title: Case C-332/15: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Treviso — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Giuseppe Astone (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 167, 168, 178 to 182, 193, 206, 242, 244, 250, 252 and 273 — Right to deduct VAT — Substantive requirements — Formal requirements — Limitation period — National provisions excluding the right to deduct where there is a failure to comply with most of the formal requirements — Tax evasion)

text:
               26.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 350/10

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Treviso — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Giuseppe Astone
   (Case C-332/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 167, 168, 178 to 182, 193, 206, 242, 244, 250, 252 and 273 - Right to deduct VAT - Substantive requirements - Formal requirements - Limitation period - National provisions excluding the right to deduct where there is a failure to comply with most of the formal requirements - Tax evasion))
   (2016/C 350/13)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Treviso

      Party in the main proceedings

   Giuseppe Astone

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Articles 167, 168, 178, the first paragraph of Article 179, and Articles 180 and 182 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude national legislation which provides for a limitation period for exercising the right to deduct, such as the limitation period at issue in the main proceedings, provided that the principles of equivalence and effectiveness are observed, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

               2.

               Articles 168, 178, 179, 193, 206, 242, 244, 250, 252 and 273 of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allows the tax authorities to refuse a taxable person the right to deduct value added tax when it is established that that person has fraudulently failed to fulfil most of the formal obligations incumbent upon him in order to be able to benefit from that right, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

      (1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2015.


title: Case T-412/13: Judgment of the General Court of 19 March 2015 — Chin Haur Indonesia v Council (Dumping — Imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia — Extension to such imports of the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of bicycles originating in China — Circumvention — Failure to cooperate — Articles 13 and 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — Error of assessment)

text:
               4.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 146/38

         Judgment of the General Court of 19 March 2015 — Chin Haur Indonesia v Council
   (Case T-412/13) (1)

   ((Dumping - Imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia - Extension to such imports of the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of bicycles originating in China - Circumvention - Failure to cooperate - Articles 13 and 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - Error of assessment))
   (2015/C 146/51)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Chin Haur Indonesia, PT (Tangerang, Indonesia) (represented by: T. Müller-Ibold and F.-C. Laprévote, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert, Agent, and by R. Bierwagen, lawyer)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and M. França, Agents); and Maxcom Ltd (Plovdiv, Bulgaria) (represented by: L. Ruessmann, lawyer, and J. Beck, Solicitor)

      Re:

   Application for the partial annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 of 29 May 2013 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2011 on imports of bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia, whether declared as originating in Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia or not (OJ 2013 L 153, p. 1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Annuls Article 1(1) and (3) of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 of 29 May 2013 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2011 on imports of bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia, whether declared as originating in Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia or not, to the extent that it concerns Chin Haur Indonesia, PT;

               2)

               Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs incurred by Chin Haur Indonesia and to bear its own costs;

               3)

               Orders the European Commission and Maxcom Ltd to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 274, 21.9.2013.


title: Case C-177/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg lodged on 17 April 2012 — Caisse nationale des prestations familiales v Salim Lachheb, Nadia Lachheb

text:
               7.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg lodged on 17 April 2012 — Caisse nationale des prestations familiales v Salim Lachheb, Nadia Lachheb
   (Case C-177/12)
   2012/C 200/10
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Caisse nationale des prestations familiales

      Defendants: Salim Lachheb, Nadia Lachheb

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does a benefit such as that set out in the Law of 21 December 2007 on the Child Bonus constitute a family benefit within the meaning of Article 1(u)(i) and Article 4(1)(h) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, (1) as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996? (2)

               2.

               If the reply to the first question is in the negative, do Articles 18 and 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (formerly Article 12 and Article 39 of the Treaty establishing the European Community), Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (3) or Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 preclude a national regulation such as the one at issue in the main proceedings, under which the granting of a benefit such as that set out in the Law of 21 December 2007 on the Child Bonus, to workers who carry out their professional activity in the territory of the Member State concerned and who reside with members of their family in the territory of another Member State, is suspended up to the amount of the family benefits provided for the members of their family by the legislation of the Member State of residence, the national regulation requiring the application, to the benefit at issue, of the rules concerning non-cumulation of family benefits set out in Article 76 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and Article 10 of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of the Council of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (4) as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97?

      (1)  English special edition, 1971 (II), p. 416.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 amending and updating Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community and Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1).

      (3)  English special edition, 1968 (II), p. 475.

      (4)  Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of the Council of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (English special edition, 1972 (I), p. 159).


title: Case T-129/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 17 January 2007 — Diy-Mar Insaat Sanayi ve Ticaret and Akar v Commission (Action for annulment — Essential procedural requirements — Natural and legal persons required to be represented by a lawyer entitled to practise before a court of a Member State — Application in proper form lodged out-of-time — Inadmissibility of the action)

text:
               24.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/19

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 17 January 2007 — Diy-Mar Insaat Sanayi ve Ticaret and Akar v Commission
   (Case T-129/06) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Essential procedural requirements - Natural and legal persons required to be represented by a lawyer entitled to practise before a court of a Member State - Application in proper form lodged out-of-time - Inadmissibility of the action)
   (2007/C 69/45)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicants: Diy-Mar Insaat Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd Sirketi and Musa Akar (Ankara, Turkey) (represented by: Ç. Şahin, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. van Nuffel and F. Hoffmeister, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for, first, annulment of Decision MK/KS/DELTUR/(2005)/SecE/D/1614 of 23 December 2005 concerning the award of a public works contract for the construction of educational establishments in the Provinces of Siirt and Diyarbakir (EuropeAid/121601/C/W/TR) and, second, suspension of the procedure in question.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               The applicants, Diy-Mar Insaat Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd Sirketi and Musa Akar, shall bear their own costs and, jointly and severally, pay the Commission's costs.

      (1)  OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.


title: Case C-627/10: Action brought on 29 December 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia

text:
               2.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/13

         Action brought on 29 December 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia
   (Case C-627/10)
   2011/C 103/23
   Language of the case: Slovene

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: H. Stølvlbæk and D. Kukovec, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Slovenia

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, with regard to implementation of the first railway package, the Republic of Slovenia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(3) of and Annex II to Council Directive 91/440/EEC, (1) as amended, Article 14(2) of Directive 2001/14/EC, (2) and Articles 6(2) to (5), 7(3), 8(1), 11 and 30(1) of Directive 2001/14/EC;

               —

               order the Republic of Slovenia to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission maintains that, because it is the infrastructure manager, which alone supplies railway transport services, that organises the running of the trains and is, therefore, included in the adoption of decisions concerning the allocation of train paths or in the allocation of infrastructure capacity, the Republic of Slovenia has failed to satisfy the requirements of Article 6(3) of, and Annex II to, Directive 91/440/EEC, as amended, or those of Article 14(2) of Directive 2001/14/EC.
   By failing to ensure a mechanism of incentives to reduce the costs of providing infrastructure and the level of charges for access, the Republic of Slovenia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(2) to (5) of Directive 2001/14/EC.
   The Commission considers, therefore, that by failing to provide a method of calculation that ensures that the charges imposed for the minimum access package and track access to service facilities are equal to the costs directly incurred as a result of operating the service, the Republic of Slovenia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(3) of Directive 2001/14/EC.
   By failing to adopt a performance scheme encouraging railway undertakings and the infrastructure manager to minimise disruption and improve the performance of the railway network, the Republic of Slovenia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11 of Directive 2001/14/EC.
   By failing to make provision, in its domestic legislation, for ascertaining whether a particular sector of the market can bear ‘mark-ups’ in order to obtain full recovery of the manager’s costs, the Republic of Slovenia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8(1) of Directive 2001/14/EC.
   By failing to establish a regulatory body, independent in its decision-making of any manager of the railway infrastructure or any applicant, the Republic of Slovenia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 30(1) of Directive 2001/14/EC.

