 6 thereof, with reference in particular to the second recital of the directive, preclude the application of a national law (the provision several times cited being Article 1(4)bis of the Decree-Law), which, in order to pursue the objective of containing expenditure, encourages, by inclusion in the list of medicinal products reimbursable by the national health service, the use of a drug beyond the therapeutic indication authorised for patients in general, regardless of any consideration of the therapeutic needs of the individual patient and notwithstanding the existence and market availability of medicinal products authorised for the specific therapeutic indication?

               2.

               Can Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC (magistral formula) be applicable when the preparation of the pharmaceutical product is done in a pharmacy on the strength of a medical prescription for an individual patient, but is nonetheless done in batches, in equal quantities and repeatedly, without taking account of the specific needs of the individual patient, and when the product is dispensed to the hospital and not to the patient (given that the pharmaceutical product is listed in class H-OSP) and is used in a facility other than that in which the product was prepared?

               3.

               Do the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 (2) as amended, and in particular Articles 3, 25 and 26 thereof together with the Annex, which confer on the European Medicines Agency (EMA) exclusive responsibility for evaluating the quality, safety and efficacy of medicinal products for which the therapeutic indication is the treatment of oncological pathologies, both in the context of the procedure for granting authorisation procedure for medicinal products to be placed on the market (compulsory centralised procedure) and for the purposes of the monitoring and coordination of pharmacovigilance activities after the product has been placed on the market, preclude the application of a national law that reserves to the national regulatory authority (AIFA) the power to judge the safety of medicines as regards their use ‘off-label’, the authorisation of which falls within the exclusive competence of the European Commission on the basis of the technical and scientific evaluations carried out by the European Medicines Agency (EMA)?

               4.

               Do the provisions of Directive 89/105/EEC, (3) as subsequently amended, and in particular Article 1(3) thereof, preclude the application of a national law that permits the Member State, in its decisions on the reimbursability of health expenses borne by the patient, to provide for the reimbursability of a medicinal product used beyond the ambit of the therapeutic indications stated in the marketing authorisation issued by the European Commission, or by a specialised European agency, following a centralised evaluation procedure, when the conditions set out in Articles 3 and 5 of Directive 2001/83/EC are not satisfied?

      (1)  Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67).

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 1).

      (3)  Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the prices of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems (OJ L 40, 11.2.1989, p. 8).


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 May 1999 in Case T-203/95: Bernard Connolly v Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Article 88 of the Staff Regulations - Suspension - Admissibility - Statement of reasons - Alleged fault - Infringement of Articles 11, 12 and 17 of the Staff Regulations - Equal treatment)

