title: Case T-291/01: Action brought on 30 November 2001 by Dessauer Versorgungs- und Verkehrsgesellschaft mbH — DVV — Stadtwerke and four other undertakings against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
16.2.2002               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 44/19
The applicant argues that, by imposing the condition in                  Pleas in law and main arguments
Article 3(a) of the decision, the defendant has applied
Article 81(3) EC incorrectly inter alia in that the condition is
not objectively necessary as the use of the collection and               The applicant is challenging a demand for repayment of
sorting facilities is in no way indispensable for the activities of      Community grants totalling EUR 464 329,22 made by the
competitors. Moreover, the condition, which is dispro-                   Commission in the contested debit note.
portionate, entails an encroachment on the specific subject
matter of the applicant’s trade mark and distortion of compe-            The applicant and the Community concluded, within the
tition to the detriment of the applicant.                                framework of the LIFE project (1), a contract relating to the
                                                                         planned ‘Ecological revitalisation of the Brandenburgische
                                                                         Elbtalaue’: preparatory planning and Gnevsdorfer Werder sub-
The applicant argues, further, that, by imposing the condition           project’. The Commission undertook to participate by making
in Article 3(a), the defendant has applied Article 86(2) EC              a contribution of 50 % of the actual cost, but not exceeding
incorrectly, since the applicant, which is entrusted with a              ECU 1,5 million. The project thus promoted, which was
service of general interest, can no longer operate its country-          designed to prepare the reinstatement of the embankment
wide system under economically viable conditions and make                between the municipalities of Lenzen and Wustrow, was
the necessary adjustments between profitable and less profit-            finished in 1998. Shortly before the end of the project, it
able sectors.                                                            became apparent that it would not be possible to reinstate the
                                                                         embankment as extensively as had been planned.
Moreover, by imposing the condition in Article 3(b) the
defendant has applied Article 86(2) EC incorrectly. Finally, the         In February 2001 the Commission gave notice that, in its view,
defendant, by seeking the commitment of 25 September 1998                the applicant, in carrying out the project, had partly deviated
(recital 72), has breached the fundamental right to freedom of           from the contract and that, since the applicant had reduced
access to justice.                                                       the surface area of the project, the Commission was only able
                                                                         to co-finance the work done in the reduced area. By the
                                                                         contested decision, the Commission called upon the applicant
(1) OJ C 100, p. 4.                                                      to repay to it EUR 464 329,33.
(2) Case T-151/01 Der Grüne Punkt — Duales System Deutschland
    AG v Commission OJ 2001 C 289, p. 6.
                                                                         The applicant asserts that the Community is not entitled to
                                                                         demand the repayment at issue by means of a Commission
                                                                         decision; instead, it is obliged to have recourse to law
                                                                         before the national courts. In addition, it maintains that the
                                                                         Commission has failed to comply with its obligation to provide
                                                                         a statement of reasons and has violated the applicant’s rights
                                                                         of defence. Finally, the Commission has infringed the principle
Action brought on 28 November 2001 by the Land                           of proportionality.
Brandenburg against the Commission of the European
                            Communities
                                                                         (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1973/92 of 21 May 1992 estab-
                                                                             lishing a financial instrument for the environment (LIFE) (OJ 1992
                          (Case T-290/01)                                    L 206, p. 1), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1404/96 of
                                                                             15.7.1996 (OJ 1996 L 181, p. 1).
                           (2002/C 44/36)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         Action brought on 30 November 2001 by Dessauer
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                Versorgungs- und Verkehrsgesellschaft mbH — DVV —
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               Stadtwerke and four other undertakings against the
European Communities on 28 November 2001 by the Land                               Commission of the European Communities
Brandenburg (Germany), represented by G. Schohe and T. Mas-
ing, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                                             (Case T-291/01)
                                                                                (2002/C 44/37)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision contained in the Commission’s debit                                 (Language of the case: German)
      note No 3240305411 of 13.9.2001 addressed to the
      applicant, relating to project No LIFE94/D/
      A211/00029/BND re Contract No B4-3200/94/730;                      An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                              European Communities on 30 November 2001 by Dessauer
 ---pagebreak--- C 44/20               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       16.2.2002
Versorgungs- und Verkehrsgesellschaft mbH — DVV —                       pursuant to Articles 10(1), 13(1) and 4(4) of Council Regu-
Stadtwerke, of Dessau (Germany), Neubrandenburger                       lation (EC) No 659/1999 (1). Had it done so, the Commission
Stadtwerke GmbH, of Neubrandenburg (Germany), Stadtwerke                would then have been constrained, under the law applicable
Schwäbisch Hall GmbH, of Schwäbisch Hall (Germany),                     to grants of aid, to adopt a negative decision against the Federal
Stadtwerke Tübingen GmbH, of Tübingen (Germany) and                     Republic of Germany on the facts as stated.
Stadtwerke Uelzen GmbH, of Uelzen (Germany), represented
by D. Fouquet, lawyer.
                                                                        (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying
                                                                            down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC
                                                                            Treaty (now Article 88 EC) (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).
The applicants claim that the Court should:
—     declare that, by failing, within two months after being
      formally called upon by letter of 29 August 2001 to act
      pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 232 EC, to
      examine the complaint made on the basis of Articles 87
      and 88 EC and to reach a decision in the light of that
      examination, the Commission has infringed Article 232
      EC;                                                               Action brought on 28 November 2001 by Phillips-Van
                                                                        Heusen Corporation against Office for the Harmonization
                                                                         of the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)
—     order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings,
      including the costs incurred by the applicants, even in the
      event that, following the bringing of the action, the                                      (Case T-292/01)
      Commission takes action in such a way that, in the
      opinion of the Court, the proceedings have become                                           (2002/C 44/38)
      nugatory.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        An action against Office for Harmonization in the Internal
                                                                        Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) was brought before
The applicants are German public utilities producing their own          the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
electricity. Since the introduction of competition in the               28 November 2001 by Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation of
electricity market, the applicants, as energy suppliers, have           New York (United States of America), represented by Fabrizio
been in competition with, in particular, the 19 existing nuclear        Jacobacci. The other party in proceedings before the Com-
power stations as regards the production of electricity in the          mission was: Pash Textilvertrieb und Einzelhandel GmbH of
Federal Republic of Germany.                                            Munich (Germany)
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
According to the applicants, the nuclear power station oper-
ators set aside reserves in their commercial and tax balance
sheets in respect of the cost of having to close down at some           —     annul Decision R 0740/2000-3 of the Third Board of
future date and the disposal of irradiated fuel elements and                  Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
radioactive waste. The disposal and shutting-down costs are                   Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 September 2001
allocated to the sales proceeds from continuous electricity                   notified on 28 September 2001 to the applicant;
production. However, according to the applicants, the obli-
gation under commercial law to set aside reserves affects, at           —     definitively reject the opposition brought by the defend-
the same time, the way in which the nuclear power station                     ant against registration of Community trade mark
operators are treated for tax purposes. As a result of the                    No 161331 BASS, on behalf of Phillips-Van Heusen
German tax rules, a significant part of the tax additionally                  Corporation, in respect of the whole of Class 25;
demanded is in fact made freely available to the nuclear power
station operators by virtue of the legislation on tax relief.           —     order the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market
                                                                              (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) to register Community
                                                                              trade mark No 161331 BASS;
The applicants assert that the exemption of reserves under
fiscal law in favour of nuclear power stations constitutes a            —     order the defendant and the OHIM to pay, jointly or
grant by the Federal Republic of Germany of unlawful, non-                    severally, to the applicant the costs, expenses and fees
notified aid which is incompatible with the common market.                    incurred in both the present proceedings and the oppo-
They maintain that the Commission was obliged to open a                       sition and appeal proceedings before the Office for
formal procedure against the Federal Republic of Germany                      Harmonization in the Internal Market.