      (1)  OJ 1991 L 237, p. 25.

      (2)  OJ 2001 L 75, p. 29.


title: Case C-121/17: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 8 March 2017 — Teva UK Ltd, Accord Healthcare Ltd, Lupin Ltd, Lupin (Europe) Ltd, Generics (UK) trading as ‘Mylan’ v Gilead Sciences Inc.

text:
               15.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/21

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 8 March 2017 — Teva UK Ltd, Accord Healthcare Ltd, Lupin Ltd, Lupin (Europe) Ltd, Generics (UK) trading as ‘Mylan’ v Gilead Sciences Inc.
   (Case C-121/17)
   (2017/C 151/28)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Teva UK Ltd, Accord Healthcare Ltd, Lupin Ltd, Lupin (Europe) Ltd, Generics (UK) trading as ‘Mylan’

      Defendant: Gilead Sciences Inc.

      Question referred

   What are the criteria for deciding whether ‘the product is protected by a basic patent in force’ in Article 3(a) of Regulation No. 469/2009 (1)?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (OJ 2009, L 152, p. 1).


title: Appeal brought on 7 January 1998 by British Steel plc against the judgment delivered on 24 October 1997 by the First Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-243/94 between British Steel plc, supported by SSAB Svenskt Stål AB and Det Danske Stålvalseværk A/S and the Commission of the European Communities, supported by the Council of the European Union, the Italian Republic, the Kingdom of Spain and Ilva Laminati Piani SpA (Case C-1/98 P)

text:
C 72/8                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     7.3.98
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 Appeal brought on 7 January 1998 by British Steel plc
                                                                    against the judgment delivered on 24 October 1997 by
                                                                    the First Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court
Actionable measure                                                  of First Instance of the European Communities in Case
                                                                    T-243/94 between British Steel plc, supported by SSAB
The Kingdom of Spain challenges Commission                         Svenskt Stål AB and Det Danske Stålvalsevñrk A/S and
Guidelines' intended to help its departments to implement           the Commission of the European Communities, supported
Article 24 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88. None the                 by the Council of the European Union, the Italian
less, despite the term used by the institution which drafted        Republic, the Kingdom of Spain and Ilva Laminati Piani
the contested act, the Kingdom of Spain considers that it                                        SpA
constitutes an actionable measure within the meaning of                                    (Case C-1/98 P)
Article 173 of the EC Treaty as interpreted by the Court
of Justice.                                                                                (98/C 72/15)
Lack of competence of the Commission
                                                                    An appeal against the judgment delivered on 24 October
                                                                    1997 by the First Chamber (Extended Composition) of the
Article 24 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 only confers              Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
on the Commission the power to reduce, suspend or                   case T-243/94 between British Steel plc, supported by
cancel assistance if an operation or measure appears to             SSAB Svenskt Stål AB and Det Danske Stålvalsevñrk A/S
justify only part of the assistance allocated and if there is       and the Commission of the European Communities,
an irregularity or a significant change affecting the nature        supported by the Council of the European Union, the
or conditions of the operation or measure for which the             Italian Republic, the Kingdom of Spain and Ilva Laminati
Commission's approval has not been sought.                          Piani SpA, was brought before the Court of Justice of the
                                                                    European Communities on 7 January 1998 by British Steel
                                                                    plc, represented by Messrs Richard Plender QC and
The sole object of the power conferred by Article 24 on
                                                                    William Sibree, solicitor of the Supreme Court, with an
the Commission to reduce, suspend or cancel assistance is
                                                                    address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
to prevent such assistance being directed to something
                                                                    Elvinger, Hoss and Prussen, 15 Côte d'Eich.
other than that for which it was allocated. The power
conferred on the Commission was in no way intended to
serve as a means of penalising the failure of Member
States to fulfil their obligations under Article 23 of the          The Appellant claims that the Court should:
Regulation.
                                                                    (i)   quash the decision of the Court of First Instance;
The Commission may not resort to its powers under
Article 24 in order to impose economic sanctions upon
Member States for failure to fulfil other provisions. The           (ii) annul Commission Decisions 94/258/ECSC (1) and
Commission only has the power to allocate and, therefore,                 94/259/ECSC (2) of 12 April 1994; and
except where there exists a specific provision conferring
upon it actual powers to impose penalties, should Member
States fail to fulfil their obligations under Article 23, the
                                                                    (iii) order the Commission to pay the Appellant's costs in
Commission only has available the general procedure
                                                                          the Court of Justice and in the Court of First
under Article 169 of the EC Treaty, whose only object is
                                                                          Instance.
to find that a Member State has breached Community law
and that it should bring such infringement to an end,
without involving the application of a pecuniary sanction,
save in the case of failure to comply with a judgment as            Alternatively, in case the Court of Justice should consider
provided for in Article 171 of the EC Treaty.                       that the state of the proceedings does not permit it to give
                                                                    final judgment in the matter, the Appellant requests the
                                                                    Court to refer the case back to the Court of First Instance
Failure to provide a statement of reasons                           for judgment and reserve the costs.
When it adopted the guidelines' which the Kingdom of
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Spain is challenging, the Commission failed to set forth
both the reason why it took the decision to apply
economic penalties on Member States for failure to fulfil
their obligations under Article 23 of Regulation (EEC)              These proceedings raise a point which is of general
No 4253/88 and the basis on which such power to impose              importance, particularly for the Community's coal and
sanctions is based.                                                 steel industries. It may be summarised as follows.
(1) OJ L 374, 31.12.1988, pp. 1Ð14.
                                                                    When there is in force a general Decision declaring that
                                                                    aid in any form whatsoever and whether specific or non-
                                                                    specific which Member States might grant to their steel
 ---pagebreak--- 7.3.98               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 72/9
industries is prohibited and providing that aid to the steel         the case of aid for other purposes it stated (at
industry, whether specific or non-specific, financed by              paragraph 51):
Member States . . . may be deemed Community aid and
therefore compatible with the orderly functioning of the
common market only if it satisfies certain prescribed                the Aid Code is intended only to authorise generally, and
conditions for specified categories of aid, can the                  subject to certain conditions, derogations from the
Commission       lawfully     make     individual    Decisions       prohibition of aid for certain categories which it lists
authorising the grant of State aid which does not fall               exhaustively . . . Aid not falling into categories which the
within any of those categories?                                      Code exempts from that prohibition thus remain subject
                                                                     exclusively to Article 4(c). It follows that where such aid
                                                                     nevertheless proves necessary to attain the objectives of
                                                                     the Treaty, the Commission is empowered to rely on
The Appellant submits that that answer to the question is
                                                                     Article 95 of the Treaty in order to deal with that
No'. The Aid Code in force at the material time was the
                                                                     unforeseen situation, if need be by means of an individual
Fifth Steel Aid Code adopted on 27 November 1991 by
                                                                     decision.'
Commission Decision 3855/91/ECSC (3). Article 1
provided that
                                                                     The Appellant submits that the statement is incorrect. The
                                                                     principle whereby the Commission is not empowered to
Aid to the steel industry, whether specific or non-specific,        authorise State aid to the steel industry in such a situation
financed by Member States or their regional or local                 may be characterised as a case of lack of competence.
authorities or through State resources in any form
whatsoever may be deemed Community aid and therefore
compatible with the orderly functioning of the common                (1) concerning aid to be granted by Spain to the public integrated
                                                                         steel company Corporación de la Siderurgia Integral (OJ L 112,
market only if it satisfied the provisions of Articles 2 to 5'.
                                                                         3.5.1994, p. 58).
                                                                     (2) concerning aid to be granted by Italy to the public steel sector
                                                                         (Ilva group) (OJ L 112, 3.5.1994, p. 64).
                                                                     (3) OJ L 362, 31.12.1991, p. 57.
Articles 2 to 5 provided that aid might be considered
compatible with the common market when granted for
research and development (Article 2), environmental
protection (Article 3), closures (Article 4) and general
regional aid schemes in Greece, Portugal and the former
GDR (Article 5).
                                                                     Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van
                                                                     Beroep, Ghent, by order of that court of 18 December
By its Decisions 94/258/ECSC and 94/259/ECSC of                      1997 in the case of Openbaar Ministerie v. D.R.C.
12 April 1994, the Commission purported to authorise aid                                    Schacht and others
to the Italian and Spanish public steel industries which fell
outside the provisions of Articles 2 to 5. The purpose of                                     (Case C-3/98)
the Fifth Steel Aid Code was to prohibit the authorisation                                     (98/C 72/16)
of such aid; and it was not open to the Commission to
authorise it, during the currency of the Code, without any
amendment of the latter. This answer is compelled by
practical as well as legal considerations. If the                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Commission could authorise individual grants of State aid,           European Communities by an order of the Hof van
in the face of the terms of the Aid Code, the prohibition            Beroep (Court of Appeal) of 18 December 1997, which
contained in that Code would be ineffective: indeed, it              was received at the Court Registry on 9 January 1998, for
would be writ in water'.                                            a preliminary ruling in the case of Openbaar Ministerie
                                                                     (Office of the Public Prosecutor) v. D.R.C. Schacht on the
                                                                     following question:
The Court of First Instance, on the other hand, concluded
(at paragraph 50 of the judgment) that
                                                                     Must Article 14a(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 1(a)(i)
                                                                     of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the
                                                                     application of social security schemes to employed
the [Fifth Steel Aid] Code constitutes a binding legal              persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their
framework only for the types of aid enumerated by it                 families moving within the Community be interpreted as
which are compatible with the Treaty'.                               meaning that a normally self-employed person who is
                                                                     temporarily working in another Member State, retains his
                                                                     status as a self-employed person during the period of the
                                                                     continuing application to him of the legislation of the
(that is, aid for research and development, environmental            Member State in which he usually works, in accordance
protection, closures and general regional aid schemes). In           with the provisions of the applicable legislation, so that it


