title: Appeal brought on 5 June 1998 by Salzgitter AG (formerly Preussag Stahl AG) against the judgment delivered on 31 March 1998 by the Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-129/96 between Preussag Stahl AG, supported by the Federal Republic of Germany, and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-210/98 P)

text:
C 278/12               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      5.9.98
It is clear from the French legislation that the GSC is                   Appeal brought on 5 June 1998 by Salzgitter AG
intended to contribute to the financing of all the branches               (formerly Preussag Stahl AG) against the judgment
of the general social security scheme in France. Article 4                delivered on 31 March 1998 by the Third Chamber,
of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 covers all the legislation                 Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of
relating to the branches of social security listed in                     the European Communities in Case T-129/96 between
paragraph 1. The purpose and use made of the GSC thus                     Preussag Stahl AG, supported by the Federal Republic of
lead the Commission to take the view that it constitutes a                Germany, and the Commission of the European
social security contribution which comes within the scope                                         Communities
of that Regulation.                                                                            (Case C-210/98 P)
                                                                                (98/C 278/21)
The Commission considers that levying the GSC on
income from employment and income substitution benefit
                                                                          An appeal against the judgment delivered on 31 March
in the case of persons residing in France but working in
                                                                          1998 by the Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of
another Member State undermines the principle that a
                                                                          the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
single legislation is applicable, in that the GSC, which is
                                                                          in Case T-129/96 between Preussag Stahl AG, supported
intended to finance social security schemes, is levied on
                                                                          by the Federal Republic of Germany, and the Commission
incomes after deduction of all the social contributions due
                                                                          of the European Communities was brought before the
in the State of employment, the only State which is
                                                                          Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 June
competent in matters of social security for employed
                                                                          1998 by Salzgitter AG (formerly Preussag Stahl AG),
persons under Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71.
                                                                          represented by Jochim Sedemund, Rechtsanwalt, of Messrs
                                                                          Deringer, Tessin, Herrmann & Sedemund, Berlin, with an
                                                                          address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Finally, the Commission lays emphasis on the importance                   Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue, L-1671 Luxembourg.
and urgency of deciding, as a matter of principle, whether
it is compatible with Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 to levy
                                                                          The appellant claims that the Court should:
the GSC on employment income or income substitution
benefit derived from employment undertaken in another
Member State by persons resident in France for tax                        Ð set aside the judgment delivered on 31 March 1998
purposes, where social contributions have already been                        by the Court of First Instance of the European
deducted from that income. Although the French                                Communities in Case T-129/96 Preussag Stahl AG v.
authorities announced that they had ordered the                               Commission (1),
suspension of the levy in the case of frontier workers, it
should be borne in mind that this is a temporary and
provisional measure which can, by its very nature, be                     Ð annul Commission Decision 96/544/ECSC of 29 May
altered at the discretion of the competent national                           1996 concerning State aid to Walzwerk Ilsenburg
authority.                                                                    GmbH (OJ L 233, 14.9.1996, p. 24),
                                                                          Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
The reasons given by the French authorities for that
suspension were that amendments were being prepared to
the conditions for applying the GSC. In the final analysis,               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
the inescapable conclusion in these proceedings is that the
French authorities have taken no steps to provide a
satisfactory response to the specific and clearly delineated              Ð The decision of the Court of First Instance is based
objections raised by the Commission. The application of                       solely on the finding that the Commission ceased
the GSC none the less affects a large number of migrant                       ratione temporis to be competent, after 31 December
workers residing in France, of whom frontier workers are                      1994, to adopt a decision concerning aid to Walzwerk
just one example, who have thus for many years been in a                      Ilsenburg. Neither the Treaty nor the Steel Aids Code
position of legal uncertainty which is incompatible with                      provides any basis for such a conclusion, which the
the principles of Community law.                                              Court of First Instance purports to infer from the
                                                                              preventive nature of the procedure for examining
                                                                              proposed grants of aid and from certain material
                                                                              deadlines for payments of regional aid. If the Court of
The Commission does not therefore consider that                               First Instance were correct in its view that Article 4(c)
suspension of the levying of the GSC has ended or                             of the ECSC Treaty precludes any subsequent material
remedied the breach of Community law described by it.                         assessment of aid which has already been granted, that
                                                                              would mean that Article 6(4) of the Fifth Steel Aids
                                                                              Code (2) is unlawful. It is clear from that illogical
(1) OJ, English Special Edition, First Series II, p. 416.
                                                                              result that the legislature must have considered that
                                                                              the Commission remains obliged, and thus competent,
                                                                              to undertake a material assessment of a grant of aid
                                                                              even after that aid has been paid over to its recipient,
 ---pagebreak--- 5.9.98                 EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 278/13
Ð the view taken by the Court of First Instance,                       programmes provided for by Article 6 of Council
     according to which the Commission had three months                Directive 91/157/EEC (1) of 18 March 1991 on
     in which to complete its examination, is consistent               batteries and accumulators containing certain
     neither with the Aids Code nor with the need,                     dangerous substances, the Hellenic Republic has failed
     recognised by case-law, to complete that examination              to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty and that
     expeditiously,                                                    Directive,
Ð infringement of Article 6(6) of the Steel Aids Code and          Ð order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
     breach of the general principles of law relating to aid:
     in proceeding on the basis of the legally erroneous
     premise that the Commission's competence is limited           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     in time, the Court of First Instance disregarded the
     case-law of the Court of Justice, according to which a
                                                                   Under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty,
     definitive order for the repayment of aid must
                                                                   directives are binding, as to the result to be achieved,
     invariably be preceded by a conclusive opinion of the
                                                                   upon each Member State to which they are addressed.
     Commission finding the aid substantively illegal. By
                                                                   Under the first paragraph of Article 5 of the Treaty,
     concluding from a failure to comply with a time-limit
                                                                   Member States are to take all appropriate measures,
     Ð which not even the Commission regards as a
                                                                   whether general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the
     prescriptive deadline, and which it has in numerous
                                                                   obligations arising out of the Treaty or resulting from
     parallel cases treated as a mere administrative deadline
                                                                   action taken by the institutions of the Community.
     for notification purposes Ð that the aid was
     substantively illegal, the Court of First Instance
     unlawfully confused the formal and the substantive            It is not disputed that, up until the time when this
     aspects of the aid procedure,                                 application was drafted, the Hellenic Republic still had
                                                                   not drawn up programmes for the period from 18 March
Ð breach of the prohibition of discrimination: in dealing          1993 to 18 March 1997 as provided for by Article 6 of the
     extremely summarily with this head of claim, the              Directive, nor had it communicated to the Commission
     Court of First Instance failed to comment on the              programmes to secure the objectives laid down by that
     comparison made by the appellant between its own              Article.
     situation and the aid case of EKO Stahl,
                                                                   The Commission is therefore obliged to find that the
Ð breach of the principle of protection of legitimate              Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
     expectations,                                                 the Treaty and Directive 91/157/EEC.
Ð breach of the obligation to provide a statement of               (1) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991, p. 38.
     reasons.
(1) OJ C 166, 30.5.1998, p. 14.
(2) Decision No 3855/91/ECSC (OJ L 362, 31.12.1991, p. 57).
                                                                   Action brought on 16 June 1998 by the Commission of
                                                                     the European Communities against the French Republic
                                                                                (Case C-221/98)
Action brought on 10 June 1998 by the Commission of                                         (98/C 278/23)
 the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
                        (Case C-215/98)
                                                                   An action against the French Republic was brought before
                         (98/C 278/22)                             the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                   16 June 1998 by the Commission of the European
                                                                   Communities, represented by Marie Wolfcarius, of its
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought                Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities            in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
on 10 June 1998 by the Commission of the European                  Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Communities, represented by Maria Kondou-Durande,
of its Legal Service, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of            The Commission of the European Communities claims
its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                       that the Court should:
The Commission claims that the Court should:                       1. declare that:
Ð declare that, by failing to adopt or to communicate                  Ð by not allowing students, who are nationals of
     to the Commission within the prescribed period the                     other Member States and seek to have their right