text:
28.8.1999             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 246/23
                                                       COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                        Loesch and Wolters, 11 Rue Goethe v Commission of the
                        of 19 May 1999                                  European Communities (Agents: initially Bernd Langeheine
                                                                        and Heinz-Joachim Freund, and subsequently Wouter Wils
                                                                        and Heinz-Joachim Freund) — application for the annulment
in Case T-175/95: BASF Coatings AG v Commission of                      of Commission Decision 95/477/EC of 12 July 1995 relating
                the European Communities (1)                            to a proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of the EC Treaty (Case
                                                                        IV/33.802 — BASF Lacke + Farben AG, and Accinauto SA)
(Competition — Article 81(1) EC (ex Article 85(1)) —                    (OJ 1995 L 272, p. 16) — the Court (First Chamber), composed
     Exclusive distribution agreement — Parallel imports)               of: B. Vesterdorf, President, R.M. Moura Ramos and P. Mengoz-
                                                                        zi, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar,
                        (1999/C 246/45)                                 has given a judgment on 19 May 1999, in which it:
                                                                        1. Dismisses the application;
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                        2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
In Case T-175/95: BASF Coatings AG (formerly BASF Lack
und Farben AG), with its registered office in Münster-Hiltrup
(Germany), represented by Ferdinand Hermanns, Rechtsan-                 (1) OJ C 315 of 25.11.1995.
walt, Düsseldorf, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the Chambers of Loesch and Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe, against
the Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
initially Bernd Langeheine and Heinz-Joachim Freund and
subsequently by Wouter Wils and Hans-Joachim Freund)
— application for the annulment of Commission Decision
95/477/EC of 12 July 1995 relating to a proceeding pursuant
to Article 85 of the EC Treaty (Case IV/33.802 — BASF Lacke
                                                                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
+ Farben AG, and Accinauto SA) (OJ 1995 L 272, p. 16) —
the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of B.
Vesterdorf, President, R.M. Moura Ramos, and P. Mengozzi,                                        of 19 May 1999
Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar,
has given a judgment on 19 May 1999, in which it:
                                                                        in Case T-203/95: Bernard Connolly v Commission of the
1. Dismisses the application;                                                               European Communities (1)
2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.                               (Officials — Article 88 of the Staff Regulations — Suspen-
                                                                        sion — Admissibility — Statement of reasons — Alleged
                                                                        fault — Infringement of Articles 11, 12 and 17 of the Staff
(1) OJ C 315 of 25.11.1995.
                                                                                Regulations — Equal treatment)
                                                                                (1999/C 246/47)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                        In Case T-203/95: Bernard Connolly, a former official of
                        of 19 May 1999                                  the Commission of the European Communities, residing in
                                                                        Everberg (Belgium), represented by Jacques Sambon and
in Case T-176/95: Accinauto SA v Commission of the                      Pierre-Paul Van Gehuchten, of the Brussels Bar, with an address
                  European Communities (1)                              for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2
                                                                        Rue du Fort Rheinsheim, against Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and Julian Currall) —
(Competition — Article 81(1) EC (ex-Article 85(1)) —                    application for annulment of the decision of 27 September
     Exclusive distribution agreement — Parallel imports)               1995 by which the appointing authority decided to suspend
                                                                        the applicant from his duties and to withhold half of his basic
                        (1999/C 246/46)                                 salary with effect from 3 October 1995 — the Court of First
                                                                        Instance (First Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President,
                                                                        J. Pirrung and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given
                  (Language of the case: German)                        a judgment on 19 May 1999, the operative part of which is as
                                                                        follows:
In Case T-176/95: Accinauto SA, established in Brussels,
represented by Helmut Glassen, Rechtsanwalt, Leimen, with               1. The application is dismissed;
 ---pagebreak--- C 246/24                EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                      28.8.1999
2. The parties shall bear their own costs, including those relating to           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      the proceedings on the application for interim measures.
                                                                                of 6 July 1999
( 1) OJ C 351 of 30.12.1995.
                                                                             in Joined Cases T-112/96 and T-115/96: Jean-Claude Séché
                                                                                v Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                             (Officials — Refusal of promotion — Comparative examin-
                                                                             ation of the merits — Statement of reasons — Token
                                                                             appointment — Equal treatment principle — Discrimination
                                                                             on the grounds of age, sex and nationality — Duty to have
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 due regard to the welfare of officials — Correspondence
                                                                             between grade and duties — Article 27, third paragraph, of
                            of 8 July 1999                                   the Staff Regulations — Misuse of powers and procedure —
                                                                             Principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and of
                                                                             good faith — Right to a temporary posting — Decision on
in Case T-36/96: Giuliana Gaspar v European Parliament (1)                   the grant of a temporary posting — Discretion of the
                                                                             administration — Right to the differential allowance —
                                                                             Fault on the part of the administration — Non-material
(Officials — Appeal — Reference back to the Court of First                   damage — Dismissal of applications for preparatory inquir-
Instance — Sick leave — Medical certificate — Annual                                                         ies)
medical check-up — Conclusions conflicting with the medical
                              certificate)
                                                                                (1999/C 246/49)
                           (1999/C 246/48)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-36/96: Giuliana Gaspari, an official of the European
Parliament, residing at Sandweiler (Luxembourg), represented
by Lucette Defalque, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for                In Joined Cases T-112/96 and T-115/96: Jean-Claude Séché, a
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL,               former official of the Commission of the European Communi-
30 Rue de Cessange, v European Parliament (Agents: Manfred                   ties, residing in Brussels, represented by Eric Boigelot, of the
Peter and Antonio Caiola) — application for annulment of the                 Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
decision of 22 May 1995 by which the Parliament treated the                  Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim,
applicant’s absence on 5 May 1995 as irregular and deducted                  supported by Union Syndicale (European Public Service Union)
one day from her annual leave entitlement pursuant to Article                — Brussels, represented initially by Véronique Lebrun and
60 of the Staff Regulations of officials of the European                     subsequently by Pierre Monville, both of the Brussels Bar,
Communities, and for annulment, in so far as may be                          against the Commission of the European Communities
necessary, of the confirmatory decision of 9 August 1995 —                   (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia, Julian Currall and Denis Wael-
the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: M.                 broeck) — application, in Case T-112/96, for the annulment
Jaeger, President, and K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi, Judges; B. Pastor,          of two decisions adopted by the Commission on 22 May 1996
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment             in a procedure for filling an A 2 post in the Legal Service
on 8 July 1999, in which it:                                                 declared vacant by Notice COM/20/96, respectively appointing
                                                                             Mrs D as Principal Legal Adviser at Grade A 2 and rejecting the
                                                                             applicant’s candidature for that post; and, in Case T-115/96, for
1. Dismisses the action;                                                     the annulment of the Commission’s decision of 1 December
                                                                             1995 rejecting the applicant’s request for, effectively, reclassifi-
                                                                             cation of his post at Grade A 2 as from 1 June 1991 and, in
2. Orders the parties to bear all their own costs in respect of the          the alternative, the benefit of the temporary postings system
      proceedings before the Court of First Instance and the Court of        — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of
      Justice.                                                               J.D. Cooke, President of the Chamber, R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas,
                                                                             and P. Lindh, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar,
                                                                             gave a judgment on 6 July 1999, the operative part of which
                                                                             is as follows:
(1) OJ C 145 of 18.5.1996.
                                                                             1. There is no need to adjudicate on the application, made in the
                                                                                action in Case T-112/96, for the annulment of the decision to
                                                                                appoint Mrs D to the contested post;