title: Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-198/93, T-199/93, T-200/93 and T-204/93

text:
12 . 8 . 95             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 208/37
Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-107/93 and                         Removal from the register of Case T-l 97/93 (*)
                                others (M                                                           ( 95 /C 208/ 80 )
                           ( 95/C 208/77 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                 (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         By order of 29 June 1995 the President of the First Chamber,
By order of 29 June 1 995 the President of the First Chamber,            Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the
Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the              European Communities ordered the removal from the
European Communities ordered the removal from the                        register of Case T-l 97/93 : Friedrich Bethke v. Council of the
register of Joined Cases T-107/93 : Christian Hansen,                    European Union and Commission of the European
T-109/93 : Liesa Thomsen, T-136/93 : Herbert Sonnenberg,                 Communities .
T-153/93 : F. Steensen-Feddersen, T-178/93 : H.-P . Fock,
T-180/93 : E. Ebsen, T-182/93 : R.-D . Tetens, T-192/93 : M.             (') OJ No C 270 , 19 . 10 . 1992 .
Hansen, T-193/93 : H. Ketelsen, T-194/93 : Ch . Jessen,
T-212/93 : H. Thomsen, T-219/93 : H. Johannsen,
T-226/93 : J. Nielsen, T-227/93 : T. Petersen, T-228/93 : J. H.
Sell, T-229/93 : K. Friedrichsen, T-230/93 : K. Ingwersen,
T-232/93 : J. Johannsen, T-236/93 : P. Carstensen,
T-239/93 : P. A. Petersen and T-240/93 : U. Dethlefsen v.                Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-198/93 ,
Council of the European Union and Commission of the                                 T-199/93 , T-200/93 and T-204/93 (')
European Communities .
                                                                                ( 95/C 208/81 )
(M OJ No C 222 , 6 . 9 . 1990 ; OJ No C 34, 9 . 2 . 1991 ; OJ No C 109 ,
     29 . 4 . 1992 and OJ No C 270 , 19 . 10 . 1992 .                                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         By order of 29 June 1 995 the President of the First Chamber,
                                                                         Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities ordered the removal from the
                                                                         register of Joined Cases T-198/93 , T-199/93 , T-200/93 and
       Removal from the register of Case T-122/93 ( )                    T-204/93 : Detlef Maack and Others v. Commission of the
                            ( 95/C 208/78 )                              European Communities .
                  (Language of the case: German)                         m OJ No C 270 , 19 . 10 . 1992 .
By order of 29 June 1995 the President of the First Chamber,
Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case T-122/93 : Franz-Joseph Kliemann v.
Council of the European Union and Commission of the                             Removal from the register of Case T-17/94 (')
European Communities .                                                                               ( 95/C 208/ 82 )
 (') OJ No C 34, 9 . 2 . 1991 .                                                           (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         By order of 22 June 1995 the President of the Fourth
                                                                          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                          Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
 Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-144/93 and                  T-17/94 : Dimitrios Benecos v. Commission of the European
                              T-145/93 (')                                Communities .
                             ( 95 /C 208/79 )
                                                                          (') OJ No C 76 , 12 . 3 . 1994 .
                  (Language of the case: German)
 By order of 29 June 1 995 the President of the First Chamber,
 Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the
 European Communities ordered the removal from the                             Removal from the register of Case T-228/94 (')
 register of Joined Cases T-144/93 and T-145/93 : Ernst Theis
 and Karl Leonhauser v. Council of the European Union and                                             ( 95/C 208/83 )
 Commission of the European Communities .
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
 (') OJ No C 50 , 26 . 2 . 1991 and OJ No C 146 , 5 . 6 . 1991 .
                                                                          By order of 29 June 1995 the President of the First Chamber,
                                                                          Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the


title: Case C-6/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 June 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias, Greece) — Medipac-Kazantzidis AE v Venizelio-Pananio (PE.S.Y. KRITIS) (Free movement of goods — Directive 93/42/EEC — Hospital purchase of medical devices bearing the CE marking — Protective measures — Public supply contract — Contract falling below the threshold of application of Directive 93/36/EEC — Principle of equal treatment and obligation of transparency)

text:
               4.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/2

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 June 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias, Greece) — Medipac-Kazantzidis AE v Venizelio-Pananio (PE.S.Y. KRITIS)
   (Case C-6/05) (1)