21.10.2000            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 302/23
       Removal from the register of Case C-33/00 (1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-231/99 (1)
                       (2000/C 302/52)                                                       (2000/C 302/56)
By order of 26 June 2000 the President of the Court of Justice      By order of 6 July 2000 the President of the Court of Justice of
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from            the European Communities has ordered the removal from the
the register of Case C-33/00: Commission of the European            register of Case C-231/99: Commission of the European
Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.                                   Communities v Republic of Austria.
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.                                           (1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-34/00 (1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-495/99 (1)
                       (2000/C 302/53)                                                       (2000/C 302/57)
By order of 26 June 2000 the President of the Court of Justice      By order of 6 July 2000 the President of the Court of Justice of
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from            the European Communities has ordered the removal from the
the register of Case C-34/00: Commission of the European            register of Case C-495/99: Commission of the European
Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.                                   Communities v French Republic.
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.                                           (1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-342/99 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-432/97 (1)
                       (2000/C 302/54)                                                       (2000/C 302/58)
By order of 28 June 2000 the President of the Court of Justice      By order of 7 July 2000, the President of the Fifth Chamber of
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from            the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered
the register of Case C-342/99 (reference for a preliminary          the removal from the register of Case C-432/97: Commission
ruling from Landesgericht Korneuburg): New Yorker S.H.K.            of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
Jeans GmbH v SIMPLEX-1000ST.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 55 of 20.2.1998.
(1) OJ C 352 of 4.12.1999.
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case C-271/99 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case   C-504/99 (1)
                                                                                (2000/C 302/59)
                       (2000/C 302/55)
                                                                    By order of 11 July 2000, the President of the Sixth Chamber
By order of 28 June 2000 the President of the Court of Justice      of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from            ordered the removal from the register of Case C-271/99:
the register of Case C-504/99 Commission of the European            Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of
Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.                                   Belgium.
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.                                           (1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.


title: Case T-548/08: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2013 — Total v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Paraffin waxes market — Slack wax market — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Price-fixing and market-sharing — Rights of the defence — Principle of the legality of criminal offences and penalties — Presumption of innocence — Attributability of the unlawful conduct — Liability of a parent company for infringements of the competition rules committed by its subsidiaries — Decisive influence exercised by the parent company — Presumption where the parent company holds nearly 100 % of the shares)

text:
               26.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2013 — Total v Commission
   (Case T-548/08) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Paraffin waxes market - Slack wax market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price-fixing and market-sharing - Rights of the defence - Principle of the legality of criminal offences and penalties - Presumption of innocence - Attributability of the unlawful conduct - Liability of a parent company for infringements of the competition rules committed by its subsidiaries - Decisive influence exercised by the parent company - Presumption where the parent company holds nearly 100 % of the shares)
   2013/C 313/32
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Total SA (Courbevoie, France) (represented by: É. Morgan de Rivery and A. Noël-Baron, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and É. Gippini Fournier, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Primarily, application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 5476 final of 1 October 2008, relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.181 — Candle waxes), and, in the alternative, application for annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Total SA to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.


title: Case C-312/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Ráckevei Járásbíróság (Hungary) lodged on 1 July 2014  — Banif Plus Bank Zrt. v Márton Lantos, Mártonné Lantos

text:
               8.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/27

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Ráckevei Járásbíróság (Hungary) lodged on 1 July 2014 — Banif Plus Bank Zrt. v Márton Lantos, Mártonné Lantos
   (Case C-312/14)
   2014/C 303/34
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Ráckevei Járásbíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Banif Plus Bank Zrt.

      Defendants: Márton Lantos, Mártonné Lantos

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must it be held that, pursuant to Article 4(1)(2) (investment services and activities), Article 4(1)(17) (financial instruments) and Annex I, Section C, point (4) (forward currency contracts, derivative instruments) of Directive [2004/39/EC] (1) (‘the directive’), the offer of an (exchange rate) transaction to a client which, under the legal form of a foreign currency denominated loan agreement, consists of a spot transaction at the time of the advance of the loan and a forward transaction at the time of repayment, which is carried out by converting into forints a registered amount of foreign currency and which exposes the client’s loan to the effects and risks (currency risk) of capital markets, constitutes a financial instrument?

               2.

               Must it be held that, pursuant to Article 4(1)(6) (dealing on own account) and Annex I, Section A, point (3) (dealing on own account) of the directive, the carrying out of proprietary trading in respect of the financial instrument described in the first question constitutes an investment service or activity?

               3.

               Must the financial institution perform the suitability check required by Article 19(4) and (5) of the directive, taking into account that the forward currency contract — which is an investment service relating to financial derivative instruments — was offered as part of another financial product (namely a loan agreement) and that the derivative instrument in itself constitutes a complex financial instrument? Must it be held that Article 19(9) of the directive is not applicable because, as the risks assumed by the client with regard to the loan and to the financial instrument are fundamentally different, the suitability assessment is essential inasmuch as the transaction contains a derivative instrument?

               4.

               Does the circumvention of Article 19(4) and (5) of the directive lead to the annulment of the loan agreement between the bank and the client?

      (1)  Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments amending Council Directives 85/611/EEC and 93/6/EEC and Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 93/22/EEC (OJ 2004 L 145, p. 1).