title: Case C-466/16 P: Appeal brought on 20 August 2016 by Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 9 June 2016 in Case T-277/13: Marquis Energy LLC v Council of the European Union

text:
               31.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/22

         Appeal brought on 20 August 2016 by Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 9 June 2016 in Case T-277/13: Marquis Energy LLC v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-466/16 P)
   (2016/C 402/24)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert, Agent, N. Tuominen, Avocat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Marquis Energy LLC, European Commission, ePURE, de Europese Producenten Unie van Hernieuwbare Ethanol

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of 9 June 2016, notified to the Council on 10 June 2016, in Case T-277/13 Marquis Energy v Council of the European Union;

               —

               reject the application at first instance brought by Marquis Energy for the annulment of the Contested Regulation (1);

               —

               order Marquis Energy to pay the Council’s costs both at first instance and on appeal.

         Alternatively,

               —

               refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration;

               —

               reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal in case of referral back to the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present appeal, the Council respectfully requests that the Contested Judgment be set aside on the following grounds:
   The General Court’s findings on the admissibility of the action, and in particular its conclusions on the Applicants' direct and individual concern are legally erroneous.

               a.

               First, the General Court takes the view that for finding direct concern, it is sufficient that the Applicant is a producer of bioethanol. However, this finding on direct effect cannot be reconciled with established case-law which rejects direct effect on the basis of purely economic consequences.

               b.

               Second, it is not clear how the mere fact that the Applicant has sold its bioethanol to domestic traders/blenders, which was subsequently resold domestically or exported by the domestic traders/blenders in significant quantities to the Union, prior to the imposition of duties, would substantially affect their market position. In order to show a substantial affectation of its market position by virtue of the introduction of the duties, it would have been necessary, at the very least, for the Applicant to establish the impact of the duties on the level of imports into the Union following the imposition of the anti-dumping duties. However, the Applicant did not provide any information in that regard, and the Contested Judgment does not contain any finding on that point either. This is both an error of law in the application of the test for individual concern, as well as a failure to state reasons.

         Insofar as the merits are concerned, the General Court committed an error of law in so far as the interpretation of the Basic Regulation (2) is concerned and a further two errors in law in so far as WTO law is concerned.

               a.

               First, the General Court has wrongly interpreted the Basic Regulation when it considers that Article 9(5) of the Basic Regulation implements both Article 9.2 and Article 6.10 of the AD Agreement. On the one hand, as can be seen from the wording of Article 9(5) of the Basic Regulation, the latter provision does not deal with the question of sampling. On the other hand, Article 6.10 of the AD Agreement is implemented by Article 17 and Article 9(6) of the Basic Regulation, and not by Article 9(5) of the Basic Regulation.

               b.

               Second, the General Court has wrongly interpreted the term ‘supplier’ in Article 9(5) of the Basic Regulation and Article 9.2 of the AD Agreement. It follows from the logic and general scheme of Article 9(5) that only a ‘source found to be dumped and causing injury’ can be a supplier. However, as the US producers had no export price, they could not have been charged with dumping. Consequently, the General Court erred in law by qualifying them as ‘suppliers’ in the sense of Article 9(5) of the Basic Regulation and Article 9.2 of the AD Agreement.

               c.

               Third, the General Court has wrongly interpreted the term ‘impracticable’ in Article 9(5) of the Basic Regulation and Article 9.2 of the AD Agreement, by relying on an erroneous interpretation of Article 9(5) of the Basic Regulation in light of Article 6.10 of the AD Agreement, as well as on the Appellate Body report in EC — Fasteners (3). The latter report only deals with Article 9.2 of the AD Agreement and hence its examination of the term ‘impracticable’ only relates to the situation and treatment that Article 9(5) of the Basic Regulation provides for exporters in non-market economies. The Appellate Body therefore did not provide an interpretation of ‘impracticable’ that could be transposed to the current proceedings which do not concern exporters in nonmarket economies.

         Finally, the General Court has made substantially incorrect findings of fact when it concluded that the calculation of individual duties was ‘practicable’. A situation in which the producers of bioethanol do not have an export price, but only a domestic price, clearly renders it impracticable and impossible to establish an individual dumping margin, and authorises the Commission to establish one single countrywide dumping margin.

      (1)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 157/2013 of 18 February 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bioethanol originating in the United States of AmericaOJ L 49, p. 10

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

      (3)  European Communities — Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Iron or Steel Fasteners from China — AB-2011-2 — Report of the Appellate Body, WT/DS397/AB/R (‘EC — Fasteners, WT/DS397/AB/R’)


title: Case T-608/13: Action brought on 22 November 2013 — easyGroup IP Licensing v OHIM — TUI (easyAir-tours)

text:
               25.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/33

         Action brought on 22 November 2013 — easyGroup IP Licensing v OHIM — TUI (easyAir-tours)
   (Case T-608/13)
   2014/C 24/60
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: easyGroup IP Licensing Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Day, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: TUI AG (Hannover, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 5 September 2013 given in Case R 1029/2012-1;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the verbal elements ‘easyAir-tours’ for goods and services in Classes 16, 36, 39 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 9 220 849

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: International trade mark registrations designating the European Union, Community trade mark registration and national trade mark registration of a figurative mark containing inter alia the verbal element ‘airtours’

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the Community trade mark application in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

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


title: Case F-124/05: Action brought on  16 December 2005  — A v Commission

text:
               8.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/47

         Action brought on 16 December 2005 — A v Commission
   (Case F-124/05)
   (2006/C 86/86)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: A (Port-Vendres, France) (represented by: B. Cambier and L. Cambier, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the defendant's decision of 28 February 2005 rejecting the request submitted by the applicant on 22 October 2004 on the basis of Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities, and seeking the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings brought against him by a decision of 16 January 2004;

               —

               annul the defendant's decision of 26 September 2005 dismissing the applicant's complaint submitted on 20 May 2005 on the basis of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations, and seeking the reversal of the abovementioned decision of 28 February 2005;

               —

               rule that the abovementioned request of the applicant of 22 October 2004 is admissible and well-founded;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicant and his family the provisional sum of EUR 1 581 801, which corresponds to half of the loss caused by the decision to set in motion and continue the disciplinary proceedings brought against the applicant, the other half of which is to be specified with the assistance of an expert;

               —

               order the defendant to pay 8 % interest on all of the sums above, and to do so as from 23 November 1999, the date of the conclusion of the first report of the internal investigation carried out by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) in which the first signs of prejudice towards the applicant are shown, or, alternatively, as from 16 January 2004, the date on which the Appointing Authority decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the applicant;

               —

               designate an expert;