title: Case T-113/14: Action brought on 17 February 2014 — Oleaginosa Moreno Hermanos v Council

text:
               14.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/56

         Action brought on 17 February 2014 — Oleaginosa Moreno Hermanos v Council
   (Case T-113/14)
   2014/C 112/73
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Oleaginosa Moreno Hermanos SACIFI y A (Bahia Blanca, Argentina) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis and R. Luff, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1194/2013 of 19 November 2013, imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia (OJ 2013 L 315, p. 2), insofar as it concerns the applicant; and

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Institutions have committed a manifest error in the appreciation of the facts by concluding that there was a distortion of the prices of soya beans and soybean oil justifying the application of the second paragraph of Article 2(5) of the Basic Anti-dumping Regulation (1).

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the second paragraph of Article 2(5) of the Basic Antidumping Regulation, as construed by the Institutions in the present case, may not be applied to imports from a WTO member as it is inconsistent with the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the injury assessment fails to take into consideration factors that break the causal link between the alleged injury and the allegedly dumped imports in violation of Article 3(7) of the Basic-Anti-dumping Regulation.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51)


title: Case T-409/14: Action brought on 2 June 2014  — Marcuccio v Court of Justice

text:
               28.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/30

         Action brought on 2 June 2014 — Marcuccio v Court of Justice
   (Case T-409/14)
   2014/C 245/42
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision, whatever the form in which it was adopted, by which the defendant rejected the request of 22 January 2014 submitted by the applicant to Court of Justice.

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 25  000, or such other greater or lesser sum as the General Court may deem to be fair and equitable, by way of compensation for the harm suffered by the applicant as a result of the unreasonable duration of the legal proceedings brought by the applicant, or by way of an indemnity on account of the unreasonable duration of the proceedings in question.

               —

               Order the defendant to pay all the costs, fees and other expenses incurred in these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The subject-matter of the present action is the harm which the applicant claims that he suffered as a result of what he claims to be the excessive duration of the proceedings in Case T-236/02 Marcuccio v Commission.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on 2 pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging absolute failure to state reasons, including on the ground of absolute failure to carry out a preliminary investigation and breach of the duty of sound administration.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging breach of law and manifest error of assessment.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Correctionnel, Charleroi, by judgment of that court of 21 October 1996 in the case of Ministère Public v. Jean Harpegnies (Case C-400/96)