title: Case C-456/99 P: Appeal brought on 30 November 1999 by J against the judgment delivered on 28 September 1999 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-28/98 between J and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
19.2.2000               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 47/17
2. Order the Republic of Austria to bear the costs of the              Crehan (by original action) and Bernard Crehan against 1)
     action.                                                           Courage Ltd, 2) Inntrepreneur Estates (CPC) plc, 3) Courage
                                                                       Group Ltd (by counterclaim), on the following questions:
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        1. Is Article 81EC (ex Article 85) to be interpreted as meaning
                                                                           that a party to a prohibited tied house agreement may rely
All the Member States are under a duty to transpose the                    upon that article to seek relief from the courts from the
Directive into mandatory national provisions in due time. The              other contracting party?
period provided for in Article 25 of the Directive expired on
31 December 1997, without Austria having                               2. If the answer to Question 1 is yes is the party claiming
                                                                           relief entitled to recover damages alleged to arise as a result
— restricted the time-limit for the granting of individual                 of his adherence to the clause in the agreement which is
     licences where there are special circumstances to a                   prohibited under Article 81?
     maximum of four months;
                                                                       3. Should a rule of national law which provides that Courts
— transposed into national law the maximum time-limit of                   should not allow a person to plead and/or rely upon his
     two months for decisions in the event of withdrawal,                  own illegal actions as a necessary step to recovery of
     amendment or temporary suspension pursuant to                         damages be allowed as consistent with Community law?
     Article 9(4) of the Directive;
                                                                       4. If the answer to Question 3 is that in some circumstances
— laid down an appropriate procedure for appealing pursuant                such a rule may be inconsistent with Community law
     to Article 9(4) and (6): the Constitutional Court has                 what circumstances should the national court take into
     established the failure to transpose (2) and is now rou-              consideration?
     tinely (3) refusing to deal with complaints addressed to it
     against decisions of the Telecom Control Commission,
     referring to the existence of a right to appeal to the
     Administrative Court, which, in its view, stems directly
     from Community law. However, there has not thus far
     been any Declaration from the Administrative Court
     confirming that it has jurisdiction. Nor can, in the Com-
     mission’s view, the right of appeal to the Administrative
     Court be regarded, contra legem, purely on the basis of the       Appeal brought on 30 November 1999 by J against the
     case-law of the Constitutional Court as sufficient for            judgment delivered on 28 September 1999 by the Third
     reasons of legal certainty.                                       Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                       Communities in Case T-28/98 between J and the Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities
(1) OJ 1997 L 117, p. 15.
(2) In Declaration B 1625/98 of 24.2.1999 relating to a similar
    provision in a directive.                                                                   (Case C-456/99 P)
(3) Decisions of 11.3.1999 in complaint proceedings B 1637/98, B
    2175/98, B. B 1768/98 and B 1884/98.
                                                                                (2000/C 47/27)
                                                                       An appeal against the judgment delivered on 28 September
                                                                       1999 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                       the European Communities in Case T-28/98 between J and the
                                                                       Commission of the European Communities was brought
                                                                       before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal              30 November 1999 by J, represented by Georges Vandersan-
(England and Wales) (Civil Division), by order of that                 den and Laure Lévi, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
court of 4 August 1999, in the case of Courage Ltd against             service in Luxembourg at the office of Société de Gestion
Bernard Crehan (by original action) and Bernard Crehan                 Fiduciaire, 24 Rue Beck.
against 1) Courage Ltd, 2) Inntrepreneur Estates (CPC)
         plc, 3) Courage Group Ltd (by counterclaim)
                                                                       The appellant claims that the Court should:
                           (Case C-453/99)                             — Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                           28 September 1999 in Case T-28/98;
                            (2000/C 47/26)
                                                                       — Consequently, grant the form of order sought by the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     appellant at first instance, and therefore annul the Com-
European Communities by an order of the Court of Appeal                    mission’s decision of 6 January 1997 fixing the appellant’s
(England and Wales) (Civil Division) of 4 August 1999, which               place of recruitment as Brussels;
was received at the Court Registry on 30 November 1999, for
a preliminary ruling in the case of Courage Ltd against Bernard        — Order the Commission to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 47/18                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     19.2.2000
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          The Member States are required by the binding character of
Error in the legal assessment of the facts entailing a breach of          the third paragraph of Article 249 EC and of Article 10 EC (ex
rules of law, in this case Article 7(3) of Annex VII to the Staff         third paragraph of Article 189 and Article 5 of the EC Treaty)
Regulations of Officials and the implementing provisions.                 to adopt the measures needed to transpose directives into
                                                                          national law before the expiry of the period laid down for that
                                                                          purpose and to communicate those measures immediately to
                                                                          the Commission. Those periods expired without the Hellenic
                                                                          Republic having communicated to the Commission the pro-
                                                                          visions transposing the directives at issue into national law.
                                                                          (1) OJ No L 265, 8.11.1995, p. 17.
                                                                          (2) OJ No L 332, 30.12.1995, p. 15.
                                                                          (3) OJ No L 351, 23.12.1997, p. 55.
Action brought on 1 December 1999 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Hellenic Repub-
                                 lic
                                                                          Action brought on 1 December 1999 by the Commission
                          (Case C-457/99)                                 of the European Communities against the Hellenic Repub-
                                                                                lic
                           (2000/C 47/28)                                                         (Case C-458/99)
                                                                                (2000/C 47/29)
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 1 December                An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the
1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,                       Court of Justice of the European Communities on 1 December
represented by Maria Kondou-Durande, of its Legal Service,                1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of                represented by Maria Kondou-Durande, of its Legal Service,
Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,            with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
Kirchberg.                                                                Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
                                                                          Kirchberg.
The Commission claims that the Court should:                              The Commission claims that the Court should:
                                                                          — declare that, by not adopting within the time-limit laid
1. declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and                    down the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
    administrative provisions necessary to comply with:                       necessary to comply with Commission Directive
                                                                              98/19/EC (1) of 18 March 1998 amending Council Direc-
                                                                              tive 70/524/EEC concerning additives in feedingstuffs, the
    — Council Directive 95/53/EC (1) of 25 October 1995                       Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
         fixing the principles governing the organisation of                  the Treaty and that directive;
         official inspections in the field of animal nutrition;
                                                                          — order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
    — Council Directive 95/69/EC (2) of 22 December 1995
         laying down the conditions and arrangements for                  Pleas in law and main arguments
         approving and registering certain establishments and
         intermediaries operating in the animal feed sector               The Member States are required by the binding character of
         and amending Directives 70/524/EEC, 74/63/EEC,                   the third paragraph of Article 249 EC and of Article 10 EC (ex
         79/373/EEC and 82/471/EEC; and                                   third paragraph of Article 189 and Article 5 of the EC Treaty)
                                                                          to adopt the measures needed to transpose directives into
                                                                          national law before the expiry of the period laid down for that
    — Commission Directive 97/72/EC (3) of 15 December                    purpose and to communicate those measures immediately to
         1997 amending Council Directive 70/524/EEC con-                  the Commission. That period expired on 31 May 1998
         cerning additives in feedingstuffs,                              without the Hellenic Republic having communicated to the
                                                                          Commission the provisions transposing the directive at issue
                                                                          into national law.
    the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
    under the Treaty and those directives;
                                                                          (1) OJ No L 96, 28.3.1998, p. 39.
2. order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.


title: Case T-345/14: Action brought on 19 May 2014  — Quanzhou Wouxun Electronics v OHIM Locura Digital (WOUXUN)

text:
               21.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/30

         Action brought on 19 May 2014 — Quanzhou Wouxun Electronics v OHIM Locura Digital (WOUXUN)
   (Case T-345/14)
   2014/C 235/41
   Language in which the application was lodged: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Quanzhou Wouxun Electronics Co. Ltd (Quanzhou, China) (represented by: A. Sebastião and J. Pimenta, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Locura Digital, SL (Granollers, Spain)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 February 2014 in Case R 407/2013-4;

               —

               Order OHIM to refuse to grant registration of the Community trade mark No 1 0 0 72  478‘WOUXUN’ in full

               —

               Order Locura Digital, SL to bear the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Locura Digital, SL

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark WOUXUN for goods and services in Classes 9, 39 and 42 — Application for Community trade mark No 1 0 0 72  478

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Quanzhou Wouxun Electronics Co. Ltd

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word marks WOUXUN for goods and services in Classes 9, 35 and 38

      Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was rejected in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case T-43/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 March 2008 — Maison de l'Europe Avignon Méditerranée v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Info point Europe label — Statements made by an agent of the Commission about the applicant)

text:
               26.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/22

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 March 2008 — Maison de l'Europe Avignon Méditerranée v Commission
   (Case T-43/03) (1)

   (Non-contractual liability - ‘Info point Europe’ label - Statements made by an agent of the Commission about the applicant)
   (2008/C 107/34)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Maison de l'Europe Avignon Méditerranée (Avignon, France) (represented by: F. Martineau and N. Benoît, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J.-F. Pasquier, agent)
   Re:
   Application for damages for harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the statements made by the Commission's agent in Marseille at the meeting on 23 January 2003.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application.