   (Free movement of goods - Directive 93/42/EEC - Hospital purchase of medical devices bearing the CE marking - Protective measures - Public supply contract - Contract falling below the threshold of application of Directive 93/36/EEC - Principle of equal treatment and obligation of transparency)
   (2007/C 183/02)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Referring court
   Simvoulio tis Epikratias
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Medipac-Kazantzidis AE

      Defendant: Venizelio-Pananio (PE.S.Y. KRITIS)
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Symvoulio tis Epikrateias — Interpretation of Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 1) and Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices (OJ 1993 L 169, p. 1) — Rejection of a tender concerning products bearing the CE marking — Insufficiency of the products in terms of their quality, having regard to the protection of public health and the particular use for which they are intended — Procedure for the supply of medical devices to a hospital
   Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               The principle of equal treatment and the obligation of transparency preclude a contracting authority, which has issued an invitation to tender for the supply of medical devices and specified that those devices must comply with the European Pharmacopoeia and bear the CE marking, from rejecting, directly and without following the safeguard procedure provided for in Articles 8 and 18 of Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 September 2003, on grounds of protection of public health, the materials proposed, if they comply with the stated technical requirement. If the contracting authority considers that those materials may jeopardise public health, it is required to inform the competent national authority with a view to setting that safeguard procedure in motion.

               2)

               A contracting authority, which has referred a matter to the competent national authority with a view to setting in motion the safeguard procedure provided for by Articles 8 and 18 of Directive 93/42, as amended by Regulation No 1882/2003, concerning medical devices bearing the CE marking, is required to suspend the tendering procedure until the end of that safeguard procedure, the outcome of that procedure being binding on the contracting authority. If the implementation of such a safeguard procedure gives rise to delays liable to jeopardise the operation of a public hospital and thereby public health, the contracting authority is entitled to take all interim measures required to enable it to procure the materials necessary for the smooth running of that hospital, subject to compliance with the principle of proportionality.

      (1)  OJ C 69, 19.3.2005.


title: Case T-299/11: Judgment of the General Court of 7 October 2015 — Evropaïki Dynamiki Luxembourg and Others v OHIM (Public service contracts — Tendering procedure — Supplies of external service provision for programme and project management and technical consultancy in the field of information technologies — Ranking of a tenderer in the cascade procedure — Award criteria — Equal opportunities — Transparency — Manifest error of assessment — Obligation to state reasons — Non-contractual liability — Loss of an opportunity)

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 October 2015 — Evropaïki Dynamiki Luxembourg and Others v OHIM
   (Case T-299/11) (1)

   ((Public service contracts - Tendering procedure - Supplies of external service provision for programme and project management and technical consultancy in the field of information technologies - Ranking of a tenderer in the cascade procedure - Award criteria - Equal opportunities - Transparency - Manifest error of assessment - Obligation to state reasons - Non-contractual liability - Loss of an opportunity))
   (2015/C 398/36)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Ettelbrück, Luxembourg); Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) and European Dynamics Belgium SA (Brussels, Belgium) (represented initially by N. Korogiannakis and M. Dermitzakis, and subsequently by I. Ampazis, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: N. Bambara and M. Paolacci, acting as Agents, and P. Wytinck and B. Hoorelbeke, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action, first, for annulment of the decision of OHIM adopted in the context of the open call for tenders AO/021/10, entitled ‘External service provision for programme and project management and technical consultancy in the field of information technologies’, and notified to the applicants by letter of 28 March 2011, to rank the first applicant’s bid third in the ‘cascade’ mechanism for the purpose of awarding a framework contract; and, second, for damages.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of OHIM adopted in the context of the open call for tenders AO/021/10, entitled ‘External service provision for programme and project management and technical consultancy in the field of information technologies’, and notified to European Dynamics Luxembourg SA by letter of 28 March 2011, to rank the latter’s bid in third position in the ‘cascade’ mechanism for the purposes of awarding a framework contract and to rank the bids of Consortium Unisys SLU and Charles Oakes & Co. Sàrl, on the one hand, and of ETIQ Consortium (by everis and Trasys), on the other hand, in first and second positions respectively;

               2.

               Orders the European Union to pay compensation for the harm suffered by European Dynamics Luxembourg for the loss of an opportunity to be awarded the framework contract as the contractor ranked first in the cascade;

               3.

               Dismisses the claim for compensation as to the remainder;

               4.

               Orders the parties to inform the Court, within three months from the date of delivery of the present judgment, of the amount of compensation arrived at by agreement;

               5.

               Orders that, in the absence of agreement, the parties shall transmit to the Court, within the same period, a statement of their views with supporting figures;

               6.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 232, 6.8.2011.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 November 2004 in Joined Cases T-285/02 and T-395/02 Eva Vega Rodríguez v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Open competition — Multiple-choice questions — Accuracy of the answers in the marking sheet — Judicial scrutiny — Limits)

text:
               22.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/21

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 9 November 2004
   in Joined Cases T-285/02 and T-395/02 Eva Vega Rodríguez v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Officials - Open competition - Multiple-choice questions - Accuracy of the answers in the marking sheet - Judicial scrutiny - Limits)
   (2005/C 19/46)
   Language of the case: French
   In Joined Cases T-285/02 and T-395/02, Eva Vega Rodríguez, residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented in Case T-285/02 by J. Iturriagagoitia Bassas and, in Case T-395/02, by J. Iturriagagoitia Bassas and K. Delvolvé, lawyers, against Commission of the European Communities (Agent: J. Currall, with an address for service in Luxembourg) – applications, primarily, for annulment of the decision of the selection board in competition COM/A/10/01 excluding the applicant and awarding an insufficient number of marks for her to continue in the competition and of the decision rejecting her complaint and, in the alternative, for damages – the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, A.W.H. Meij and N.J. Forwood, Judges; I. Natsinas, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 November 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the actions;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 289 of 23.11.2002.


title: Case C-51/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour du Travail (6th Chamber), Brussels, by judgment of that court of 14 February 2000 in the case of Temco Service Industries SA against Samir Imzilyen, Mimoune Belfarh, Abdesselam Afia-Aroussi, and Khalil Lakhdar; intervening parties: General Maintenance Contractors SPRL and Buyle-Medros-Vaes Associates SA