               —

               order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of his action, the applicant advances six pleas.
   In the first, he claims that the disciplinary proceedings at issue were set in motion exclusively on account of the criminal proceedings introduced against him, which were settled by a final decision that there was no need to rule on the matter, given by the Brussels Chambre du Conseil (the court sitting in chambers) on 30 June 2004. The disciplinary proceedings, in his view, should therefore be treated in the same way.
   In the second plea, the applicant invokes the authority of res judicata with respect to the abovementioned decision that there was no need to rule on the matter, against which the defendant did not lodge an appeal.
   In the alternative, should it be held that the Appointing Authority can take further steps in the disciplinary proceedings based on facts judged once and for all by the Brussels Chambre du Conseil not to be proven, the applicant submits, in his third plea, that the contested decisions wrongly link the outcome of the proceedings brought against him with the outcome of the proceedings taking place against Ms Cresson.
   Subsequently, in the fourth and fifth pleas, the applicant argues that the charges against him are wrong and that the Appointing Authority has infringed the duty to have regard for the interests of officials laid down in Article 24 of the Staff Regulations and the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, in so far as it has not done everything within its power to understand the true course of events.
   Lastly, in his final plea, the applicant submits that, in any event, the reasonable period within which the Appointing Authority should have taken a decision expired a long time ago, as the facts date from the years 1995-1996.
   Regarding the application for compensation, the applicant claims that the defendant's misconduct is at the root of his nervous breakdown which forced him to end his career as an official prematurely. That event has caused him and his family material and non-material damage.


title: Case T-118/02: Action brought on 16 April 2002 by Arjo Wiggins Appleton Limited against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 169/34              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      13.7.2002
Proprietor of the right to   Elf Atochem North America, Inc.             The applicant claims that the Court should:
the trade mark or sign       now called Atofina Chemicals Inc.
asserted by way of oppo-
sition in the opposition                                                 —     annul or, alternatively, substantially reduce the fine
proceedings:                                                                   imposed on the applicant pursuant to Commission
                                                                               Decision C(2001)4573 final corr. of 20 December 2001
                                                                               relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC
Trade mark or sign           The national and international                    Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/
asserted by way of oppo-     figurative marks ‘Biomet’ and the                 E-1/36.212 — Carbonless paper);
sition in the opposition     national word mark ‘Biomet’ for
proceedings:                 certain goods in classes 1 and 5
                                                                         —     order the Commission to pay the applicant’s legal and
                                                                               other costs and expenses in relation to this matter.
Decision of the Oppo-        Rejection of the opposition of
sition Division:             Atofina Chemicals Inc.
Decision of the Board of     Partial annulment of the Oppo-
Appeal:                      sition Division’s decision.                 Pleas in law and main arguments
Grounds of claim:            Violation of Article 17(2) of Com-
                             mission       Regulation       2868/        In the contested Decision, the Commission found that the
                             95 (1)since a translation into the          applicant and ten other manufacturers of carbonless paper had
                             language of the procedure of the            infringed Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty and Article 53(1) of
                             evidence submitted was not filed            the EEA Agreement by participating in a complex of agree-
                             in due time.                                ments and concerted practices by which they fixed price
                                                                         increases, allocated sales quotas and fixed market shares and
                                                                         set up machinery to monitor the implementation of the
                                                                         restrictive agreements.
(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December
    1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the
    Community trade mark (OJ L 303 of 15.12.1995, p. 1).                 The applicant submits that the Commission erred in respect of
                                                                         each of the stages of its calculation of the applicant’s fine:
                                                                         —     it imposed an amount for ‘gravity’ (EUR 70 million) that
                                                                               was disproportionately high;
                                                                         —     it increased this amount by 100 % for ‘deterrence’ for no
                                                                               good reason;
                                                                         —     it imposed a further increase of 50 % for ‘leadership’
Action brought on 16 April 2002 by Arjo Wiggins                                which was entirely disproportionate to the role played by
Appleton Limited against the Commission of the Euro-                           the applicant; and
                      pean Communities
                                                                         —     it granted an insufficient reduction for cooperation.
                        (Case T-118/02)
                                                                         In addition, the applicant alleges that the Commission failed
                        (2002/C 169/61)                                  to take account of the economic difficulties of the carbonless
                                                                         paper market as an attenuating circumstance to reduce the
                                                                         level of the fine; it breached the applicant’s rights of defence;
                  (Language of the case: English)                        and it made a series of mistakes of a kind that it ought not to
                                                                         have made in a decision imposing a EUR 185 million fine.
                                                                         The applicant submits that the combination of these errors
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                resulted in almost 60 % of the total of the fines handed down
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               being imposed on the applicant alone, which is clearly out of
European Communities on 16 April 2002 by Arjo Wiggins                    proportion to the applicant’s market share.
Appleton Limited, represented by Mr François Brunet, Mr John
Temple Lang and Mr Jacob Grierson of Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen
& Hamilton, Paris (France).


title: Case T-411/11: Action brought on 28 July 2011 — Hemofarm v OHIM — Laboratorios Diafarm (HEMOFARM)

text:
               22.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/44

         Action brought on 28 July 2011 — Hemofarm v OHIM — Laboratorios Diafarm (HEMOFARM)
   (Case T-411/11)
   2011/C 311/83
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Hemofarm AD farmaceutsko-hemijska industrija Vršac (Vršac, Serbia) (represented by: D. Cañadas Arcas)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Laboratorios Diafarm, SA (Barberá del Vallès, Spain)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               stay the proceedings brought by the applicant before the General Court in its action against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 May 2011 until OHIM and Barcelona Commercial Courts Nos 4 and 8 have adjudicated upon the applications for a declaration of invalidity and for revocation on grounds of non-use;

               —

               in the alternative, review, annul or, if necessary, vary decision R 298/2010-4 of the Fourth Board of Appeal as regards the contested goods in Class 5, so as to reject opposition B 996 506 in relation to that class, and consequently grant the applicant’s application for Community trade mark No 4 504 049‘HEMOFARM’ for all the goods in Class 5 and register that mark in Classes 5 and 35 as sought.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘HEMOFARM’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 5 and 35.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Laboratorios Diafarm, SA.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community and international word mark ‘HEMOFARM’ for goods in Classes 3 and 16 and national word marks ‘HEMOPLANT’ and ‘HEMONET’ for goods in Class 5.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

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

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


               3.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/15

         Action brought on 28 June 2013 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland
   (Case E-11/13)
   2013/C 287/11
   An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 28 June 2013 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Xavier Lewis, Clémence Perrin and Maria Moustakali, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 Rue Belliard, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

               1.

               declare that by failing to implement correctly Article 9, paragraphs 1 and 2, and Article 10 of the Act referred to at point 13b in Annex IX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2002/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 December 2002 on insurance mediation), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement;

               2.

               order Iceland to bear the costs of these proceedings.

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

               —

               The application addresses the failure by Iceland to comply, no later than 4 September 2012, with reasoned opinion issued by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 4 July 2012 on the failure to correctly implement Article 9, paragraphs 1 and 2, and Article 10 of the Act referred to at point 13b in Annex IX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2002/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 December 2002 on insurance mediation) (‘the Directive’).