               2.

               Orders the Maison de l'Europe Avignon Méditerranée to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 101, 26.4.2003.


title: Case T-472/04: Action brought on 20 November 2004 by Vassilios Tsarnavas against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               5.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 57/29

         Action brought on 20 November 2004 by Vassilios Tsarnavas against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-472/04)
   (2005/C 57/49)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 20 November 2004 by Vassilios Tsarnavas, residing in Volos (Greece), represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Commission of 23 December 2003 in so far as it failed to include the applicant's name in the list of officials put forward for promotion in 1999, or on the list of officials adjudged to be the most deserving of promotion to grade A4 in the 1998 and 1999 promotion rounds, or on the list of officials promoted to grade A4 in those promotion rounds;

               —

               annul all connected and/or subsequent decisions;

               —

               in so far as may be necessary, annul the decision of the Commission of 5 August 2004, rejecting the applicant's complaint;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of its action, the applicant alleges procedural irregularities, an infringement of Article 25(2) of the Staff Regulations, an infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, infringements of the principle of equal treatment and sound administration and, lastly, a manifest error of assessment.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 30 January 1997 in Case C-178/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Koophandel, Antwerp): Wiljo NV v. Belgian State (Structural improvements in inland waterway transport - Special contribution - Exclusion of 'specialized vessels' - Commission decision rejecting an application for exemption - Decision not contested under Article 173 of the Treaty - Validity of the decision then contested before the national court)

text:
 22 . 3 . 97            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 94/1
                                                                    I
                                                             (Information)
                                                COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                          COURT OF JUSTICE
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  on structural improvements in inland waterway transport,
                          (Fifth Chamber)                              and the addressee has not brought an action under the
                                                                       fourth paragraph of Article 1 73 of the EC Treaty against
                        of 30 January 1997                             the decision within the time limit prescribed, that decision
in Case C-l 78/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from             is binding on the national court.
the Rechtbank van Koophandel, Antwerp): Wiljo NV v.
                          Belgian State (')                             1 OJ No C 189,22 . 7. 1995 .
 (Structural improvements in inland waterway transport —
 Special contribution — Exclusion of 'specialized vessels'
— Commission decision rejecting an application for
 exemption — Decision not contested under Article 1 73 of
 the Treaty — Validity of the decision then contested
                     before the national court)                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                            ( 97/C 94/01 )
                                                                                of 30 January 1997
                 (Language of the case: Dutch)                        in Case C-221/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                      the Tribunal du Travail, Tournai): Institut National
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be        d'Assurances Sociales pour Travailleurs Indépendants
           published in the European Court Reports)                             (Inasti ) v. Claude Hervein, Hervillier SA (')
                                                                       (Social security for migrant workers — Determination of
In Case C-l 78/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177           the legislation applicable — Definition of employed and
of the EC Treaty from the Rechtbank van Koophandel                                               self-employed)
( Commercial Court), Antwerp ( Belgium), for a                                                     97/C 94/02 )
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Wiljo NV and Belgian State — on the
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
interpretation of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1101/89 of
27 April 1989 on structural improvements in inland
waterway transport ( OJ No L 116, 28 . 4. 1989, p. 25 )                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
and on the validity of the Commission's decision of 6 May                       published in the European Court Reports)
1993 rejecting an application for exemption from the
special contribution to the scrapping fund set up by                  In Case C-221 /95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
Article 8 ( 1 ) ( a ) of that Regulation — the Court ( Fifth          of the EC Treaty from the Tribunal du Travail ( Labour
Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, acting for the                     Court), Tournai ( Belgium), for a preliminary ruling in the
President of the Chamber (Rapporteur), D. A. O. Edward,               proceedings pending before that court between Institut
J.-R Puissochet, P. Jann and M. Wathelet, Judges; F. G.               National d'Assurances Sociales pour Travailleurs Indépen
Jacobs, Advocate-General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,                        dants (Inasti ) and Claude Hervein, Hervillier SA — on the
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a               interpretation of Article 14a (2 ) of Council Regulation
judgment on 30 January 1997, in which it has ruled:                   ( EEC ) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of
                                                                      social security schemes to employed persons, to self
Where a Commission decision has been addressed to the                 employed persons and to members of their families
owner of a vessel, finding that his vessel is not a                   moving within the Community, as amended and updated
specialized vessel within the meaning of Article 8 (3) (c) of         by Regulation ( EEC) No 2001/83 ( OJ No L 230, 22. 8 .
Council Regulation (EEC) No 1101 /89 of 27 April 1989                 1983 , p. 6 ) — the Court ( Fifth Chamber), composed of: L.


title: Case T-453/15: Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — Trinity Haircare v EUIPO — Advance Magazine Publishers (VOGUE) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative trade mark VOGUE — Absolute ground for refusal — No descriptive character — Distinctiveness — Article 52(1)(a), read in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               24.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/39

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — Trinity Haircare v EUIPO — Advance Magazine Publishers (VOGUE)
   (Case T-453/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative trade mark VOGUE - Absolute ground for refusal - No descriptive character - Distinctiveness - Article 52(1)(a), read in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 392/50)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Trinity Haircare AG (Herisau, Switzerland) (represented by: J. Kroher and K. Bach, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Lewis and J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: D. Ivison, Barrister)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 May 2015 (Case R 2426/2014-4) relating to invalidity proceedings between Advance Magazine Publishers and Trinity Haircare.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Trinity Haircare AG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc.

      (1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2015.


title: Case C-137/10: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État — Belgium) — European Communities v Région de Bruxelles-Capitale (Articles 207(2) EC and 282 EC — Representation of the European Communities before the national courts — Powers conferred on the Commission — Delegation of the power of representation to other Community institutions — Conditions)

text:
               25.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 186/6

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État — Belgium) — European Communities v Région de Bruxelles-Capitale
   (Case C-137/10) (1)

   (Articles 207(2) EC and 282 EC - Representation of the European Communities before the national courts - Powers conferred on the Commission - Delegation of the power of representation to other Community institutions - Conditions)
   2011/C 186/10
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d'État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: European Communities

      Defendant: Région de Bruxelles-Capitale

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d’État — Interpretation of Articles 282 EC and the first subparagraph of 207(2) EC — Conditions for the Commission to delegate to another institution the powers to represent the Community in legal proceedings — Validity of the mandate in the absence of an appointment by name of the natural person having authority to represent the institution thus empowered — Jurisdiction of the national court to give judgment on the matter — Doubts relating to the validity of the representation of the Council in legal proceedings by its Deputy Secretary-General, who is responsible for the running of the General Secretariat — Respect of the principle of the organisational autonomy of the institutions

      Operative part of the judgment

   The mandate by which the European Commission delegated to another Community institution, in a dispute concerning the latter, the power accruing to the Commission under Article 282 EC to represent the European Communities before a national court was validly granted, regardless of whether that mandate specified by name a natural person as having authority to represent the institution thus empowered. In such cases, both the institution thus empowered and the natural person — if one were specified — were entitled to authorise a lawyer to represent the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 148, 5.6.2010.


title: Case C-672/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 29 December 2011 — Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer), successor in law to the Office national interprofessionnel des fruits, des légumes, des vins et de l’horticulture (VINIFLHOR) v Société anonyme d'intérêt collectif agricole Unanimes

text:
               24.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 29 December 2011 — Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer), successor in law to the Office national interprofessionnel des fruits, des légumes, des vins et de l’horticulture (VINIFLHOR) v Société anonyme d'intérêt collectif agricole Unanimes
   (Case C-672/11)
   2012/C 89/11
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer), successor in law to the Office national interprofessionnel des fruits, des légumes, des vins et de l’horticulture (VINIFLHOR)

      Defendant: Société anonyme d'intérêt collectif agricole Unanimes

      Questions referred

               1.