text:
29.4.2000             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 122/13
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundessozial-                  undertaking B, dismisses all its staff, except for four
gericht by order of that court of 16 December 1966 in                      persons, whereupon undertaking D is awarded that con-
the case of Hasan Gevin v Bundesanstalt für Arbeit —                       tract by undertaking A, employs a proportion of the staff
                        Kindergeldkasse                                    of undertaking C under a collective labour agreement but
                                                                           takes over none of the assets of undertaking C, which latter
                         (Case C-47/00)                                    undertaking continues to exist and to pursue the objects
                                                                           for which it was incorporated?
                        (2000/C 122/20)                               2. In the event that undertaking C is held to be the transferor,
                                                                           even though it continues to exist, does the abovementioned
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     directive preclude it from being able to retain certain
European Communities by order of the Bundessozialgericht                   workers in its service?
(Federal Social Court), which was received at the Court Registry
on 14 February 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of          (1) on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating
Hasan Gevin v Bundesanstalt für Arbeit — Kindergeldkasse                  to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers
(Federal Office for Employment — Child-Benefit Fund) on the               of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses (OJ 1977 L 61,
following question:                                                       p. 26).
Is Article 3(1) of Decision No 3/80 of 19 September 1980 of
the EEC-Turkey Association Council on the application of the
social security schemes of the Member States of the European
Communities to Turkish workers and members of their
families also applicable to a Turkish national who is lawfully        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal des
resident and gainfully employed in a Member State of the              Affaires de Sécurité Sociale, by judgment of that court of
European Union but entered the Member State concerned as a            11 January 2000, in the case of Ferring SA v Agence
refugee from Turkey rather than as a migrant worker or the            Centrale des Organismes de Sécurité Sociale — A.C.O.S.S.
dependant of a migrant worker, and received a work permit
only after the end of the asylum proceedings?
                                                                                (Case C-53/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 122/22)
                                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                      European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal des
                                                                      Affaires de Sécurité Sociale (Social Security Court), Créteil, of
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour du Travail             11 January 2000, which was received at the Court Registry on
(6th Chamber), Brussels, by judgment of that court of                 21 February 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
14 February 2000 in the case of Temco Service Industries              Ferring SA v Agence Centrale des Organismes de Sécurité
SA against Samir Imzilyen, Mimoune Belfarh, Abdesselam                Sociale — A.C.O.S.S., on the following questions:
Afia-Aroussi, and Khalil Lakhdar; intervening parties:                — Can the contribution created by Article L.245-6-1 of the
General Maintenance Contractors SPRL and Buyle-Med-                        Code de la Sécurité Sociale be regarded as a public aid
                    ros-Vaes Associates SA                                 within the meaning of Article 87 EC (ex Article 92 of the
                                                                           EC Treaty)?
                         (Case C-51/00)
                                                                           — If so, is it justified by the nature and scheme of the
                                                                               system?
                        (2000/C 122/21)
                                                                      — Are wholesale distributors entrusted with the operation of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     a service in the general economic interest within the
European Communities by judgment of the Cour du Travail                    meaning of Article 86(2) EC (ex Article 90(2) of the EC
(Higher Labour Court) (6th Chamber), Brussels, of 14 February              Treaty)?
2000, received at the Court Registry on 17 February 2000, for
a preliminary ruling in the case of Temco Service Industries          — If the contribution at issue can be classified as public aid,
SA against Samir Imzilyen, Mimoune Belfarh, Abdesselam                     must it strictly offset the extra cost resulting from the
Afia-Aroussi, and Khalil Lakhdar; intervening parties: General             obligations imposed on wholesale distributors in order
Maintenance Contractors SPRL and Buyle-Medros-Vaes Associ-                 for the derogation provided for in Article 86(2) to be
ates SA, on the following questions:                                       applicable?
                                                                      — Must Article 49 EC (ex Article 59 of the EC Treaty) be
1. Does Article 1(1) of Council Directive 77/187 of 14 Febru-
                                                                           interpreted as precluding national legislation of the kind
    ary 1977 (1) apply in a situation where undertaking A
                                                                           embodied in the Law of 19 December 1997?
    contracts with undertaking B for the cleaning of its indus-
    trial plants and undertaking B entrusts that work to
    undertaking C, which, following loss of the contract by


title: Joined Cases T-23/10 and T-24/10: Judgment of the General Court of 6 February 2014 — Arkema France v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European markets in tin heat stabilisers and ESBO/esters heat stabilisers — Decision finding two infringements of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Fines — Duration of the infringement — Limitation — Legitimate interest in finding that an infringement was committed — Application for variation — Amount of the fines — Duration of the infringements — Unlimited jurisdiction)

text:
               15.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/6

         Judgment of the General Court of 6 February 2014 — Arkema France v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-23/10 and T-24/10) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European markets in tin heat stabilisers and ESBO/esters heat stabilisers - Decision finding two infringements of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Fines - Duration of the infringement - Limitation - Legitimate interest in finding that an infringement was committed - Application for variation - Amount of the fines - Duration of the infringements - Unlimited jurisdiction)
   2014/C 78/11
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Arkema France (Colombes, France) (represented initially by J. Joshua, Barrister, and E. Aliende Rodríguez, lawyer, and subsequently by J. P. Gunther and C. Breuvart, lawyers) (Case T-23/10); and CECA SA (La Garenne-Colombes, France) (represented initially by J. Joshua, Barrister, and E. Aliende Rodríguez, lawyer, and subsequently by J.-P. Gunther and C. Breuvart, lawyers) (Case T-24/10)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Mojzesowicz, F. Ronkes Agerbeek and J. Bourke, Agents, and by J. Holmes, Barrister)

      Re:

   Applications for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 8682 final of 11 November 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.589 — Heat Stabilisers), or, in the alternative, for a reduction of the fines imposed on the applicants.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the actions;

               2.

               Orders Arkema France and CECA SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 27.3.2010.


title: Case C-60/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Ragusa (Italy) lodged on 9 February 2011 — Criminal proceedings against Mohamed Mrad

text:
               9.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Ragusa (Italy) lodged on 9 February 2011 — Criminal proceedings against Mohamed Mrad
   (Case C-60/11)
   2011/C 113/15
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Ragusa

      Party/parties to the main proceedings

   Mohamed Mrad

      Question referred

               1.

               Is Directive 2008/115/EC (1) to be regarded as directly applicable within the domestic law of the Italian State with effect from 25 December 2010?

               2.

               Is Article 14(5)(b) and (5)(c) of Legislative Decree No 286/98, as subsequently amended, incompatible with Articles 15 and 16 of the directive referred to above, with the effect that this court is obliged to disapply the domestic legislation in question?

      (1)  OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98.


title: Case C-100/04: Action brought on 26 February 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/29

         Action brought on 26 February 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
   (Case C-100/04)
   (2004/C 94/65)
   An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 February 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by G. Valero Jordana and R. Amorosi, acting as Agents.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/81/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2001 on national emission ceilings for certain atmospheric pollutants, or by not communicating those provisions to the Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15 of that directive;

               —

               Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The time-limit for the transposition of the directive expired on 27 November 2002.

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 316 of 1.12.2001, p. 5.


title: Case T-120/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 November 2006 — Peróxidos Orgánicos v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Organic peroxides — Fines — Article 81 EC — Regulation (EEC) No 2988/74 — Limitation period — Duration of the infringement — Apportionment of the burden of proof — Equal treatment)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/55

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 November 2006 — Peróxidos Orgánicos v Commission
   (Case T-120/04) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Organic peroxides - Fines - Article 81 EC - Regulation (EEC) No 2988/74 - Limitation period - Duration of the infringement - Apportionment of the burden of proof - Equal treatment)
   (2006/C 326/118)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Peróxidos Orgánicos, SA (San Cugat del Vallés, Spain) (represented by: A. Creus Carreras and B. Uriarte Valiente, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Bouquet and F. Castillo de la Torre, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2005/349/EC of 10 December 2003 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-2/37.857 — Organic Peroxides) (OJ 2005 L 110, p. 44).
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 118, 30.4.2004.


title: Case C-437/10: Order of the President of the Court of 20 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial de Vieira do Minho — Portugal) — Manuel Afonso Esteves v Axa Seguros Portugal SA

text:
               6.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/23

         Order of the President of the Court of 20 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial de Vieira do Minho — Portugal) — Manuel Afonso Esteves v Axa Seguros Portugal SA
   (Case C-437/10) (1)

   2011/C 232/38
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.


title: Case T-85/14: Judgment of the General Court of 10 February 2015  — Infocit v OHIM — DIN (DINKOOL) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark DINKOOL — Earlier international figurative mark DIN — Earlier national business identifier DIN — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               23.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 10 February 2015 — Infocit v OHIM — DIN (DINKOOL)
   (Case T-85/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark DINKOOL - Earlier international figurative mark DIN - Earlier national business identifier DIN - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 096/24)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

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

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: DIN — Deutsches Institut für Normung eV (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: M. Bagh, lawyer)

      Re:

   ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 November 2013 (Case R 1106/2012-2) concerning opposition proceedings between DIN — Deutsches Institut für Normung eV and Infocit — Prestação de Serviços, Comércio Geral e Indústria, Lda.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders Infocit — Prestação de Serviços, Comércio Geral e Indústria, Lda, to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

               3.