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9, paragraphs 1 and 2, and Article 10 of the Directive, as well as under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Directive within the time prescribed.


title: Case C-322/05 P: Appeal brought on 24 August 2005 by Hippocrate Vounakis against the order made on 2 June 2005 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber) in Case T-326/03: Hippocrate Vounakis v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               15.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 257/6

         Appeal brought on 24 August 2005 by Hippocrate Vounakis against the order made on 2 June 2005 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber) in Case T-326/03: Hippocrate Vounakis v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-322/05 P)
   (2005/C 257/11)
   Language of the case: French
   An appeal was brought on 24 August 2005 before the Court of Justice of the European Communities by Hippocrate Vounakis, represented by S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers, against the order made on 2 June 2005 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber) in Case T-326/03: Hippocrate Vounakis v Commission of the European Communities.
   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               Annul the order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 2 June 2005 in Case T-326/03 (Hippocrate Vounakis v Commission of the European Communities) in its entirety;

               2.

               Giving judgment itself, order that the action for annulment of the Commission's decision not to include the appellant's name on the list of officials promoted to Grade A4 under the 2002 promotion procedure is admissible;

               3.

               Order the defendant at first instance and on the appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   In support of his appeal the appellant submits that the Court of First Instance erred in law in its definition of the decision challenged by the appellant.
   The Court of First Instance wrongly held the decision challenged by the appellant to be the decision establishing the list of promoted officials, that decision consisting of a collection of individual acts of which the promoted officials are the addressees, whereas the decision challenged is the strictly individual decision not to include the appellant's name on the list of those promoted.
   Since the appellant was not an addressee of the decision to promote the other officials, wrongly regarded as the challenged act, the Court of First Instance held that the second sentence of the second indent of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations was applicable and that therefore, with regard to him, although he was on annual leave until 16 September and the decision was published on 14 August 2002, the time-limit for his complaint started to run, in any event, on the date of publication of that list.
   In so doing, the Court of First Instance misconstrued the first sentence of the second indent of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations since the act challenged is the individual decision not, after comparing the merits of the officials eligible for promotion, to promote the appellant and not the individual decisions to promote the other officials promoted who are not complaining about them.
   Since it was part of an individual decision, it should have been ‘properly’ brought to his knowledge.
   From the entirety of the arguments set out above, it is apparent that the Court of First Instance made an error of law.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 16 January 1997 in Case C-134/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale, Biella): Unità Socio-Sanitaria Locale n. 47 di Biella (USSL) v. Istituto Nazionale per l'Assicurazione contro gli Infortuni sul Lavoro (INAIL) (Workers - Labour procurement service - Statutory monopoly)

text:
8 . 3 . 97            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 74/3
1 . dismisses the application;                                              where it is established that the charge has been
                                                                            borne in its entirety by another person and that
                                                                            reimbursement of the trader would constitute unjust
2 . orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.                           enrichment. It is for the national courts to determine,
                                                                            in the light of the facts in each case, whether those
(') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .                                           conditions have been satisfied. If the burden of the
                                                                            charge has been passed on only in part, it is for
                                                                            the national authorities to reimburse the trader the
                                                                            amount not passed on.
                                                                       2 . The fact that there is a legal obligation to incorporate
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       the charge in the cost price does not mean that there is
                        of 14 January 1997                                  a presumption that the entire charge has been passed
                                                                            on, even where failure to comply with that obligation
in Joined Cases C- 192/95 to C-2 18/95 (reference for a                     carries a penalty.
preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d'Instance de Paris ):
Societe Comateb and Others v. Directeur General des
                 Douanes et Droits Indirects (')                       3 . Where, although the charge has been passed on to the
                                                                            purchaser, domestic law permits the trader to claim
(Dock dues — Recovery of sums not due — Obligation to                       that the illegal levying of the charge has caused him
          pass on the charge — Overseas departments)                        damage which excludes, in whole or in part, any
                            ( 97/C 74/04 )                                  unjust enrichment, it is for the national court to give
                                                                            such effect to the claim as may be appropriate.
                 (Language of the case: French)                        (') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
           published in the European Court Reports)
In Joined Cases C-192/95 to C-218/95 : reference to the
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the Tribunal
d'Instance de Paris, for a preliminary ruling in the                                             ( Sixth Chamber)
proceedings pending before that court between Société                                         of 16 January 1997
 Comateb ( C-192/95 ), Société Panigua ( C-193/95 ), Société
 Édouard et Fils ( C-194/95 ), Société de Distribution de              in Case C-134/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
Vins et Liqueurs ( C- 1 95/95 ), Établissements André Haan             the Pretura Circondariale, Biella): Unità Socio-Sanitaria
 ( C-l 96/95 ), Société Diffusion Générale de Quincaillerie            Locale n. 47 di Biella (USSL) v. Istituto Nazionale per
 ( C-197/95 ), Société Diffusion Générale ( C-198/95 ), Société         l'Assicurazione contro gli Infortuni sul Lavoro (INAIL) (')
 Cama Renault ( C-199/95 ), SCP Ovide et Dorville ( C-200/              (Workers — Labour procurement service — Statutory
 95 ), Société Ducros Guadeloupe ( C-201 /95 ), Société                                              monopoly)
 Comptoir Commercial Caraïbes ( C-202/95 ), Société Giafa
 ( C-203/95 ), Société LVS ( C-204/95 ), Société Catherine et                                        97/C 74/05 )
Jean-Claude Tabar Nouval ( C-205/95 ), Société l'Heure et
 l'Or ( C-206/95 ), Société Général Bazar Bricolage ( C-207/                            (Language of the case: Italian)
 95 ), Société Grain d'Or ( C-208/95 ), Société Cash Service
 ( C-209/95 ), Établissements Efira ( C-210/95 ), Société Fa
 randole ( C-211/95 ), Société Carat ( C-212/95 ), Société Rio            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
  ( C-213/95 ), Société Guadaloupéenne de Distribution Mod                       published in the European Court Reports)
 erne ( SGDM ) ( C-214/95 ), Martinique Automobiles SA
  (C-215/95 ), Socovi Sari ( C-216/95 ), Établissements Ga             In Case C- 134/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
  briel Vangour et Cie Sari ( C-217/95 ), Simat Guadeloupe
                                                                        of the EC Treaty from the Pretura Circondariale (District
  Sari ( C-218/95 ) and Directeur Général des Douanes et
  Droits Indirects — on the interpretation of Community                 Magistrate's Court), Biella ( Italy ), for a preliminary ruling
  law concerning repayment of sums not due, the Court                   in the proceedings pending before that court between
                                                                        Unità Socio-Sanitaria Locale n. 47 di Biella ( USSL ) and
 composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, G. F.
  Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida and J. L. Murray,                  Istituto Nazionale per l'Assicurazione contro gli Infortuni
  Presidents of Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn, D. A. O. Edward              sul Lavoro ( INAIL ) — on the interpretation of Articles 48 ,
  ( Rapporteur), J. -P. Puissochet, P. Jann and H. Ragnemalm,           49, 54 and 90 of the EC Treaty — the Court ( Sixth
  Judges, Advocate-General : G. Tesauro, Registrar: H. von              Chamber ), composed of: J. L. Murray, President of the
  Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on                   Fourth Chamber, acting for the President of the Sixth
   14 January 1997 in which it rules :                                  Chamber, C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G. Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ),
                                                                        G. Hirsch and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; M. B. Elmer,
                                                                        Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
   1 . A Member State may resist repayment to the trader of             Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 January 1997, in
       a charge levied in breach of Community law only                  which it has ruled :
 ---pagebreak---  No C 74/4            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      8 . 3 . 97
 Articles 48, 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty do not apply to a             concluded a cultivation contract with a group of
 situation which is confined in all respects within a single          producers, as referring to the delivery, by a producer or
 Member State.                                                        group of producers to the processor, of a quantity of
                                                                       tobacco to be processed in performance of the cultivation
                                                                       contract.
 H OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .
                                                                       (') OJ No C 286 , 28 . 10 . 1995 .
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        (Third Chamber)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                      of 16 January 1997                                                       ( Sixth Chamber)
 in Case C-273/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                    of 23 January 1997
 the Pretura Circondariale, Verona): Impresa Agricola
 Buratti Leonardo, Pierluigi e Livio v. Tabacchicoltori               in Case C-463/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
           Associati Veneti Soc. coop, ari (TAV) (')                  the Verwaltungsgericht Düsseldorf): Katholische Kirchen
                                                                      gemeinde St. Martinus Elten v. Landwirtschaftskammer
 (Common organization of the market — Raw tobacco —                   Rheinland, joined parties: Arnold Derksen, Johann
 Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3478/92 — Premium                                                    Thyssen (')
 system for raw tobacco — Calculation of the premium to
 be paid by a group of producers to the individual                    (Additional levy on milk — Calculation of the reference
                            producer)                                 quantity — Taking into account of a quantity produced in
                                                                                another Member State)
                           97/C 74/06
                                                                                ( 97/C 74/07
                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-273/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                     In Case C-463/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Pretura Circondariale ( District
Magistrate's Court), Verona, Sezione Distaccata di Isola             of the EC Treaty from the Verwaltungsgericht
della Scala (Isola della Scala Division ) (Italy) for a               (Administrative Court) Düsseldorf, Germany, for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that            preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Impresa Agricola Buratti Leonardo, Pierlui            Court between Katholische Kirchengemeinde St. Martinus
gi e Livio and Tabacchicoltori Associati Veneti Soc. coop,           Elten and Landwirtschaftskammer Rheinland, joined
arl (TAV) — on the interpretation of Articles 10 and 11 of           parties: Arnold Derksen, Johann Thyssen — on the
Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 3478/92 of 1 December               interpretation of the rules governing the additional levy on
 1992 laying down detailed rules for the application of the          milk introduced by Council Regulation ( EEC) No 856/84
premium system for raw tobacco ( OJ No L 351 , 2 . 12.               of 31 March 1984 amending Regulation ( EEC ) No 804/68
 1992, p. 17), as amended by Commission Regulation ( EC )            on the common organization of the market in milk and
No 3477/93 of 17 December 1993 concerning the                        milk products ( OJ No L 90, 9 . 4 . 1984, p. 10 ), Council
agricultural conversion rates to be applied in the tobacco           Regulation ( EEC ) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting
sector ( OJ No L 317, 18 . 12 . 19 93 , p. 30 ) — the Court          general rules for the application of the levy referred to in
(Third Chamber ), composed of: J. C. Moitinho de                     Article 5c of Regulation ( EEC ) No 804/68 ( OJ No L 90,
Almeida ( Rapporteur ), President of the Chamber, C.                 1 . 4 . 1984, p. 13 ), as amended by Council Regulation
Gulmann and J. -P. Puissochet, Judges; M. B. Elmer,                  ( EEC ) No 590/85 of 26 February 1985 amending
Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl , Principal Administrator,              Regulation (EEC ) No 857/84 ( OJ No L 68 , 8 . 3 . 1985,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 January                p. 1 ), and Commission Regulation ( EEC) No 1546/88 of
1997, in which it has ruled :                                        3 June 1988 laying down detailed rules for the application
                                                                     of the additional levy referred to in Article 5c of
                                                                     Regulation ( EEC ) No 804/68 ( OJ No L 139, 4. 6 . 1988 ,
The terms 'delivery under contract' and 'delivery ' used             p. 12 ) — The Court ( Sixth Chamber), composed of: J. L.
respectively in Article 10 of Commission Regulation                  Murray, President of the Fourth Chamber, acting as
(EEC) No 3478/92 of 1 December 1992 laying down                      President of the Sixth Chamber, C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G.
detailed rules for the application of the premium system             Kapteyn, G. Hirsch ( Rapporteur) and H. Ragnemalm,
for raw tobacco, and Article 1 of Commission Regulation              Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate-General;
(EC) No 3477/93 of 17 December 1993 concerning the                   D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the
agricultural conversion rates to be applied in the tobacco           Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 January 1997, in
sector are to be interpreted, where the processor has                which it has ruled:


title: Case F-37/05: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 24 September 2009 — Brown v Commission (Staff case — Competition internal to the institution — Admission criteria — Members of the auxiliary staff — Rejection of candidature)

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/83

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 24 September 2009 — Brown v Commission
   (Case F-37/05) (1)

   (Staff case - Competition internal to the institution - Admission criteria - Members of the auxiliary staff - Rejection of candidature)
   2009/C 267/148
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Michael Brown (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by: L. Vogel, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Tserepa-Lacombe and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of the selection board’s decision in competition COM/PB/04, competition for change of category C to B, refusing to admit the applicant to the pre-selection tests for that competition on the ground that he did not fulfil the required statutory condition at the closing date for the lodging of applications

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 193, 6/8/2005, p. 36. (the case was initially brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under Case T-208/05 and transferred to the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union by order of 15.12.2005)


title: Case T-200/09: Order of the General Court of 18 May 2010 — Abertis Infraestructuras v Commission (Action for annulment — Concentrations — Decision to close the procedure initiated under Article 21(4) of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 — Period within which proceedings must be brought — Starting point — Inadmissibility)

text:
               17.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/18

         Order of the General Court of 18 May 2010 — Abertis Infraestructuras v Commission
   (Case T-200/09) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Concentrations - Decision to close the procedure initiated under Article 21(4) of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 - Period within which proceedings must be brought - Starting point - Inadmissibility)
   2010/C 195/30
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Abertis Infraestructuras, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: M. Roca Junyent and P. Callol García, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci and É. Gippini Fournier, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application to annul the Commission’s decision of 13 August 2008 to close the procedure initiated under Article 21(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ 2004 L 24, p. 1), in relation to a concentration transaction between the applicant and Autostrade SpA (Case COMP/M.4388 — Abertis/Autostrade)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Abertis Infraestructuras, SA is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 167, 18.7.2009.