text:
No C 40/ 14           1 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       8 . 2 . 97
the cover capital of the pension less the accrued rights ) or                     Removal from the register of C-290/95 (')
only to the subrogation as such ?                                                                    ( 97/C 40/30 )
(') Offical Journal, English Special Edition 1971 ( II ), p. 416 .
                                                                        By order of 2 October 1996 the President of the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                        removal from the register of Case C-290/95 : Commission
                                                                        of the European Communities v. Italian Republic .
                                                                        (') OJ No C 286 , 28 . 10 . 1995 .
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour du Travail
( Fourth Chamber), Brussels, by judgment of that court of
11 December 1996 in the case of Europieces SA against
Wilfried Sanders and Automotive Industries Holding
                             Company SA
                          ( Case C-399/96 )                                       Removal from the register of C-3 19/95 (')
                              97/C 40/28 )                                                           ( 97/C 40/31 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  By order of 23 September 1 996 the President of the Court
European Communities by judgment of the Cour du                         of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Travail (Higher Labour Court ) ( Fourth Chamber ),                      removal from the register of Case C-319/95 : Commission
Brussels, of 11 December 1996 , which was received at the               of the European Communities v. Ireland .
 Court Registry on 17 December 1996 , for a preliminary
 ruling in the case of Europieces SA against Wilfried                   (') OJ No C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .
 Sanders and Automotive Industries Holding Company SA
 on the following question :
 Does Council Directive 77/ 187/EEC (') of 14 February
 1977 on the approximation of the laws of the Member
 States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in                      Removal from the register of C-4 10/95 (')
 the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts                                          ( 97/C 40/32 )
 of businesses apply where a company in liquidation
 transfers all or part of its assets to another company                  By order of 27 September 1996 the President of the Court
 which then issues orders to a worker which the company                  of Justice of the Fluropean Communities has ordered the
 in liquidation says must be carried out ?                               removal from the register of Case C-410/95 ( reference for
                                                                         a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Commerce de
 O O J No L 61 , 5 . 3 . 1977, p . 26 .                                  Nice ): SA Societe des Grands Garages Mediterraneens ,
                                                                         Societe Nissan France v. Societe Nice Ouest Automobiles .
                                                                         (") OJ No C 46 , 17 . 2 . 1996 .
 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal
 Correctionnel, Charleroi, by judgment of that court of
  21 October 1996 in the case of Ministere Public v. Jean
                                Harpegnies                                         Removal from the register of C- 18/96 (')
                           ( Case C-400/96 )                                                           ( 97/C 40/33 )
                              ( 97/C 40/29 )
                                                                          By order of 8 October 1 996 the President of the Court of
  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                         from the register of Case C- 18/96 : Commission of the
  European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal
  Correctionnel ( Criminal Court ), Charleroi , of 21 October            European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium .
  1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on
                                                                          (■) OJ No C 77, 16 . 3 . 1996 .
  17 December 1996, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
  Ministere Public ( Public Prosecutor ) v. Jean Harpegnies on
  the following question :
  Is Belgian legislation, in so far so it still requires approval
  by the Belgian authorities of plant-protection products                          Removal from the register of C-l 34/96 ( 1 )
  marketed in another Member State, in ' breach of the rules
  on the free movement of goods in the Community, as laid                                               ( 97/ C 40/34 )
  down in Article 30 of the EEC Treaty ?
                                                                          By order of 3 October 1996 the President of the Court of
                                                                          Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 April 2005 in Case C-22/04 Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 — Fishing vessels — Establishment of a satellite-based position monitoring system — Failure to transpose within the prescribed periods)

text:
               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/12

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 14 April 2005
   in Case C-22/04 Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 - Fishing vessels - Establishment of a satellite-based position monitoring system - Failure to transpose within the prescribed periods)
   (2005/C 143/14)
   Language of the case: Greek
   In Case C-22/04 Commission of the European Communities (Agents: M Condou-Durande and T. van Rijn) v Hellenic Republic (Agents: A. Samoni-Rantou and S. Chala) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 26 January 2004 — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta, President of the Chamber, J. Makarczyk and P. Kūris (Rapporteur), Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 April 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that by failing to ensure that fishing vessels which fly its flag and must be equipped with satellite-tracking devices were in fact equipped with such devices, according to the type of vessel concerned, on 30 June 1998 or 1 January 2000, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 686/97 of 14 April 1997;