               Orders DIN — Deutsches Institut für Normung eV to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.


title: Case T-162/01: Action brought on 18 July 2001 by Laboratorios R.T.B., S.L. against Office for the Harmonization of the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)

text:
27.10.2001              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 303/17
European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF)                  2.    The request submitted by Poste Italiane SpA and by the
(OJ 2000 L 180, p. 49) to the extent that that decision excludes                 Commission for confidential treatment is granted with regard
from that financing expenditure declared by the Irish accredited                 to the interlocutory proceedings.
paying agency in respect of afforestation aid — the Court of
First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of J. Azizi, President,           3.    The application for interim relief is dismissed.
K. Lenaerts and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made
an order on 25 April 2001, the operative part of which is as               4.    Costs are reserved.
follows:
1.    The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
2.    The applicant shall bear its own costs and shall pay those of
      the Commission.                                                      Action brought on 18 July 2001 by Laboratorios R.T.B.,
                                                                           S.L. against Office for the Harmonization of the Internal
                                                                                Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)
3.    Ireland shall bear its own costs.
                                                                                (Case T-162/01)
( 1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.00.
                                                                                (2001/C 303/30)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                           An action against Office for Harmonization in the Internal
                                                                           Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) was brought before
                                                                           the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                               18 July 2001 by Laboratorios R.T.B., S.L., whose registered
                              INSTANCE                                     office is in Bigues i Riells (Spain), represented by Arturo Canela
                                                                           Giménez.
                           of 28 May 2001
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
in Case T-53/01 R: Poste Italiane SpA v Commission of                      —     annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the
                   the European Communities                                      Office for the Harmonization of the Internal Market
                                                                                (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) of 30 April 2001 in
(Applications for interim relief — Article 86 EC in conjunc-                     Case R 122/2000-1 Giorgio Beverly Hills v Giorgi and
tion with Article 82 EC — Article 86(2) EC — Postal                              Others, on the ground that the disputed Community trade
         services — Urgency — Balancing of interests)                            mark number 417709 Giorgio Beverly Hills may not be
                                                                                registered pursuant to Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)
                                                                                No 40/94;
                          (2001/C 303/29)
                                                                           —     declare Community trade mark number 417709 Giorgio
                                                                                Beverly Hills invalid or, if appropriate, refuse it regis-
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                tration;
In Case T-53/01 R: Poste Italiane SpA, established in Rome,                —     order the Office to pay the costs.
represented by Gian Michele Roberti, Petrus Mathijsen, Ales-
sandra Perrazzelli, Elisabetta Rubini and Andrea Sandulli,
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against                Pleas in law and main arguments
the Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
L. Pignataro and K. Wiedner) — application for suspension of
operation of Commission Decision 2001/176/EC of
21 December 2000 concerning proceedings pursuant to                        Proprietor of the Com-           Giorgio Beverly Hills, Inc.
Article 86 of the EC Treaty in relation to the provision of                munity trade mark:
certain new postal services with a guaranteed day- or time-
certain delivery in Italy (OJ 2001 L 63, p. 59) — the President            The Community trade              Word mark ‘GIORGIO BEVERLY
of the Court of First Instance made an order on 28 May 2001,               mark concerned:                  HILLS’ — Application No 417709
the operative part of which is as follows:                                                                  for goods in Class 3
                                                                           Proprietor of the right to       Applicant
1.    Recapitalia Consorzio Italiano delle Agenzie di Recapito             the trade mark or sign
      Licenziatarie del Ministero delle Comunicazioni and TNT Post         asserted by way of oppo-
      Groep NV are granted leave to intervene in Case T-53/01 R in         sition in the opposition
      support of the form of order sought by the Commission.               proceedings:
 ---pagebreak--- C 303/18               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      27.10.2001
Trade mark or sign             Spanish trade marks ‘J. GIORGI’,                the performance of the INFORMS contract; consequently,
asserted by way of oppo-       ‘MISS GIORGI’, ‘GIORGI LINE’,                   order it to pay to IDATE the sum of Euros 503 662 by
sition in the opposition       registered for goods in Class 3                 way of damages;
proceedings:
Decision of the Oppo-          Dismissal of the opposition and           —     in any event, order the Commission to pay the whole of
sition Division:               party bringing opposition pro-                  the costs incurred by the applicant in the course of the
                               ceedings ordered to pay costs                   present action.
Decision of the Board of       Dismissal of the appeal and appel-
Appeal:                        lant ordered to pay costs
Grounds of claim:              Contrary to what is stated in the         Pleas in law and main arguments
                               contested decision, there is likeli-
                               hood of confusion between the
                               Community trade mark and the
                               trade marks of which the appli-           The applicants states that in the context of the Community
                               cant is the proprietor, since the         Trans-European Telecommunications Networks Programme it
                               differences between them to not           concluded a contract (Contract No 45504) concerning the
                               allow the consumer to differen-           INFORMS project (‘Dissemination of EuroISDN Benefits for
                               tiate between them.                       SMEs’) under which it agreed to organise, throughout the
                                                                         Member countries of the European Union, seminars aimed at
                                                                         informing and advising small and medium sized undertakings
                                                                         on the possible advantages of using the EuroISDN. In view of
                                                                         the size of the project, the contract called for the participation
                                                                         of subcontractors (‘partners’). Under the above contract, the
                                                                         Commission agreed to contribute, at the level of 50,85 %, to
                                                                         the financing of the total allowable costs borne under the
                                                                         contract, which include subcontracting costs.
Action brought on 25 July 2001 by the Institut de
l’Audiovisuel et des Télécommunications en Europe
    against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                         Initially the Commission paid its contribution in respect of all
                                                                         the costs invoiced to the applicant by its subcontractors under
                         (Case T-171/01)                                 the above contract, but after an audit of the contract it claimed
                                                                         from the applicant a certain amount of the sum paid on the
                                                                         ground that a part of the subcontracting costs was not covered
                         (2001/C 303/31)                                 by the concept of allowable costs in as much as it had not
                                                                         actually been paid by the applicant to the subcontractors but
                   (Language of the case: French)                        is the subject matter of a set-off.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               The applicant disputes that interpretation and submits that, as
European Communities on 25 July 2001 by the Institut de                  regards the subcontracting costs borne under the INFORMS
l’Audiovisuel et des Télécommunications en Europe, estab-                contract, it was merely an intermediatory between the Com-
lished in Montpellier (France), represented by Mr Hugues                 mission and the other partners, since it merely paid back
Calvet, Lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.               directly to the ‘partners’, at a rate of 50,85 % of the costs borne
                                                                         by them, the sums paid by the Commission by way of
                                                                         Community finance of the subcontracting in the INFORMS
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              project, which explains why all the subcontracting costs were
                                                                         invoiced to it and why it set off the amount corresponding to
                                                                         the financing which each individual ‘partner’ had to raise
—     declare and hold that ‘allowable costs’ within the meaning
                                                                         (the remaining 49,15 %). The applicant submits that the
      of Article 1.2 of Annex II to contract No 45504
                                                                         Community contribution must be calculated on the total cost
      concluded between the Commission and IDATE on
                                                                         actually borne under the INFORMS contract, which means, as
      28 March 1996 covers the whole of the costs invoiced to
                                                                         regards subcontracting, the total cost borne by the ‘partners’.
      IDATE by the ‘partners’ under that contract and, therefore,
                                                                         That amount corresponds to the total costs invoiced to the
      that the Commission is not entitled to claim from IDATE
                                                                         applicant, since, in that area, it merely centralised the accounts
      reimbursement of the sum of Euros 503 662 under the
                                                                         and played the role of intermediatory with regard to the
      above contract or, more generally, any sum at all;
                                                                         Commissions contribution.
—     in the alternative, declare and hold that the Commission
      infringed its duty of good faith and its duty to inform
      IDATE and thereby committed breaches of contract in


