title: Case T-215/13: Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll v OHIM — Recticel (λ) (Community trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Community figurative mark λ — Genuine use — Use as part of a composite mark — Proof of use — Articles 15 and 51(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/46

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll v OHIM — Recticel (λ)
   (Case T-215/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Community figurative mark λ - Genuine use - Use as part of a composite mark - Proof of use - Articles 15 and 51(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 302/58)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll GmbH & Co. OHG (Gladbeck, Germany) (represented by: J. Krenzel, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially L. Rampini, and subsequently P. Bullock and N. Bambara, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Recticel SA (Brussels, Belgium)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 February 2013 (Case R 112/2012-5), relating to cancellation proceedings between Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll GmbH & Co. OHG and Recticel SA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll GmbH & Co. OHG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 178, 22.6.2013.


title: Case F-8/12: Action brought on 20 January 2012 — ZZ v EASA

text:
               3.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/28

         Action brought on 20 January 2012 — ZZ v EASA
   (Case F-8/12)
   2012/C 65/56
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: B.-H. Vincent, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Aviation Safety Agency

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision to dismiss the applicant and compensation for damage claimed to be suffered because of that dismissal and alleged harassment.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               order EASA to pay EUR 1 514 257,48 in compensation for material and non-material damage associated with the loss of the applicant’s temporary staff post, with the addition of interest at the legal rate from the date at which interest is due;

               —

               order EASA to pay a daily sum fixed on an equitable basis at EUR 500,00 per day from 31 May 2010 until the date of service of final judgment as compensation for the entirety of the damage caused by harassment committed by EASA agents, with the addition of interest at the legal rate from the date at which interest is due;

               —

               order EASA to pay the costs.


title: Case C-438/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Karlsruhe (Germany) lodged on 23 September 2014  — Nabiel Peter Bogendorff von Wolffersdorff

text:
               22.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/13

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Karlsruhe (Germany) lodged on 23 September 2014 — Nabiel Peter Bogendorff von Wolffersdorff
   (Case C-438/14)
   (2014/C 462/22)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Karlsruhe

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Nabiel Peter Bogendorff von Wolffersdorff

      Other parties: Standesamt der Stadt Karlsruhe, Zentraler Juristischer Dienst der Stadt Karlsruhe

      Question referred

   Are Articles 18 TFEU and 21 TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that the authorities of a Member State are obliged to recognise the change of name of a national of that State if he is at the same time a national of another Member State and has acquired in that Member State, during habitual residence, by means of a change of name not associated with a change of family law status, a freely chosen name including several tokens of nobility, where it is possible that a future substantial link with that State does not exist and in the first Member State the nobility has been abolished by constitutional law but the titles of nobility used at the time of abolition may continue to be used as part of a name?


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 26 November 1999 in Case T-253/97: Kurt Giegerich v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Refusal to promote — Action for annulment and claim for damages — Manifestly inadmissible)

text:
18.3.2000               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 79/25
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 26 November 1999
                        of 27 January 2000
                                                                          in Case T-253/97: Kurt Giegerich v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
in Case T-49/97: TAT European Airlines SA v Commission
               of the European Communities (1)                            (Officials — Refusal to promote — Action for annulment
                                                                               and claim for damages — Manifestly inadmissible)
(State aid — Air transport — Authorisation of aid payable                                          (2000/C 79/55)
in three tranches — Action brought against the decision
authorising payment of the third tranche — Adoption of a
fresh decision authorising the aid in implementation of an                                  (Language of the case: German)
annulling judgment — No need to adjudicate — Conditions)
                                                                          In Case T-253/97: Kurt Giegerich, former official of the
                                                                          Commission of the European Communities, residing in
                           (2000/C 79/54)                                 Osmate (Italy), represented by Bernd Potthast, Hans-Josef
                                                                          Rüber and Albert Potthast, Rechtsanwälte, Cologne, with an
                                                                          address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest
                                                                          Arendt, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt, against the Commission of
                    (Language of the case: French)                        the European Communities (Agents: Christine Berardis-Kayser
                                                                          and Bertrand Wägenbaur) — application for annulment of the
                                                                          decision of the Commission of 18 October 1996 expressly
In Case T-49/97: TAT European Airlines SA, established at                 rejecting the applicant’s application for promotion and his
Tours (France), represented by Romano Subiotto, Solicitor,                claim for damages — the Court of First Instance (Fourth
Robbert Snelders, of the Brussels Bar, and Stephanie Hallouët,            Chamber), composed of V. Tiili, President, R.M. Moura Ramos
of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at            and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
the Chambers of Elvinger, Hoss and Prussen, 15 Côte d’Eich,               26 November 1999, the operative part of which is as follows:
against the Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: Nicholas Kahn and Ami Barav), supported by the                   1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
French Republic (Agents: Kareen Rispal-Bellanger and Frédérik
Million) and Compagnie Nationale Air France, established in               2. The parties shall bear their own costs.
Paris, represented by Olivier d’Ormesson and Anne Wachs-
man, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxem-              (1) OJ 1998 C 55.
bourg at the Chambers of Katia Manhaeve, 58 Rue Charles
Martel — application for the annulment of the Commission
Decision of 27 July 1996 authorising the payment of the third
tranche of the restructuring aid to Air France (OJ 1996 C 374,
p. 9) — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended
Composition), composed of J. Pirrung, President of the Chamb-
er, J. Azizi, A. Potocki, M. Jaeger and A.W.H. Meij, Judges;                    ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on 27 January 2000, the
operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                                of 24 November 1999
1. There is no need to adjudicate on the action.                          in Case T-109/98: A.V.M. v Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities (1)
2. The Commission is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay one
                                                                          (Officials — Time-limits for bringing proceedings — Effect
    third of the costs incurred by the applicant. The latter is ordered
                                                                                of an application for legal aid — Inadmissibility)
    to bear two thirds of its own costs.
                                                                                (2000/C 79/56)
3. Each intervener is ordered to bear its own costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(1) OJ C 142 of 10.5.1997.                                                In Case T-109/98: A.V.M., an official of the Commission of
                                                                          the European Communities, residing in Brussels, represented
                                                                          by Olivier Eben, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
                                                                          in Esch-sur-Alzette at the Chambers of Jean Tonnar, 29 rue du
                                                                          Fossé, against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                          (Agent: Julian Currall) — application for annulment of the