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 85 of 3.4.2004.


title: Case T-375/00: Action brought on 11 December 2000 by Danielle Dubigh and Tamara Zaur-Gora against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 45/24                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     10.2.2001
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           The applicants claims that the Court should:
The applicant states that he was informed in August 1999 of               —     annul the decision of 12 January 2000 rejecting the
his appointment to the post of head of unit DG XIII/G/2 and                     request submitted by Ms Dubigh on 24 September 1999
of his promotion to grade A3, but that the Director-General                     for the regularisation of her administrative situation by
for Personnel announced to him in February 2000 that he had                     the acknowledgement of her status as a temporary agent
decided to annul those decisions in the light of a complaint                    from 12 May 1997 and the conferment on her of the
submitted by an official who had also applied for the post in                   rights attaching thereto;
question. In the present proceedings, the applicant contests
that decision withdrawing his appointment and promotion.                  —     annul the decision of 12 January 2000 rejecting the
                                                                                request submitted by Ms Zaur-Gora on 24 September
He maintains that the decision which has been withdrawn:                        1999 for the regularisation of her administrative situation
                                                                                by the acknowledgement of her status as a temporary
—     was not adopted in breach of Article 45 of the Staff                      agent from 22 May 1997 and the conferment on her of
      Regulations of officials or of vacancy notices 07 of                      the rights attaching thereto;
      2 February 2000, inasmuch as those rules were scrupu-
      lously observed, having regard to the seniority criteria            —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
      needing to be fulfilled in order to qualify for promotion;
—     was not adopted on the basis of any manifest error of               Pleas in law and main arguments
      assessment in the examination of the comparative merits
      and staff reports of the candidates, or in breach of any of
      the vacancy notices in issue; and                                   The applicants state that, since 12 May and 22 May 1997
                                                                          respectively, they have performed, without interruption, the
—     is not vitiated by any misuse of powers on the part of the          same duties as secretaries/typists in the same units, working
      appointing authority.                                               successively as members of the interim staff and as members
                                                                          of the auxiliary staff. In their view, the formal nature of the
                                                                          contracts and the classification applied to them by the parties
In addition, as regards the contested decision, the applicant
                                                                          had no effect on the de facto circumstances.
pleads:
—     infringement of the right to a fair hearing;                        Thus, the tasks carried out by the applicants are characterised
                                                                          by their continuity; the duties performed by them have been
—     infringement of the obligation to provide a statement of            of a permanent nature.
      reasons;
—     infringement of the principle of the protection of legit-           In support of their claims, the applicants plead infringement
      imate expectations; and                                             of the principles of sound administration and proper staff
                                                                          management, together with a misuse of powers in the present
—     infringement of the principles of equal treatment, pro-             case.
      portionality and sound administration.
Action brought on 11 December 2000 by Danielle Dubigh                     Action brought on 19 December 2000 by Carmelo Mor-
and Tamara Zaur-Gora against the Commission of the                        ello against the Commission of the European Communi-
                     European Communities                                                                 ties
                         (Case T-375/00)                                                           (Case T-378/00)
                          (2001/C 45/50)                                                            (2001/C 45/51)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
European Communities on 11 December 2000 by Danielle                      ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Dubigh, residing in Brussels, and Tamara Zaur-Gora, residing              European Communities on 19 December 2000 by Carmelo
at Lodelinsart (Belgium), represented by Jean-Noël Louis and              Morello, residing in Brussels, represented by Jacques Sambon
Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar.                                     and Pierre-Paul Van Gehuchten, of the Brussels Bar.


title: Case T-397/09: Action brought on 6 October 2009 — Ernst August Prinz von Hannover Herzog zu Braunschweig und Lüneburg v OHIM (Figurative mark representing a coat of arms)

text:
               5.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/29

         Action brought on 6 October 2009 — Ernst August Prinz von Hannover Herzog zu Braunschweig und Lüneburg v OHIM (Figurative mark representing a coat of arms)
   (Case T-397/09)
   2009/C 297/42
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Ernst August Prinz von Hannover Herzog zu Braunschweig und Lüneburg (Hanover, Germany) (represented by R. Stötzel and J. Hilger, lawyers)