               How is the option, granted by Article 2(4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4045/89 of 21 December 1989 on scrutiny by Member States of transactions forming part of the system of financing by the Guarantee Section of the EAGGF, (1) to extend the scrutiny period ‘for periods … preceding or following the 12-month period’ which it defines, to be implemented by a Member State, having regard to, first, the need to protect the Communities’ financial interests, and second, the principle of legal certainty and the necessity to not give the scrutiny authorities indefinite power?

               2.

               In particular:

                           —

                           Must the period scrutinised, in all instances — if the scrutiny is not to be marred by an irregularity which the person scrutinised may rely on against the decision giving due effect to the results of the scrutiny — end during the twelve month period which precedes the ‘scrutiny’ period during which the scrutiny operations are carried out?

                           —

                           In the event of a positive reply to the preceding question, how must the option, expressly provided for by the regulation, to extend the period of scrutiny for periods ‘following the 12-month period’ be understood?

                           —

                           In the event of a negative reply to the first question, must the scrutiny period nevertheless — if the scrutiny is not to be marred by an irregularity which the scrutinised person may rely on against the decision giving due effect to the results of the scrutiny — include a twelve month period which ends during the scrutiny period preceding that during which the scrutiny was carried out, or, on the contrary, may the scrutiny cover only a period which ends before the beginning of the preceding scrutiny period?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 4045/89 of 21 December 1989 on scrutiny by Member States of transactions forming part of the system of financing by the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund and repealing Directive 77/435/EEC (OJ 1989 L 388, p. 18).


title: Case T-18/15: Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — Philip Morris v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents drawn up in the context of the preparatory works leading to the adoption of the directive on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products — Refusal to grant access — Exception relating to the protection of court proceedings — Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process — Rights of the defence — Overriding public interest)

text:
               24.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/32

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — Philip Morris v Commission
   (Case T-18/15) (1)

   ((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents drawn up in the context of the preparatory works leading to the adoption of the directive on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products - Refusal to grant access - Exception relating to the protection of court proceedings - Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process - Rights of the defence - Overriding public interest))
   (2016/C 392/39)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Philip Morris Ltd (Richmond, United Kingdom) (represented by: K. Nordlander and M. Abenhaïm, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision Ares(2014) 3694540 of 6 November 2014, refusing access to certain documents relating to the adoption of Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products and repealing Directive 2001/37/EC (OJ 2014 L 127, p. 1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision Ares(2014) 3694540 of 6 November 2014, refusing access to certain documents relating to the adoption of Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products and repealing Directive 2001/37/EC, in so far as it refused access to the first three sentences of the third paragraph of Document No 6;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 107, 30.3.2015.


title: Case F-59/06: Action brought on  8 May 2006  — Kerstens v Commission

text:
               15.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/34

         Action brought on 8 May 2006 — Kerstens v Commission
   (Case F-59/06)
   (2006/C 165/69)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Petrus J.F. Kerstens (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)

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

               —

               Annul the Appointing Authority's decision of 11 July 2005 adopting the applicant's Career Development Report (CDR) for the year 2004;

               —

               Annul the Appointing Authority's express decision of 6 February 2006 rejecting the applicant's complaint No R/769/05;

               —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, a Commission official, challenges the merit points and markings contained in his CDR for the year 2004. He pleads infringement of the appraisal procedure rules and of the General Provisions Implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations, a manifest error of assessment and infringement of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations. The applicant reserves, lastly, the right to expound a third plea in law alleging misuse of powers.


title: Case C-156/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 1 April 2015 — SIA ‘Private Equity Insurance Group’ v AS ‘Swedbank’

text:
               15.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 198/24

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 1 April 2015 — SIA ‘Private Equity Insurance Group’ v AS ‘Swedbank’
   (Case C-156/15)
   (2015/C 198/32)
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Augstākā tiesa

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: SIA ‘Private Equity Insurance Group’

      Respondent: AS ‘Swedbank’

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the provisions of Article 4 of Directive 2002/47/EC (1) on financial collateral arrangements, having regard to recitals 1 and 4 in the preamble thereto, be interpreted as meaning that those provisions apply only to accounts which are used for settlement in securities settlement systems, or as meaning that they apply equally to any account open in a bank, including a current account which is not used for securities settlement?

               2.

               Must Article 8 and Article 3 of Directive 2002/47/EC, having regard to recitals 3 and 5 in the preamble thereto, be interpreted as meaning that the purpose of that directive is to ensure especially favourable priority treatment for credit institutions in the event of the insolvency of their customers, in particular, over other creditors of those customers, such as workers, in respect of wages owing to them, the State, in respect of its tax claims, and secured creditors, whose claims are secured by securities protected by the presumption of authenticity resulting from registration in a public register?

               3.

               Must Article 1(2)(e) of Directive 2002/47/EC be understood as an instrument for minimum harmonisation or for full harmonisation, that is to say, must it be interpreted as meaning that it allows Member States to extend that provision to persons who are expressly excluded from the scope of the directive?

               4.

               Is Article 1(2)(e) of Directive 2002/47/EC a directly applicable provision?

               5.

               In the event that the purpose and scope of Directive 2002/47/EC are more limited than the actual purpose and scope of the national law, the adoption of which was formally justified on the basis of the obligation to transpose Directive 2002/47/EC, may the interpretation of that directive be used to invalidate a financial collateral clause based on national law, such as the clause at issue in the main proceedings?

      (1)  Directive 2002/47/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 June 2002 on financial collateral arrangements (OJ 2002 L 168, p. 43).


title: Case C-564/12: Order of the President of the Court of 25 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance d’Orléans — France) — BNP Paribas Personal Finance SA, Facet SA v Guillaume Delmatti

text:
               21.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 377/9

         Order of the President of the Court of 25 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance d’Orléans — France) — BNP Paribas Personal Finance SA, Facet SA v Guillaume Delmatti
   (Case C-564/12) (1)

   2013/C 377/21
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 38, 9.2.2013.


title: Case C-106/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 25 November 2004 in L. u. P. GmbH v Finanzamt Bochum-Mitte

text:
               14.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 115/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 25 November 2004 in L. u. P. GmbH v Finanzamt Bochum-Mitte
   (Case C-106/05)
   (2005/C 115/21)
   Language of the case: German
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) (Germany) of 25 November 2004, received at the Court Registry on 3 March 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between L. u. P. GmbH (formerly B. Scharmann GmbH) and Finanzamt Bochum-Mitte on the following question:
   Do Article 13A(1)(b) and (2) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes allow for the tax exemption for medical laboratory tests ordered by general practitioners to be made subject to the conditions specified in those provisions, even where medical care by such practitioners is exempt from taxation in any event?