title: Action brought on 25 January 1996 by Area Cova, SA and Others against the Commission of the European Communities and the Council of the European Union (Case T-12/96)

text:
 16 . 3 . 96            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 77/ 17
The applicant claims that the Court should :                             Pontevedra, Spain ), Asociación Nacional de Armadores de
— annul the decision of the Commission of 21 March
                                                                         Buques ( whose registered office is in Vigo, Pontevedra,
                                                                         Spain), Congeladores de Pesca de Merluza (Anamer) ( whose
      1995, in so far as it fixes Brussels as the applicant's place      registered office is in Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain ), Asociación
     of recruitment and place of origin, together with all               Nacional de Armadores de Buques Congeladores de
     decisions subsequently adopted on the basis thereof,                Pesquerías Varias ( Anavar ) (whose registered office is in
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                                 Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain ) and the Asociación de Sociedades
                                                                         Pesqueras Españolas (ASPE ) (whose registered office is in
Pleas in law and main arguments:                                         Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain ) represented by Antonio Creus
                                                                         Carreras and Xavier Ruiz Calzado, of the Barcelona Bar,
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
in Case T-33/95 Lozano Palacios v. Commission of the                     and by Bonifacio García Porras, of the Salamanca Bar, with
European Communities.
                                                                         an address for service at 78 Avenue d'Auderghem,
                                                                         Brussels .
                                                                         The applicant claims that the court should :
Action brought on 25 January 1996 by Area Cova, SA                       — annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 2565/95 of
and Others against the Commission of the European                             30 October 1995 concerning the stopping of fishing for
  Communities and the Council of the European Union                           Greenland halibut by vessels flying the flag of a Member
                                                                              State inasmuch as it prohibits fishing for Greenland
                          ( Case T-12/96 )                                    halibut in the waters of NAFO zones 2 and 3 by vessels
                            ( 96/C 77/37 )                                   flying the flag of a Member State or registered in a
                                                                             Member State, as well as the retention on board, the
                (Language of the case: Spanish)                              transhipment and the landing of such stock captured by
                                                                             the abovementioned vessels after the date of entry into
An action against the Commission of the European                              force of that Regulation,
Communities and the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European               — declare Council Regulation ( EC ) No 1761/95 of 29 June
Communities on 25 January 1996 by Area Cova, SA ( whose                       1995 amending, for the second time, Regulation ( EC )
registered office is in Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain ), Armadora                  No 3366/94 laying down for 1995 certain conservation
Jose Pereira, SA ( whose registered office is in Vigo,                       and management measures for fishery resources in the
Pontevedra, Spain ), Armadores Pesqueros de Aldan, SA                        Regulatory Area as defined in the Convention on Future
(whose registered office is in Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain ),                    Multilateral Cooperation in the North-west Atlantic
Centropesca, SA ( whose registered office is in Vigo,                         Fisheries, inapplicable inasmuch as it establishes the
Pontevedra, Spain ), Chymar, SA (whose registered office is                  quota for Greenland halibut for the Community fleet in
in Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain ), Eloymar, SA ( whose registered                 NAFO areas 3 LMNO at 5 013 tonnes, modifying the
office is in Estribela, Pontevedra, Spain ), Exfaumar, SA                    autonomous quota of 18 630 tonnes established by
(whose registered office is in Bueu, Pontevedra, Spain ),                     Regulation ( EC ) No 850/95 and in so far as it is the basis
Farpespan, SL (whose registered office is in Moaña,                           for Regulation ( EC) No 2565/95 ,
Pontevedra, Spain ), Freiremar, SA ( whose registered office is         — declare the Bilateral Agreement on Fisheries between the
in Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain ), Hermanos Gandón, SA ( whose                    European Community and the Government of Canada,
registered office is in Cangas, Pontevedra, Spain), Heroya,                   signed on 20 April 1995 in the context of the NAFO
SA (whose registered office is in Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain ),                  Convention, inapplicable in so far as it establishes a
Hiopesca, SA (whose registered office is in Vigo,                            quota for catches of Greenland halibut for the
Pontevedra, Spain ), Jose Pereira e Hijos, SA (whose                          Community fleet of 5 013 tonnes as from 16 April 1995 ,
registered office is in Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain ), Juana Oya                 which is below the autonomous quota established
Perez ( whose registered office is in Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain ),              by Regulation ( EC ) No 850/95 , and in so far as it is the
Manuel Nores Gonzalez (whose registered office is in                          basis for the abovementioned Regulation ( EC ) No
Marin, Pontevedra, Spain ), Moradiña, SA (whose registered                    1761 /95 ,
office is in Cangas, Pontevedra, Spain ), Navales Cerdeiras,
SL (whose registered office is in Camariñas, La Coruña,                  — order the Commission and/or the Council to pay all the
Spain), Nugago Pesca, SA ( whose registered office is in                     costs of the proceedings.
Bueu, Pontevedra, Spain ), Pesquera Austral, SA ( whose                  Pleas in law and main arguments:
registered office is in Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain ), Pescaberbés,
SA (whose registered office is in Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain ),             The applicant companies in the present case, owners of the
Pesquerías Bígaro Narval, SA ( whose registered office is in             36 Spanish freezer trawlers authorized to catch Greenland
Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain ), Pesquera Cíes, SA ( whose                     halibut in NAFO waters in areas 2 and 3 , according to the
registered office is in Vigo, Pontevedra , Spain ), Pesca                fishing plans approved by the Spanish administrative
Herculina, SA (whose registered office is in Vigo,                       authorities for 1995 , challenge the lawfulness of Regulation
Pontevedra, Spain), Pesquera Inter, SA (whose registered                 (EC) No 1761 /95 and the Bilateral Agreement on Fisheries
office is in Cangas, Pontevedra, Spain ), Pesquerías                     between the European Community and Canada inasmuch
Marinenses, SA (whose registered office is in Marin,                     as it establishes a quota as from 16 April 1995 for Greenland
Pontevedra, Spain ), Pesquerías Tara, SA (whose registered               halibut for the Community fleet which is less than the quota
office is in Cangas, Pontevedra, Spain ), Pesquera Vaqueiro,             established by Regulation ( EC ) No 850/95 . The pleas in law
SA (whose registered office is in Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain),              relied upon with regard to infringement are analogous with
Sotelo Dios, SA (whose registered office is in Vigo,                     those in Case T-l 94/95 (*).
 ---pagebreak--- No C 77/ 18        1 EN |                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    16 . 3 . 96
As regards Regulation ( EC ) No 2565/95 , the applicants, in           Government of Biscay of the other part. By the contested
seeking its annulment, claim, first of all, that it does not state     decision, the Commission considered that the new
reasons as required by Article 190 of the EC Treaty and,               agreement, which runs from 1995 to 1998 , does not
secondly, that Article 155 of the EC Treaty has been                   constitute State aid .
infringed since the Commission, which is entrusted with
safeguarding the rule of law in the Community, was aware               The applicant claims, first, that the Commission disregarded
of the unlawfulness of the basis of Regulation ( EC ) No               the principle audi alteram partem in deciding to terminate
1671 /95 , it should not have proceeded to adopt a                     the procedure laid down in Article 93 ( 2 ) without giving the
Regulation in implementation thereof.                                  complainant the opportunity to submit comments . It points
                                                                       out in that connection that at no time during the procedure
(>) OJ No C 315 , 25 . 11 . 1995 , p . 22 .                            was it informed that a new agreement had been drawn up
                                                                       and concluded between the Spanish authorities and Ferries
                                                                       Golfo de Vizcaya, an agreement of whose content it is a
                                                                       fortiori unaware; it was therefore unable to submit
                                                                       observations on the new agreement.
                                                                       The applicant also considers that the contested decision
Action brought on 1 February 1996 by Societe Bretagne                  does not satisfy the requirement under Article 190 of the EC
Angleterre Irlande (BAI ) againt the Commission of the                 Treaty to state the reasons on which it is based, since it does
                  European Communities                                 not permit the parties concerned to know the reasons which
                        ( Case T-14/96 )                               led the Commission to consider that the new agreement does
                          ( 96/C 77/38 )
                                                                       not constitute State aid or permit the Community judicature
                                                                       to exercise judicial review. The applicant adds that in
                                                                       addition to the obviously inadequate statement of reasons,
               (Language of the case: French)                          the contested decision contains manifest errors .
An action against the Commission of the European                       Secondly, the applicant claims that the agreement concluded
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      under the aegis of the Commission favours Ferries Golfo de
Instance of the European Communities on 1 February 1996                Vizcaya because it concerns either a Spanish or Basque
by Bretagne Angleterre Irlande ( Brittany Ferries ), a                 undertaking, or an undertaking having its registered office
company whose registered office is in Roscoff ( France ),              in Spain or the Basque country. By allowing and ratifying
represented by Jean-Michel Payre, of the Paris Bar, with an            such discrimination, however considerable the ensuing
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                   obstacle to freedom to provide services , the Commission has
Aloyse May, 31 Grand-rue,                                              infringed Article 6 of the EC Treaty, in conjunction with
                                                                       Articles 3f and 92 ( 1 ).
The applicant claims that the Court should :                           Lastly, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 92 ( 1 ) of
                                                                       the EC Treaty, pointing out that massive buying of Ferries
— annul the Commission's decision in State Aid C 32/93 ,               Golfo de Vizcaya transport vouchers by the Spanish
    published in the Official Journal of the European                  authorities strengthens that company's position and the
     Communities on 1 December 1995 ( OJ No C 321 ,                    question of the financial profitability or otherwise of the
    P - 4 ),                                                           ferry service thus guaranteed is irrelevant, contrary to what
                                                                       is stated in the contested decision .
— order the Commission to pay the costs .
Pleas in law and main arguments:
The applicant, a French shipping company which has for
many years operated a ferry shipping line between the ports            Action brought on 1 February 1996 by Lino Liao against the
of Plymouth ( England ) and Santander ( Spain ), states that on                       Council of the European Union
21 September 1992 it lodged a complaint with the
Commission concerning an agreement concluded between                                          ( Case T-15/96 )
the shipping company Ferries Golfo de Vizcaya SA on the                                          ( 96/C 77/39 )
one hand and the Regional Government of Biscay
( Diputacion Foral de Vizcaya ) and the Ministry of
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Commerce and Tourism of the Basque Government
( Gobierno Vasco ) on the other. The Commission decided to
initiate the procedure laid down in Article 93 ( 2 ) of the EC         An action against the Council of the European Union was
Treaty, since it considered that various aspects of the                brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
agreement seemed to indicate a special relationship                    Communities on 1 February 1995 by Lino Liao, residing in
involving State aid. In response to the initiation of the              Brussels, represented by Pierre-Paul van Gehuchten and
Article 93 (2 ) procedure, the agreement at issue was                  Constantin Nikis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
suspended and a new agreement concluded between Ferries                service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz,
Golfo de Vizcaya of the one part and the Regional                      2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim .