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

      Forms of order sought

               —

               Annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 23 July 2009 in Case R 1361/2008-1 concerning the application for Community trade mark No 5 627 245 and admission of the application for Community trade mark No 5 627 245 for publication in the Community Trade Marks Bulletin;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The colour figurative mark representing a coat of arms for goods and services in Classes 16, 25, 28, 2, 33, 35, 39, 41 and 43 (Application No 5 627 245)

      Decision of the Examiner: Application refused

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: Inter alia, infringement of Article 7(1)(h) of Regulation No 207/2009 (1), since the mark applied for is neither identical with the opposing royal emblem nor a heraldic immitation thereof.

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


title: Case T-308/01: Action brought on 10 December 2001 by Henkel KGaA against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

text:
16.3.2002               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 68/11
                                                         COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                              European Communities on 10 December 2001 by Henkel
                              INSTANCE                                    KGaA, represented by Mr Holger Wissel and Dr Christian
                                                                          Osterrieth (Clifford Chance Pünder) of Düsseldorf (Germany).
                      of 15 November 2001
in Case T-151/01 R: Der Grüne Punkt — Duales System                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
Deutschland AG v Commission of the European Com-
                               munities                                   —     annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the
                                                                                OHIM of 12 September 2001 in appeal proceedings
(Interlocutory proceedings — Abuse of a dominant position                       no. R 738/2000-3
— Article 82 EC — Trade-mark law — Prima facie case —
               Urgency — Weighing of interests)                           —     order the defendant to pay the costs of the action
                           (2002/C 68/20)
                   (Language of the case: German)                         Pleas in law and main arguments
In Case T-151/01 R: Der Grüne Punkt — Duales System
Deutschland AG, established in Cologne (Germany), represent-
ed by W. Deselaers, B. Meyring, E. Wagner and C. Weidemann,               Applicant for the Com-        LHS Ltd.
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Com-                munity trade mark:
mission of the European Communities (Agent: S. Rating),
supported by Vfw AG, established in Cologne, represented by               The Community trade           The word mark ‘Kleencare’ for
H.F. Wissel, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg,           mark concerned:               goods in classes 1, 3, 5 and 42.
Landbell AG, established in Mainz (Germany), represented by
A. Rinne, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg,              Proprietor of the right to    Henkel KGaA
and Bellandvision GmbH, established at Pegnitz (Germany),                 the trade mark or sign
represented by A. Rinne, lawyer, with an address for service in           asserted by way of oppo-
Luxembourg — application for suspension of operation of                   sition in the opposition
Article 3 of Commission Decision 2001/463/EC of 20 April                  proceedings:
2001 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 82 of the EC
Treaty (Case COMP D3/34493 DSD) (OJ 2001 L 166, p. 1),                    Trade mark or sign            The German word mark ‘Carclin’
and of Articles 4, 5, 6 and 7 of that decision in so far as they          asserted by way of oppo-      for goods in classes 1 and 2.
refer to the said Article 3 — the President of the Court of First         sition in the opposition
Instance made an order on 15 November 2001, the operative                 proceedings:
part of which is as follows:
                                                                          Decision of the Oppo-         Rejection of the opposition by
1.    The application for interim measures is dismissed.                  sition Division:              Henkel KGaA
2.    The costs are reserved.                                             Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of the appeal lodged by
                                                                          Appeal:                       Henkel KGaA
                                                                          Grounds of claim:             Violation of Articles 57 and fol-
                                                                                lowing of regulation 40/94 (1) in
                                                                                that the Board of Appeal can
Action brought on 10 December 2001 by Henkel KGaA                                                       review fully the decisions of the
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                                                    Opposition Division. Further-
                                Market                                                                  more, violation of Article 76 (1) (f)
                                                                                of Regulation 40/94 by the refusal
                          (Case T-308/01)                                                               of a statement made by a person
                                                                                connected with the applicant.
                           (2002/C 68/21)
                   (Language of the case: English)                        (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
                                                                              Community trade mark (OJ 11, p. 1).
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the


title: Case T-301/15: Judgment of the General Court of 31 May 2016 — Jochen Schweizer v EUIPO (Du bist, was du erlebst.) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark Du bist, was du erlebst. — Absolute ground for refusal — Mark consisting of an advertising slogan — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               11.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/29