title: Case T-62/08: Action brought on 6 February 2008 — ThyssenKrupp Acciai Speciali Terni v Commission

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/40

         Action brought on 6 February 2008 — ThyssenKrupp Acciai Speciali Terni v Commission
   (Case T-62/08)
   (2008/C 92/79)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: ThyssenKrupp Acciai Speciali Terni SpA (Terni, Italy) (represented by: T. Salonico, G. Pellegrino, G. Pellegrino, G. Barone, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that the contested decision is unlawful and annul that decision in its entirety inasmuch as it regards as State aid the contested measure, which in fact constitutes a lawful continuation of the measure by which the Italian State granted compensation to Terni SpA (and its assignees) for the expropriation of its electricity plants which occurred in 1962-63;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings;

               —

               in the alternative, annul the decision insofar as it:

                           (a)

                           states that Italy unlawfully paid State aid to ThyssenKrupp, Cementir and Nuova Terni Industrie Chimiche in breach of Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty;

                           (b)

                           states that there are amounts to be recovered from ThyssenKrupp, Cementir and Nuova Terni Industrie Chimiche; and consequently

                           (c)

                           orders Italy to recover those amounts plus interest without delay;

               —

               in the further alternative, annul the contested decision insofar as it orders Italy to recover the State aid plus interest without delay, since that recovery infringes the general principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The contested decision in the present case is the same as that in Case T-53/08 Italy v Commission.
   The pleas and the main arguments relied on are similar to those put forward in that case. In addition to infringement of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty on account of erroneous interpretation of the extension of the compensatory tariff for the former Terni companies, in the alternative the applicant also pleads:

               —

               infringement of Article 88 of the EC Treaty in relation to failure to consider that the contested measure had in fact not yet been implemented and therefore the obligation of prior notification had not been infringed and there were no amounts to recover;

               —

               infringement of Article 14(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty, and unlawfulness of the order for recovery in the contested decision owing to breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.


title: Case C-334/07 P: Appeal brought on 18 July 2007 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 3 May 2007 in Case T-357/02 Freistaat Sachsen v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               22.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/6

         Appeal brought on 18 July 2007 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 3 May 2007 in Case T-357/02 Freistaat Sachsen v Commission of the European Communities

   (Case C-334/07 P)
   (2007/C 223/07)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: Kilian Gross, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings: Freistaat Sachsen
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested judgment of the Court of First Instance of 3 May 2007 in Case T-357/02 Freistaat Sachsen v Commission of the European Communities in its entirety;

               —

               give final judgment on the matter and dismiss the action as unfounded;

               —

               order the applicant at first instance to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings and the costs incurred at first instance in Case T-357/02.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   According to the Commission, the contested judgment infringes Articles 88(2) and (3) EC, the second paragraph of Article 249, Article 254(2) EC, Article 3 et seq. of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (1) and Article 10(1) of the Regulation exempting SMEs, since the Court of First Instance failed to recognise that the examination of the legality of the contested decision (2003/226/EC) (2) was to be carried out solely in accordance with the provisions of the Regulation exempting SMEs (Regulation (EC) No 70/2001) (3).
   The Regulation exempting SMEs entered into force before the contested decision was issued and was thus directly applicable. Consequently, it was the only applicable legal framework. According to the Commission, the Court wrongly denies the applicability of the Regulation exempting SMEs since it erroneously assumed that the Regulation exempting SMEs would have to be applied retroactively in the case of the contested decision.
   The Commission claims, in the alternative, that the contested judgment also infringes Article 2(2) and Article 4(5) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 because the Court misconceived the criterion of assessment and the requirements of completeness of a notification.

      (1)  OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2003 L 91, p. 13.

      (3)  OJ 2001 L 10, p. 33.


title: Case C-484/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice (England & Wales) Chancery Division by order of that court dated 27 October 2003, in the case of Bond House Systems Ltd against Commissioners of Customs and Excise

text:
C 35/4                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          7.2.2004
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d’arbitrage                      (a)   in the relevant circumstances, was the Appellant a
by judgment of that Court of 29 October 2003 in the case                              ‘taxable person acting as such’ within Art.2(1) of the
       brought by H. Clerens against Walloon Region                                   Sixth Directive when, in the 26 transactions, it
                                                                                acquired the CPUs from the UK vendors and sold
                                                                                them to the non-UK purchasers?
                         (Case C-480/03)
                                                                                (b) in the relevant circumstances, was the Appellant
                          (2004/C 35/05)                                              carrying on an ‘economic activity’ within Art.4 of
                                                                                the Sixth Directive when, in the 26 transactions, it
                                                                                acquired the CPUs from the UK vendors and sold
                                                                                them to the non-UK purchasers?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Cour d’arbitrage
                                                                                (c)   in the relevant circumstances, was the acquisition by
of 29 October 2003, received at the Court Registry on
                                                                                the Appellant, in the 26 transactions, of the CPUs
18 November 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case
                                                                                from the UK vendors a ‘supply of goods’ to the
brought by H. Clerens against Walloon Region on the follow-
                                                                                Appellant within Art.5(1) of the Sixth Directive?
ing questions:
1.    Must Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April on the                       (d) in the relevant circumstances, was the sale by the
      conservation of wild birds (1) be interpreted as not                            Appellant, in the 26 transactions, of the CPUs to the
      authorising Member States to introduce rules which also                         non-UK purchasers a ‘supply of goods’ by the
      apply to birds mentioned in Annex I to the Directive that                       Appellant within Art.5(1) of the Sixth Directive?
      are born and reared in captivity?
                                                                          2.    Do the answers to Question l(a)-(d) above give rise to any
2.    Must that directive be interpreted as authorising Member                  breach of the general principles of Community law (in
      States to lay down rules to protect birds born and reared                 particular, the principles of proportionality and legal
      in captivity only to the extent that those rules apply solely             certainty)?
      to trade in those birds, or may those rules apply to all the
      operations which trade in birds may entail?
(1) OJ L 103 of 25.04.1979, p. 1.
                                                                          Action brought on 1 December 2003 by the Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities against Ireland
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
                                                                                (Case C-507/03)
Justice (England & Wales) Chancery Division by order of
that court dated 27 October 2003, in the case of Bond
House Systems Ltd against Commissioners of Customs                                                  (2004/C 35/07)
                            and Excise
                         (Case C-484/03)
                                                                          An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
                          (2004/C 35/06)                                  Justice of the European Communities on 1 December 2003 by
                                                                          the Commission of the European Communities, represented
                                                                          by K. Wiedner, acting as agent, assisted by J. E. Flynn QC,
                                                                          Barrister, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the High Court of
Justice (England & Wales) Chancery Division dated 27 October              The Applicant claims that the Court should:
2003, which was received at the Court Registry on 19 Novem-
ber 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Bond House
Systems Ltd and Commissioners of Customs and Excise on the                1.    declare that, in deciding to entrust the provision of
following questions:                                                            services to An Post without undertaking any prior
                                                                                advertising, Ireland has failed to comply with its obli-
1.    Having regard to the general principles of EC law (in                     gations under the Treaty; and
      particular, the principles of proportionality and legal
      certainty) and to Article 28 of the EC Treaty:                      2.    order Ireland to pay the Commission’s costs.