title: Case T-252/06 P: Appeal brought on 7 September 2006 by Beau against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 28 June 2006 in Case F-39/05, Beau v Commission

text:
               18.11.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/38

         Appeal brought on 7 September 2006 by Beau against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 28 June 2006 in Case F-39/05, Beau v Commission
   (Case T-252/06 P)
   (2006/C 281/67)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Marie-Yolande Beau (Paris, France) (represented by S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               declare the present appeal admissible;

               —

               annul the judgment delivered by the Civil Service Tribunal on 28 June 2006 in Case F-39/05;

               —

               grant the pleas for annulment and compensation submitted by the appellant at first instance;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In her appeal, the appellant alleges, firstly, that the Tribunal infringed Community law by an incorrect legal classification of certain facts and, secondly, that it committed a procedural error infringing her rights of the defence.


title: Case T-58/15: Action brought on 4 February 2015  — Ludwig Bertram v OHIM — Seni Vita (Sanivita)

text:
               13.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/36

         Action brought on 4 February 2015 — Ludwig Bertram v OHIM — Seni Vita (Sanivita)
   (Case T-58/15)
   (2015/C 118/45)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Ludwig Bertram GmbH (Isernhagen, Germany) (represented by: V. Rust-Sorge, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Seni Vita OHG (Bayreuth, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark No 9949959

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 November 2014 in Case R 1087/2013-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should annul the contested decision.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case C-141/13 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 July 2014  — Reber Holding GmbH & Co. KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Wedl & Hofmann GmbH (Appeal — Community trade mark — Figurative mark Walzer Traum — Opposition by the proprietor of the national word mark Walzertraum — Concept of genuine use of the mark — Failure to take earlier decisions into account — Principle of equal treatment)

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/11

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 July 2014 — Reber Holding GmbH & Co. KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Wedl & Hofmann GmbH
   (Case C-141/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Community trade mark - Figurative mark Walzer Traum - Opposition by the proprietor of the national word mark Walzertraum - Concept of genuine use of the mark - Failure to take earlier decisions into account - Principle of equal treatment))
   2014/C 315/16
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Reber Holding GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: O. Spuhler and M. Geitz, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, acting as Agent), Wedl & Hofmann GmbH (represented by: T. Raubal, Rechtsanwalt)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Reber Holding GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 141, 18.5.2013.


title: Case C-292/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Parma (Italy) lodged on 27 July 2009 — Isabella Calestani v Agenzia delle Entrate Ufficio di Parma

text:
               26.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 233/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Parma (Italy) lodged on 27 July 2009 — Isabella Calestani v Agenzia delle Entrate Ufficio di Parma
   (Case C-292/09)
   2009/C 233/17
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Commissione tributaria provinciale di Parma

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Isabella Calestani

      Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate Ufficio di Parma

      Question referred

   Is Article 19(5) of Presidential Decree No 633/72 at variance with Community law and with the principle of the neutrality of VAT, and in particular has Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 been incorrectly transposed in so far as domestic legislation does not provide that VAT is deductible on purchases made by taxable persons whose transactions are exempt?