         Judgment of the General Court of 31 May 2016 — Jochen Schweizer v EUIPO (Du bist, was du erlebst.)
   (Case T-301/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark Du bist, was du erlebst. - Absolute ground for refusal - Mark consisting of an advertising slogan - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 251/33)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Jochen Schweizer GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: A. González Hähnlein, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: R. Pethke and M. Fischer, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 April 2015 (Case R 3114/2014-4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign Du bist, was du erlebst. as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Jochen Schweizer GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 270, 17.8.2015.


title: Case T-484/10 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 17 February 2011 — Gas Natural Fenosa SDG v Commission (Interim measures — State aid — Compensation for the additional production costs of certain power plants arising from the public service obligation to produce certain volumes of electricity out of indigenous coal and implementation of a ‘preferential dispatch mechanism’ in their favour — Decision not to raise objections — Application for suspension of operation — Prima facie case — Lack of urgency — Weighing of the interests)

text:
               21.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 152/22

         Order of the President of the General Court of 17 February 2011 — Gas Natural Fenosa SDG v Commission
   (Case T-484/10 R)
   (Interim measures - State aid - Compensation for the additional production costs of certain power plants arising from the public service obligation to produce certain volumes of electricity out of indigenous coal and implementation of a ‘preferential dispatch mechanism’ in their favour - Decision not to raise objections - Application for suspension of operation - Prima facie case - Lack of urgency - Weighing of the interests)
   2011/C 152/40
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Gas Natural Fenosa SDG, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: F. González Díaz and F. Salerno, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: J.M. Rodríguez Cárcamo, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Application for interim measures seeking, in essence, an order for the suspension of operation of Commission Decision C(2010) 4499 of 29 September 2010 relating to State aid No N 178/2010 notified by the Kingdom of Spain in the form of a public service compensation linked to a preferential dispatch mechanism in favour of electricity power plants which use indigenous coal

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for leave to intervene lodged by the Cámara Oficial de Comercio, Industria y Navegación de A Coruña is dismissed.

               2.

               E.ON Generación, SL, Hidroeléctrica del Cantábrico SA and the Federación Nacional de Empresarios de Minas de Carbón are granted leave to intervene in support of the form of order sought by the European Commission.

               3.

               The order of the President of the General Court of 3 November 2010 in Case T-484/10 R Gas Natural Fenosa SDG v Commission, not published in the ECR, is cancelled.

               4.

               A period shall be fixed for Gas Natural Fenosa SDG, the Commission and the Kingdom of Spain to request that certain confidential information in the file and in the present order be excluded from communication to the parties referred to in point 2 of this operative part and to provide, for the purposes of that communication, a non-confidential version of the documents in the file and of the present order.

               5.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-46/13: Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2015 — Sabores de Navarra v OHIM — Frutas Solano (KIT, EL SABOR DE NAVARRA) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark KIT, EL SABOR DE NAVARRA — Earlier Community figurative mark Sabores de Navarra La Sabiduría del Sabor — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 15 and Article 57(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Form differing in elements which alter the distinctive character of the mark)

text:
               2.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/24

      Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2015 — Sabores de Navarra v OHIM — Frutas Solano (KIT, EL SABOR DE NAVARRA)
      (Case T-46/13) (1)

      (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark KIT, EL SABOR DE NAVARRA - Earlier Community figurative mark Sabores de Navarra La Sabiduría del Sabor - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 15 and Article 57(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Form differing in elements which alter the distinctive character of the mark)
      (2015/C 073/31)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: Sabores de Navarra, AIE (Pamplona, Spain) (represented by: J. Calderón Chavero, O. González Fernández and L. Estropa Navarro, lawyers)

         Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. García Murillo and J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Frutas Solano, SA (Calahorra, Spain) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 November 2012 (Joined Cases R 2542/2011-2 and R 2550/2011-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Sabores de Navarra, AIE and Frutas Solano, SA.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Sabores de Navarra, AIE to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 86, 23.3.2013.


title: Case C-303/07: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 June 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Aberdeen Property Fininvest Alpha Oy (Freedom of establishment — Directive 90/435/EEC — Corporation tax — Distribution of dividends — Withholding tax charged on dividends paid to non-resident companies other than companies within the meaning of that directive — Exemption for dividends paid to resident companies)