title: Case T-44/02: Action brought on 26 February 2002 by Dresdner Bank AG against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 109/60               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                         4.5.2002
—     order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings                  interest is to be paid, at least that interest which accrued
      and all other consequential expenses.                                      prior to the demand for reimbursement, and in any event
                                                                                the interest prescribed.
                                                                           —     In any event:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                make all further consequential orders or such further
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those                        orders as it shall consider appropriate or legally necessary.
put forward in Case T-36/02 ABI v Commission.
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
Action brought on 21 February 2002 by Banca Monte dei                      put forward in Case T-36/02 ABI v Commission.
Paschi di Siena Spa against the Commission of the
                     European Communities
                          (Case T-42/02)
                        (2002/C 109/115)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                        Action brought on 26 February 2002 by Dresdner Bank
                                                                           AG against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                                            (Case T-44/02)
European Communities on 21 February 2002 by Banca Monte
dei Paschi di Siena Spa, represented by Cristoforo Osti,
Giuseppe Pizzonia, Alessandra Prastaro and Marcello Valenti,                                        (2002/C 109/116)
lawyers.
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— Primarily:
—     (1) annul the decision of the Commission of the Euro-                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
            pean Communities of 11 December 2001;                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 26 February 2002 by Dresdner
                                                                           Bank AG, of Frankfurt am Main (Germany), represented by
      (2) order the Commission to pay the costs.                           M. Hirsch and W. Bosch, lawyers.
—     Alternatively:
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
      (1) annul Article 1 of the contested decision, inasmuch
            as it holds Article 24(1) of the ‘Legge Ciampi’ to be
            incompatible with the common market;                           —     annul the decision of 11 December 2001 in Case
                                                                                COMP/E-1/37.919 — Bank charges for currency
      (2) annul Article 4 of the contested decision, ordering                    exchange within the Euro zone: Germany (Dresdner Bank
            the recovery of the aid granted together with interest               AG) pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 231 EC,
            from the date on which the aid became available;                     alternatively cancel the fine imposed on Dresdner Bank
                                                                                AG by Article 3 of that decision;
—     In the further alternative:
                                                                           —     order the Commission to pay the costs of Dresdner Bank
      annul the contested decision in so far as it provides that,                AG pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure
      in addition to the amount of the aid to be recovered,                      of the Court of First Instance.
 ---pagebreak--- 4.5.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 109/61
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         The applicants claim that the Court should:
By the contested decision, the Commission imposed a fine of
EUR 28 million on the applicant for infringement of
                                                                        —     order the defendant to pay EUR 1852721 to the appli-
Article 81(1) EC. In that decision, the Commission found that
                                                                              cants’ legal representatives within 14 days and declare
agreements had been concluded between various German
                                                                              Article 2(1)(f) of Council Directive 68/151/EEC of
banks, including the applicant, concerning the type and
                                                                              9 March 1968 (1) and Article 47 of Council Directive
amount of bank charges, the agreements in question having
                                                                              78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 (2). to be contrary to
been aimed, during the transitional period, at fixing the way in
                                                                              European Community law;
which charges were to be made for exchanging bank notes in
the currencies of the countries taking part in monetary union,
in the form of a percentage, together with a target price of
around 3 %.                                                             —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
The applicant denies that it took part in an agreement contrary
to Article 81(1) EC. It maintains that the evidence produced
by the Commission in that regard is insufficient. In addition,
the Commission failed to show the effects of the alleged
agreement on trade between Member States.
The Commission wrongly assumed that there was an ongoing                Pleas in law and main arguments
infringement. The calculation of the fine is wrong, because the
Commission did not carry out any assessment of the applicant’s
individual conduct.
In the course of the procedure, the Commission infringed the
                                                                        The applicants are managing directors of various Austrian
applicant’s rights of defence, inasmuch as it refused to allow
                                                                        companies. They claim that the obligation to disclose the
the applicant to have sight of the files relating to the
                                                                        annual accounts of companies limited by shares and equivalent
circumstances resulting in the decision to discontinue the
                                                                        partnerships is incompatible with primary Community law,
procedure against other banks and did not, in the contested
                                                                        the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Community and the
decision, examine the statements made by the applicant in its
                                                                        case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities.
response to the main points raised in the complaint and in the
                                                                        On those grounds the applicants have to date refused to
oral hearing.
                                                                        disclose the annual accounts in the requisite form for the
                                                                        companies for which they are responsible. By the time this
The imposition of a fine on the applicant exceeds the                   action was brought fines of EUR 1 852 721 had been imposed
Commission’s discretionary power and discriminates against              on the applicants.
the applicant by comparison with those entities who were the
subject of the complaint and on whom it was decided not to
impose a fine. The Commission should likewise have decided
to discontinue the procedure as against the applicant.
                                                                        The applicants submit that the disclosure required by the
                                                                        directives in question entails the disclosure of confidential
                                                                        business information which is contrary to EC competition law
                                                                        and the general principle of the protection of business and
Action brought on 27 February 2002 by Manfred Danzer                    trade secrets. The publication of important and confidential
and Hannelore Danzer against the Council of the Euro-                   business data is also disproportionate and inadmissible in the
                          pean Union                                    light of Article 287 EC.
                         (Case T-47/02)
                       (2002/C 109/117)
                                                                        The applicants argue, further, that Article 2(1)(f) of Directive
                  (Language of the case: German)                        68/151/EEC and Article 47 of Directive 78/660/EEC have no
                                                                        basis in Article 44(2)(g) EC nor are they the type of provision
                                                                        which is properly covered by a ‘directive’ within the meaning
An action against the Council of the European Union was                 of Article 249 EC. The provisions do not harmonise existing
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European              law but ‘create’ new law. Moreover, they are contrary to the
Communities on 27 February 2002 by Manfred Danzer and                   principle of proportionality and breach the Austrian data
Hannelore Danzer, Linz (Austrian Republic), represented by              protection law, the fundamental right to property, the funda-
J. Hintermayr, M. Krüger, F. Haunschmidt, G. Minichmayr and             mental right to freedom of economic activity and the protec-
P. Burgstaller.                                                         tion of private tax matters.