title: Case T-454/16: Action brought on 5 August 2016 — Arrigoni v EUIPO — Arrigoni Formaggi (Arrigoni Valtaleggio)

text:
               3.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 364/27

      Action brought on 5 August 2016 — Arrigoni v EUIPO — Arrigoni Formaggi (Arrigoni Valtaleggio)
      (Case T-454/16)
      (2016/C 364/30)
      Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Arrigoni SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: P. Di Gravio, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Arrigoni Formaggi SpA (Bergamo, Italy)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark containing the word element ‘Arrigoni Valtaleggio’ — International registration designating the European Union No 1 028 737

         Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

         Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 May 2016 in Case R 2922/2014-1

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  uphold the action and, accordingly, declare the contested decision invalid and/or inexistent on the following grounds, remitting, if appropriate, the case to the decision-making bodies of EUIPO or declaring the first decision No C 406 A of 17 April 2013 valid and final;

                  —

                  in any event, declare Arrigoni Battista SpA’s application No 1 028 737 to be invalid in its entirety, on the basis of the following infringements of law.

         Pleas in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 8(2)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;

                  —

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

                  —

                  Infringement of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark;

                  —

                  Infringement of the European Constitutional Charter;

                  —

                  Infringement of Article II-77 Right to property;

                  —

                  Infringement of Articles 76 and 87 of the Constitution;

                  —

                  Infringement of Law No 273 of 12 December 2002;

                  —

                  Infringement of the Italian Industrial Property Code, Legislative Decree No 30 of 10 February 2005 and subsequent amendments: Article7, Article 12.B, C and G, Article 13(1), Article 16.1, Article 20, Article 22(1) and (2);

                  —

                  Such further ruling as may be necessary, including with regard to payment of the costs, made without prejudice to any existing rights.


title: Case C-296/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione Tributaria di Primo Grado di Trento, Sezione No 6 by order of that court of 10 June 1999 in the case of Pavarini Components SpA (formerly S.C.D. Srl) against Direzione delle Entrate per la Provincia di Trento

text:
C 333/12                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                    20.11.1999
the European Communities (Agents: Hendrik van Lier and                      Instance, Trento, Sixth Chamber) of 10 June 1999, received at
Roland Tricot) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez                    the Court Registry on 6 August 1999, for a preliminary ruling
Iglesias, President, P.J.G. Kapteyn, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch            in the case of Pavarini Components SpA (formerly S.C.D. Srl)
and P. Jann, Presidents of Chambers, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida,              v Direzione delle Entrate per la Provincia di Trento on the
C. Gulmann, J.L. Murray (Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward, H. Rag-                following question:
nemalm, L. Sevón, M. Wathelet and R. Schintgen, Judges;
F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a             Is it compatible with Community law, and in particular with
judgment on 8 July 1999, in which it:                                       Directive 69/335/EEC (1), to tax over a period of years at the
                                                                            rate of 0.75% per annum pursuant to Decree-Law
1. Dismisses the appeal;                                                    No 394/1992 of 30 September 1992 that part of the net assets
                                                                            consisting solely of a company’s capital disclosed annually by
2. Orders Édouard Dubois et Fils SA to pay the costs.                      the balance sheet which has already borne the initial tax on
                                                                            contributions of 1%?
(1) OJ C 166 of 30.5.1998.
                                                                            (1) OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione
Tributaria di Primo Grado di Trento, Sezione No 6 by                        Appeal brought on 10 August 1999 by Areacova S.A. and
order of that court of 10 June 1999 in the case of                          27 others against the order made on 8 July 1999 by the
Petrolvilla & Bortolotti SpA against Direzione delle                        Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
               Entrate per la Provincia di Trento                           European Communities in Case T-194/95 between Area-
                                                                            cova S.A. and 31 others and the Council of the European
                                                                                Union
                          (Case C-279/99)
                                                                                (Case C-300/99 P)
                          (1999/C 333/24)
                                                                                (1999/C 333/26)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Commissione Tributa-                   An appeal against the order made on 8 July 1999 by the Third
ria di Primo Grado di Trento, Sezione No 6 (Tax Court of First              Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Instance, Trento, Sixth Chamber) of 10 June 1999, received at               Communities in Case T-194/95 between Areacova S.A. and
the Court Registry on 26 July 1999, for a preliminary ruling                31 others and the Council of the European Union was brought
in the case of Petrolvilla & Bortolotti SpA v Direzione delle               before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
Entrate per la Provincia di Trento on the following question:               10 August 1999 by Areacova S.A. and 27 others, represented
                                                                            by Antonio Creus Carreras, of the Barcelona Bar, and Eva
Is it compatible with Community law, and in particular with                 Contreras Ynzenga and Albert Agustinoy Guilayn, of the
Directive 69/335/EEC (1), to tax over a period of years at the              Madrid Bar, with an address for service care of Cuatrecasas
rate of 0.75% per annum pursuant to Decree-Law                              Abogados, 78 Avenue d’Auderghem, B-1040 Brussels.
No 394/1992 of 30 September 1992 that part of the net assets
consisting solely of a company’s capital disclosed annually by              The appellants claim that the Court should:
the balance sheet which has already borne the initial tax on
contributions of 1%?                                                        (1) set aside the order made on 8 July 1999 by the Court of
                                                                                First Instance in Case T-194/95 on account of all or some
                                                                                of the defects indicated, and give effect to all the legal
(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412.                               consequences flowing from the setting aside of that order,
                                                                                either by expressly adjudicating on the merits of the case
                                                                                or by referring the matter back to the Court of First
                                                                                Instance;
                                                                            (2) order the respondent to the proceedings before the Court
                                                                                of Justice of the European Communities to pay the costs,
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione                            and likewise, in the event that the submissions put forward
Tributaria di Primo Grado di Trento, Sezione No 6 by                             in support of the present appeal are wholly or partially
order of that court of 10 June 1999 in the case of Pavarini                      upheld, order the defendant in the proceedings at first
Components SpA (formerly S.C.D. Srl) against Direzione                           instance to pay the costs of those proceedings.
           delle Entrate per la Provincia di Trento
                          (Case C-296/99)                                   Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                            — Infringement of Community law, consisting of the misap-
                          (1999/C 333/25)                                        plication and misinterpretation of Article 230 (formerly
                                                                                Article 173) of the EC Treaty, inasmuch as the order treats
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                           the contested regulation as a measure of general application
European Communities by order of the Commissione Tributa-                        and ignores the fact that it is applicable only to a wholly
ria di Primo Grado di Trento, Sezione No 6 (Tax Court of First                   individualised and identified group of economic operators;