title: Case T-349/03: Action brought on 13 October 2003 by Corsica Ferries France against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 7/36                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                            10.1.2004
Subsequently, the applicant submitted to the DAFSE an                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
application for payment of the balance of PTE 991 009 by the
EFS and of the balance of PTE 810 226 by the Portuguese                   —     annul the Commission’s decision of 9 July 2003 concern-
State. The DAFSE certified that request, which the Commission                   ing the restructuring aid which France plans to put into
approved by document No 4242 of 13 March 1989, although                         effect in favour of the Société Nationale Maritime Corse-
it considered the sum of 1 192 162 to be ineligible. On                         Méditerranée;
17 February 1998 the Commission decided, however, to
suspend the contribution.                                                 —     order the defendant to pay all the costs.
The Portuguese judicial authorities decided to discontinue the
legal actions pending against the applicant, thereby eliminating
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
in the applicant’s view the presumption that it had acted
irregularly. Nevertheless, the Commission adopted the decision
at issue in these proceedings.                                            By the contested decision, the Commission decided that the
                                                                          restructuring aid which France was planning to put into effect
                                                                          in favour of the Société Nationale Maritime Corse-Méditerranée
The contested decision, in the applicant’s view, infringes                was, under certain conditions, compatible with the common
Regulation (EEC) No 2950/83 and Council Decision 83/516/                  market. The applicant challenges that decision, asserting that it
EEC since the applicant complied strictly with the conditions             has a direct and individual interest in obtaining its annulment,
laid down for approval of the EFS contribution, thereby                   having regard to its active participation in the formal investi-
acquiring ‘subjective rights attaching specifically to it’.               gation procedure in respect of the aid and its competitive
                                                                          position in the reference market.
The decision also breaches the principle of the protection of
legitimate expectations in so far as the Commission’s approval            In support of its action it relies, first, on alleged failure to state
decision vested in the applicant an entitlement to the contri-            the reasons on which the contested decision is based and,
butions and gave rise to an expectation on its part that it               secondly, on alleged manifest errors of fact and assessment.
would receive them if it carried out the action on the agreed
basis and also because the measure contested herein could
have been put into effect as early as 1989.
Finally, the contested decision constitutes a serious breach of
the principle of proportionality since the applicant incurred
expenses on the assumption that the Commission would fulfil
                                                                          Action brought on 13 October 2003 by Wirtschafts-
its commitments.
                                                                          kammer Kärnten and best connect Ampere Strompool
                                                                          GmbH against the Commission of the European Com-
                                                                                munities
                                                                                (Case T-350/03)
                                                                                (2004/C 7/67)
Action brought on 13 October 2003 by Corsica Ferries
France against the Commission of the European Com-
                             munities                                                        (Language of the case: German)
                        (Case T-349/03)
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                         (2004/C 7/66)                                    ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 13 October 2003 by Wirtschafts-
                                                                          kammer Kärnten and best connect Ampere Strompool GmbH,
                   (Language of the case: French)                         Klagenfurt (Austria), represented by M. Angerer, lawyer.
                                                                          The applicants claim that the Court should:
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                —     annul Commission Decision COMP/M.2947 — Verbund/
European Communities on 13 October 2003 by Corsica                              EnergieAllianz of 11 June 2003 on the compatibility of a
Ferries France, established in Bastia (France), represented by                  concentration with the common market and the Agree-
S. Rodrigues and C. Scapel, lawyers, with an address for service                ment on the European Economic Area (EEA Agreement)
in Luxembourg.                                                                  and order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case T-356/13 P: Appeal brought on 4 July 2013 by Giorgio Lebedef against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 24 April 2013 in Case F-56/11, Lebedef v Commission

text:
               12.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 298/8

         Appeal brought on 4 July 2013 by Giorgio Lebedef against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 24 April 2013 in Case F-56/11, Lebedef v Commission
   (Case T-356/13 P)
   2013/C 298/14
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

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

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 24 April 2013 in Case F-56/11 Lebedef v Commission, in respect of an application for annulment of the decision in disciplinary proceedings of 6 July 2010 downgrading the appellant by two grades in the same function group;

               —

               grant the appellant’s form of order sought at first instance;

               —

               in the alternative, refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;

               —

               make an order as to costs and order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on a certain number of grounds of appeal relating to paragraphs 35, 36, 44, 45, 56, 57, 69, 70, 71, 77, 78, 86, 95 and 96 of the judgment under appeal, alleging breach of the rights of the defence and infringement of the principle of prohibition of arbitrary action, since the Civil Service Tribunal distorted and misinterpreted the facts and misread and misinterpreted the application at first instance and the contested decision.


title: Case T-310/08: Action brought on 8 August 2008 — BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte v OHIM (executive edition)

text:
               27.9.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/22

         Action brought on 8 August 2008 — BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte v OHIM (executive edition)
   (Case T-310/08)
   (2008/C 247/44)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: S. Biagosch, Rechtsanwalt)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 5 June 2008 in Case R-845/2007-1;

               —

               order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicant.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘executive edition’ for goods in Classes 7, 9 and 11 (application No 4 908 182).

      Decision of the Examiner: rejection of the application.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the appeal.

      Pleas in law: infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), as the mark applied for has the requisite minimum level of distinctiveness.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 September 2001 in Case T-337/99: Henkel KGaA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Shape of a product for washing machines or dishwashers — Three-dimensional mark — Absolute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
C 3/24                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   5.1.2002
2.    Orders that the sums referred to in paragraph (1) above shall            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      bear simple interest at the same rate from the date of the present
      judgment until full and final payment;                                                    of 19 September 2001
3.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;                          in Case T-337/99: Henkel KGaA v Office for Harmonis-
                                                                           ation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                                (OHIM) (1)
4.    Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                           (Community trade mark — Shape of a product for washing
                                                                           machines or dishwashers — Three-dimensional mark —
(1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.                                                 Absolute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation
                                                                                (EC) No 40/94)
                                                                                (2002/C 3/39)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                In Case T-337/99: Henkel KGaA, established in Düsseldorf
                                                                           (Germany), represented by H.F. Wissel and C. Osterrieth,
                                                                           lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
                          of 20 June 2001                                  Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
                                                                           and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: A. von Mühlendahl, D. Schen-
in Case T-188/99: Euroalliages v Commission of the                         nen and S. Laitinen) — application brought against the
                   European Communities (1)                                decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for
                                                                           Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                                                                           Designs) of 21 September 1999 (Case R 73/1999-3), which
(Dumping — Decision terminating an expiry review —                         was notified to the applicant on 28 September 1999 — the
                      Action for annulment)                                Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of
                                                                           A.W.H. Meij, President, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges;
                                                                           D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
                            (2002/C 3/38)
                                                                           judgment on 19 September 2001, in which it:
                    (Language of the case: French)                         1.    Dismisses the action;
                                                                           2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
In Case T-188/99: Euroalliages, whose head office is in Brussels           (1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.
(Belgium), represented by D. Voillemot and O. Prost, lawyers,
with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Com-
mission of the European Communities (Agents: initially
N. Khan and, subsequently, V. Kreuschitz and A.P. Bentley) —
application for annulment of Commission Decision
1999/426/EC of 4 June 1999 terminating the anti-dumping                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
proceeding concerning imports of ferro-silicon originating in
Egypt and Poland (OJ 1999 L 166, p. 91) — the Court of First
Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition), composed                                       of 20 September 2001
of A.W.H. Meij, President, K. Lenaerts, A. Potocki, M. Jaeger
and J. Pirrung, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for           in Case T-344/99: Lucı́a Recalde Langarica v Commission
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 June 2001, in which                             of the European Communities (1)
it:
                                                                           (Officials — Expatriation allowance — Article 4(1)(a) of
                                                                           the Staff Regulations — Article 26 of the Staff Regulations
1.    Dismisses the application;                                                                  — Rights of defence)
2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.                                                          (2002/C 3/40)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
(1) OJ C 314 of 30.10.1999.
                                                                           In Case T-344/99: Lucı́a Recalde Langarica, an official of the
                                                                           Commission of the European Communities, residing in


title: Case F-101/09: Action brought on 15 December 2009 — AA v Commission

text:
               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/52

         Action brought on 15 December 2009 — AA v Commission
   (Case F-101/09)
   2010/C 63/92
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: AA (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and C. Mereu, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   By way of principal claim, partial annulment of the decision to classify the applicant in Grade AD6, Step 2, and an order against the defendant to pay compensation for the material and non-material damage caused. In the alternative, an order against the defendant to pay compensation for the material and non-material damage caused by the delay in recruiting the applicant.

      Forms of order sought

               —

               As the main claim, annulment of the part of the decision of 19 February 2009 establishing the final classification of the applicant, and an order against the defendant to pay damages of EUR 320 854 and interest by way of damages and for delay at the rate of 6.75 % in respect of the material and non-material damage suffered.

               —

               In the alternative, an order against the defendant to pay damages of up to EUR 2 331 246 and interest by way of damages and for delay at the rate of 6.75 % in respect of the material and non-material damage caused by the delay in recruiting the applicant;

               —

               Costs order against the European Commission.