C 302/22              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                21.10.2000
       Removal from the register of Case C-163/98 (1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-341/99 (1)
                         (2000/C 302/44)                                                      (2000/C 302/48)
By order of 19 May 2000, the President of the Court of Justice       By order of 13 June 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from             of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-163/98: Commission of the European            the register of Case C-341/99 (reference for a preliminary
Communities v Eyckeler & Malt AG.                                    ruling from Landesgerich Korneuburg): SEIKO Kabushiki Kai-
                                                                     sha v Rashad Wali.
(1) OJ C 258 of 15.8.1998.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 352 of 4.12.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-460/99 (1)
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-450/99 (1)
                         (2000/C 302/45)
                                                                                (2000/C 302/49)
By order of 25 May 2000, the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from             By order of 13 June 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
the register of Case C-460/99: Commission of the European            of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
Communities v French Republic.                                       the register of Case C-450/99 (reference for a preliminary
                                                                     ruling from Landesgericht Korneuburg): SEIKO Kabushiki
                                                                     Kaisha v Bajrami Sinavere.
(1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-78/99 (1)
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-432/00 (1)
                         (2000/C 302/46)
                                                                                (2000/C 302/50)
By order of 9 June 2000, the President of the Third Chamber
of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has              By order of 22 June 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
ordered the removal from the register of Case C-78/99:               of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.            the register of Case C-432/99: Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-183/99 (1)
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-452/99 (1)
                         (2000/C 302/47)
                                                                                (2000/C 302/51)
By order of 13 June 2000, the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from             By order of 26 June 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
the register of Case C-183/99 (Reference for a preliminary           of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof): Hugo Boss v Trigavina         the register of Case C-452/99: Commission of the European
in Storitve D.O.O.                                                   Communities v French Republic.
(1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.                                           (1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.


title: Case F-83/08: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 19 September 2013 — Gheysens v Council (Civil service — Auxiliary member of the contract staff — Conditions of engagement — Function group — Types of duties and corresponding function groups — Duration of employment)

text:
               26.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/35

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 19 September 2013 — Gheysens v Council
   (Case F-83/08) (1)

   (Civil service - Auxiliary member of the contract staff - Conditions of engagement - Function group - Types of duties and corresponding function groups - Duration of employment)
   2013/C 313/65
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Johan Gheysens (Malines, Belgium) (represented initially by S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, and subsequently by S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal and D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by M. Bauer and K. Zieleśkiewicz, and subsequently by M. Bauer and J. Herrmann, agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of the decision of the Council fixing the conditions of the applicant’s engagement in so far as it limits the duration of the contract to two years and classifies him in function group III, grade 11, step 1 and a declaration that Article 88 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants is illegal in so far as it authorises successive contracts for a fixed period subject to an overall limit of three years.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Council of the European Union to recruit Mr Gheysens in so far as it classifies him in function group III;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay three quarters of the costs incurred by Mr Gheysens;

               4.

               Orders Mr Gheysens to bear one quarter of his own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 313, 06.12.2008, p. 59.


title: Case C-341/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 8 July 2015 — Hans Maschek

text:
               19.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/3

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 8 July 2015 — Hans Maschek
   (Case C-341/15)
   (2015/C 346/03)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Wien

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Hans Maschek

      Respondent: Magistratsdirektion der Stadt Wien

      Questions referred

               1)

               Is national legislation, such as the provision at issue of Paragraph 41a(2) of the Wiener Besoldungsordnung 1994, which in principle does not allow an employee who has, at his own request, terminated the employment relationship with effect from a particular date an entitlement to an allowance in lieu of leave within the meaning of Article 7 of Directive No 2003/88/EC (1) compatible with Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC?
               If not, is a provision of national law which lays down that every employee who, at his own request, terminates an employment contract must make every effort to use up any outstanding entitlement to annual leave by the end of the employment relationship and that, in the event of termination of the employment relationship at the request of the employee, an entitlement to an allowance in lieu of leave arises only if, also in the event of request being made for annual leave beginning on the day of the application to terminate the employment relationship, the employee was unable to take a period of leave corresponding to the full extent of an entitlement to an allowance in lieu of leave compatible with Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC?

               2)

               Is it to be assumed that there is only to be an entitlement to payment of an allowance in lieu of leave if the employee who was unable due to incapacity to work to use up his leave entitlement immediately before the termination of his employment relationship (a) without unnecessary delay (and therefore in principle before the date of termination of the employment relationship) made his employer aware of his incapacity to work (e.g. due to illness) and (b) without unnecessary delay (and therefore in principle before the date of termination of the employment relationship) provided proof (e.g. through a doctor’s sick note) of his incapacity to work (e.g. due to illness)?
               If not, is a provision of national law which lays down that there is only to be an entitlement to an allowance in lieu of leave if the employee who was unable due to incapacity to work to use up his leave entitlement immediately before the termination of his employment relationship (a) without unnecessary delay (and therefore in principle before the date of termination of the employment relationship) made his employer aware of his incapacity to work (e.g. due to illness) and (b) without unnecessary delay (and therefore in principle before the date of termination of the employment relationship) provided proof (e.g. through a doctor’s sick note) of his incapacity to work (e.g. due to illness) compatible with Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC?

               3)

               According to the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (cf. judgments of the Court of Justice of 18 March 2004 in Gomez, C-342/01, paragraph 31; of 24 January 2012 in Dominguez, C-282/10, paragraphs 47 to 50; of 3 May 2012 in Neidei, C-337/10, paragraph 37) the Member States are free to grant an employee a statutory entitlement to leave or to an allowance in lieu of leave above the minimum entitlement guaranteed by Article 7 of Directive 2003/88. In addition, the entitlements laid down by Article 7 of Directive No 2003/88 have direct effect (cf. judgments of the Court of Justice of 24 January 2012 in Dominguez, C-282/10, paragraphs 34 to 36; of 12 June 2014 in Bollacke, C-118/13, paragraph 28).
               In the light of that interpretation given to Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC, does a situation in which the national legislature allows a certain class of persons an entitlement to an allowance in lieu of leave significantly above the requirements of that provision of the directive have the effect that, as a result of the direct effect of Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC, those persons who were, contrary to the terms of the directive, refused an entitlement to an allowance in lieu of leave by that national legislation are also entitled to an allowance in lieu of leave to the extent significantly above the requirements of that provision of the directive, and which is allowed by the national legislation to the persons favoured by that provision?

      (1)  Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9).


title: Case T-541/14: Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2016 — Antica Azienda Agricola Vitivinicola Dei Conti Leone De Castris v OHIM — Vicente Gandía Pla (ILLIRIA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark ILLIRIA — Earlier Community word mark CASTILLO DE LIRIA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               14.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/40

         Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2016 — Antica Azienda Agricola Vitivinicola Dei Conti Leone De Castris v OHIM — Vicente Gandía Pla (ILLIRIA)
   (Case T-541/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark ILLIRIA - Earlier Community word mark CASTILLO DE LIRIA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 098/52)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Antica Azienda Agricola Vitivinicola Dei Conti Leone De Castris Srl (Salice Salentino, Italy) (represented by: D. Russo and V. Wellens, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: V. Melgar and H. Kunz, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Vicente Gandía Pla, SA (Chiva, Spain) (represented by: I. Temiño Ceniceros, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 May 2014 (Case R 917/2013-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Vicente Gandía Pla, SA and Antica Azienda Agricola Vitivinicola Dei Conti Leone De Castris Srl.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Antica Azienda Agricola Vitivinicola Dei Conti Leone De Castris Srl to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.