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/5

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 June 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Aberdeen Property Fininvest Alpha Oy
   (Case C-303/07) (1)

   (Freedom of establishment - Directive 90/435/EEC - Corporation tax - Distribution of dividends - Withholding tax charged on dividends paid to non-resident companies other than companies within the meaning of that directive - Exemption for dividends paid to resident companies)
   2009/C 180/07
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Korkein hallinto-oikeus

      Party to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Aberdeen Property Fininvest Alpha Oy

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Interpretation of Articles 43 EC, 48 EC, 56 EC and 58 EC and Article 2(a) of Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States (OJ 1990 L 225, p. 6) — Retention at source on dividends distributed to a parent company established in another Member State, but exemption for dividends distributed to a parent company established on national territory — Taxable person not mentioned in the directive on parent companies and subsidiaries — Tax convention — Restriction of fundamental freedoms — Comparable situation.

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 43 EC and 48 EC must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which exempts from withholding tax dividends distributed by a subsidiary resident in that State to a share company resident in that State, but charges withholding tax on similar dividends paid to a parent company in the form of an open-ended investment company (SICAV) resident in another Member State which has a legal form unknown in the law of the former State, does not appear on the list of companies referred to in Article 2(a) of Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States, as amended by Council Directive 2003/123/EC of 22 December 2003, and is exempt from income tax under the law of the other Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.


title: Case T-617/15: Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2016 — Chic Investments v EUIPO (eSMOKING WORLD) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark eSMOKING WORLD — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               23.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/29

         Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2016 — Chic Investments v EUIPO (eSMOKING WORLD)
   (Case T-617/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark eSMOKING WORLD - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2017/C 022/38)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Chic Investments sp. z o.o. (Poznań, Poland) (represented by: K. Jarosiński, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 June 2015 (R 3227/2014-5) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign eSMOKING WORLD as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Chic Investments sp. z o.o. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 16, 18.1.2016.


title: Case C-611/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 October 2014  — Jean-François Giordano v European Commission (Appeals — Common fisheries policy — Fishing quotas — Emergency measures adopted by the Commission — Non-contractual liability of the European Union — Second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU — Conditions — Actual and certain harm — Individual fishing rights)

text:
               22.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/3

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 October 2014 — Jean-François Giordano v European Commission
   (Case C-611/12 P) (1)

   ((Appeals - Common fisheries policy - Fishing quotas - Emergency measures adopted by the Commission - Non-contractual liability of the European Union - Second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU - Conditions - Actual and certain harm - Individual fishing rights))
   (2014/C 462/04)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Jean-François Giordano (represented by: D. Rigeade and A. Scheuer, avocats)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet and D. Nardi, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Giordano v Commission (T-114/11, EU:T:2012:585);

               2.

               Dismisses the action for damages brought by Mr Jean-François Giordano in Case T-114/11;

               3.

               Orders Mr Jean-François Giordano and the Commission to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 71, 9.3.2013.


title: Case T-281/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 November 2008 — ecoblue v OHIM — Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria (Ecoblue) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark Ecoblue — Earlier Community word mark BLUE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               10.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/27

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 November 2008 — ecoblue v OHIM — Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria (Ecoblue)
   (Case T-281/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark Ecoblue - Earlier Community word mark BLUE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2009/C 6/54)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: ecoblue AG (Munich-Bogenhausen, Germany) (represented by: C. Osterrieth and T. Schmitz, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, SA (Madrid, Spain)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 April 2007 (Case R 844/2006-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, SA and ecoblue AG.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders ecoblue AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 235, 6.10.2007.


title: Case T-264/14: Judgment of the General Court of 23 October 2015 — Hansen v OHIM (WIN365) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark WIN365 — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               14.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 414/29

         Judgment of the General Court of 23 October 2015 — Hansen v OHIM (WIN365)
   (Case T-264/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark WIN365 - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 414/38)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Robert Hansen (Munich, Germany) (represented by: M. Pütz-Poulalion, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 February 2014 (Case R 908/2013-4), concerning an application for registration of the word sign WIN365 as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Robert Hansen to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 194, 24.6.2014.