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 15 April 1997 in Case T-390/94: Aloys Schröder, Jan and Karl-Julius Thamann v. Commission of the European Communities (Non-contractual liability of the Community - Control of classical swine fever in the Federal Republic of Germany)

text:
14 . 6 . 97            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 181/11
2 . orders the applicants to bear jointly and severally the               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     costs incurred by the defendant;
                                                                                of 16 April 1997
                                                                       in Case T-541/93 : James Connaughton and Others v.
                                                                                Council of the European Union f )
3.   orders the interveners to bear their own costs .
                                                                       (Action for annulment — Milk — Additional levy —
                                                                       Reference quantity — Producers who entered into non-
(') OJ No C 101 , 22 . 4 . 1995 .
                                                                       marketing or conversion undertakings — Compensation
                                                                       — Regulation (EEC) No 2187/93 — Legal effects —
                                                                                Admissibility)
                                                                                ( 97/C 181 /22 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                         of 15 April 1997
in Case T-390/94: Aloys Schröder, Jan and Karl-Julius                  In Case T-541/93 : James Connaughton, Thomas
Thamann v. Commission of the European Communities ( ! )                Fitzsimons and Patrick Griffin, residing respectively at
(Non-contractual liability of the Community — Control of               Kilbeggan, Askeaton and Clonmel ( Ireland ), represented
  classical swine fever in the Federal Republic of Germany)            by James O'Reilly SC, of the Irish Bar, and Philippa
                                                                       Watson, Barrister, of the Irish Bar, instructed by Oliver
                           ( 97/C 181 /21 )                            Ryan-Purcell , Solicitor, with an address for service in
                                                                       Luxembourg at the Fyfe Business Centre, 29 Rue Jean-
                                                                       Pierre Brasseur, against Council of the European Union,
                                                                        ( Agents : Arthur Brautigam and Michael Bishop ),
                (Language of the case: German)                         supported by Commission of the European Communities
                                                                        ( Agents: Gerard Rozet and Xavier Lewis ) and the United
                                                                       Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ( Agents :
                                                                        initially John D. Colahan, subsequently S. T. Braviner) —
In Case T-390/94: Aloys Schröder, Jan and Karl-Julius                   application , pursuant to Article 173 of the EEC Treaty, for
Thamann, of Neuenkirchen ( Germany ), represented by                    annulment of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 of
Wilhelm Clages, Gerd Rentzmann and Rudolf Brenken,                      22 July 1993 providing for an offer of compensation to
Rechtsanwälte, Quakenbrück, with an address for service                 certain producers of milk and milk products temporarily
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Michel Molitor, Pierre                 prevented from carrying on their trade . ( OJ No L 196 ,
Feltgen and Andre Harpes, 14a , rue des Bains, against                  1993 , p. 6 ), in particular Articles 8 and 14 thereof — the
Commission of the European Communities ( Agents :                       Court of First Instance ( First Chamber, Extended
 Claudia Schmidt and Georg M. Berrisch ) — application                  Composition ), composed of: A. Saggio, President, C. W.
for an award of damages under Article 178 and the                       Bellamy, A. Kalogeropoulos, V. Tiili and R. M. Moura
second paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty against                Ramos, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment
the Commission for damage allegedly suffered by the                     on 16 April 1997, in which it:
 applicants as a result of a series of decisions adopted by
the Commission to control classical swine fever in the
 Federal Republic of Germany — the Court of First
 Instance of the European Communities ( Fifth Chamber ),                 1 . dismisses the application as inadmissible;
 composed of R. García-Valdecasas, President, and J. Azizi
 and M. Jaeger, Judges, Registrar: A. Mair, Administrator,
 has given a judgment on 15 April 1997, in which it:
                                                                        2 . orders the applicants to bear their own costs and to
                                                                             pay those incurred by the Council;
 1 . dismisses the action;
                                                                         3 . orders the United Kingdom and the Commission to
                                                                             bear their own costs .
 2 . orders the applicants to pay the costs.
 (') OJ No C 392 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .                                      O OJ No C 319 , 26 . 11 . 1993 .


title: Case F-113/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 20 July 2016 — Adriaen and Others v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Article 45 of the Staff Regulations — 2014 promotion exercise — General implementing provisions for Article 45 of the Staff Regulations — Lists of officials proposed for promotion by the Directors-General and heads of service — Omission of the applicants’ names — Possibility of challenging before the Joint Promotion Committee the list of officials proposed for promotion — Consideration of the comparative merits of the officials eligible for promotion — Opinions adopted by a joint body — Obligation to state grounds)

text:
               3.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 364/35

      Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 20 July 2016 — Adriaen and Others v Commission
      (Case F-113/15) (1)

      ((Civil service - Officials - Article 45 of the Staff Regulations - 2014 promotion exercise - General implementing provisions for Article 45 of the Staff Regulations - Lists of officials proposed for promotion by the Directors-General and heads of service - Omission of the applicants’ names - Possibility of challenging before the Joint Promotion Committee the list of officials proposed for promotion - Consideration of the comparative merits of the officials eligible for promotion - Opinions adopted by a joint body - Obligation to state grounds))
      (2016/C 364/41)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Charlotte Adriaen (Brussels, Belgium) and Others (represented by: R. Rata, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser, G. Berscheid and A.-A. Gilly, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application for annulment of the decisions of the appointing authority not to include the applicants on the list of officials promoted in the context of the 2014 annual promotion exercise.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Tribunal:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Declares that Ms Adriaen and the 12 other applicants whose names appear in the annex shall bear their own costs and orders them to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

         (1)  OJ C 320, 28/9/2015, p. 55.


title: Case C-569/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 5 November 2015 — X, Other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

text:
               1.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/25

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 5 November 2015 — X, Other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-569/15)
   (2016/C 038/37)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: X

      Other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Title II of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) be interpreted as meaning that a worker residing in the Netherlands who normally works in the Netherlands and who takes unpaid leave for three months is deemed to continue to be (also) employed in the Netherlands during that period if (i) the employment relationship continues during that period and (ii) for purposes of the application of the Dutch Werkloosheidswet (Law on unemployment) that period is considered to be a period of employment?

               2.

                           (a)

                           What legislation does Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 designate as applicable if during the unpaid leave that worker is employed in another Member State?

               2.

                           (b)

                           Is it still important in that regard that the person concerned was employed in the same other Member State twice in the following year and for periods of approximately one to two weeks during the subsequent three years, without any mention in the Netherlands of unpaid leave?

      (1)  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council 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 (OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2).


title: Joined Cases T-81/03, T-82/03 and T-103/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 December 2006 — Mast-Jägermeister v OHIM — Licorera Zacapaneca (VENADO with frame) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Applications for Community figurative marks VENADO with frame, VENADO and VENADO ESPECIAL — Earlier Community figurative marks representing a deer's head facing forward in a circle — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/30

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 December 2006 — Mast-Jägermeister v OHIM — Licorera Zacapaneca (VENADO with frame)
   (Joined Cases T-81/03, T-82/03 and T-103/03) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Applications for Community figurative marks VENADO with frame, VENADO and VENADO ESPECIAL - Earlier Community figurative marks representing a deer's head facing forward in a circle - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2006/C 331/67)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Mast-Jägermeister AG (Wolfenbüttel, Germany) (represented by: C. Drzymalla, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. García Murillo, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Licorera Zacapaneca SA (Santa Cruz, Guatemala) (represented by: L. Corno Caparrós and B. Uriarte Valiente, lawyers)
   Re:
   Three actions brought against the decisions of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 December 2002 (Case R 412/2002-1 and Case R 382/2002-1) and 14 January 2003 (Case R 407/2002-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Licorera Zacapaneca SA and Mast-Jägermeister AG.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decisions of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 December 2002 (Case R 412/2002-1 and Case R 382/2002-1) and of 14 January 2003 (Case R 407/2002-1);

               2.

               Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs incurred by the applicant;

               3.

               Orders the intervener to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 112, 10.5.2003.