title: Case C-199/07: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 November 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Public procurement — Directive 93/38/EEC — Contract notice — Consultancy project — Criteria for automatic exclusion — Qualitative selection and award criteria)

text:
               16.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 11/2

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 November 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-199/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Public procurement - Directive 93/38/EEC - Contract notice - Consultancy project - Criteria for automatic exclusion - Qualitative selection and award criteria)
   2010/C 11/02
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Patakia and D. Kukovec, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: D. Tsagkaraki, acting as Agent, and by K. Christodoulou, dikigoros)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 4(2), 31(1) and (2) and 34(1)(a) of Council Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 84) and of Articles 12 and 49 EC — Selection of candidates for a restricted or negotiated procedure — Criteria for exclusion

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by reason, firstly, of the exclusion, by virtue of Section III, point 2.1.3(b), second paragraph, of the contract notice in question issued by ERGA OSE on 16 October 2003, numbered 2003/S 205-185214 and 2003/S 206-186119, of foreign consultancy firms or consultants who had submitted an expression of interest in ERGA OSE tendering procedures in the six months preceding the date of their expression of interest in the current competition and who had declared qualifications corresponding to certificate categories different from those now required and, secondly, of the failure to distinguish in Section IV, point 2, of that notice between qualitative selection criteria and award criteria for the contract in question, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4(2) and 34(1)(a) of Council Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications.

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the application.

               3.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities and the Hellenic Republic to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 197, 2.8.2008.


title: Case C-154/08: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 November 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Sixth VAT Directive — Article 2 and Article 4(1), (2) and (5) — Harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment — Taxable persons — Activities or operations carried out by registradores de la propiedad (land registrars) acting as settlement agents in charge of settlement offices of a mortgage district — Economic activities — Activity carried out independently — Public-law bodies carrying out activities in connection with their public duties — Infringement of Community law attributable to a national court)

text:
               16.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 11/2

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 November 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-154/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Sixth VAT Directive - Article 2 and Article 4(1), (2) and (5) - Harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment - Taxable persons - Activities or operations carried out by ‘registradores de la propiedad’ (land registrars) acting as settlement agents in charge of settlement offices of a mortgage district - Economic activities - Activity carried out independently - Public-law bodies carrying out activities in connection with their public duties - Infringement of Community law attributable to a national court)
   2010/C 11/03
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Afonso and F. Jimeno Fernández, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: J.M. Rodríguez Cárcamo, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 2 and 4(1) and (2) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Taxable persons — Activities or operations carried out by ‘registradores de la propiedad’

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by considering that the services supplied to an Autonomous Community by ‘registradores de la propiedad’ acting as settlement agents in charge of a settlement office of a mortgage district (‘oficina liquidadora de distrito hipotecario’) are not subject to value added tax, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 and Article 4(1) and (2) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment;

               2.

               orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 05.07.2008.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 28 September 1999 in Case T-140/97: Michel Hautem v European Investment Bank (Officials - Removal from post - Articles 1, 4, 5 and 40 of the Staff Regulations of the European Investment Bank - Manifest error of assessment of the facts - Counterclaim - Rejection of an application for measures of inquiry)

text:
20.11.1999             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 333/23
                                                         COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt,
                                                                          8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt, v Commission of the European
                      of 28 September 1999                                Communities (Agents: Julian Currall, Christine Berardis-Kayser
                                                                          and Bertrand Wägenbaur) — application for an order requiring
in Case T-48/97: Erik Dan Frederiksen v European Parlia-                  the Commission to pay to Mr Neumann an orphan’s pension
                             ment (1)                                     — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed
                                                                          of: A. Potocki, President, and C.W. Bellamy and M. Vilaras,
(Officials — Promotion — Judgments ordering annulment                     Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
— Enforcement measures — Article 176 of the EC Treaty                     judgment on 29 September 1999, in which it:
(now Article 233 EC) — Misuse of powers — Material and
            non-material damage — Compensation)                           1. Annuls the decisions of 20 March 1996 and 29 November
                                                                               1996 by which the Commission refused to grant an orphan’s
                         (1999/C 333/55)                                       pension to Mr Martin Neumann;
                    (Language of the case: French)                        2. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
In Case T-48/97: Erik Dan Frederiksen, a former official of
the European Parliament, residing at Howald (Luxembourg),                 (1) OJ C 166 of 31.5.1997.
represented by Georges Vandersanden, of the Brussels Bar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange, v European
Parliament (Agents: Manfred Peter, Joao Sant’Anna and Denis
Waelbroeck) — application for compensation for the material
and non-material damage which the applicant claims to have
suffered as a result of the attitude adopted by the European
Parliament in the course of filling the post of linguistic adviser
(grade LA 3) in the Danish Translation Division following the                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
publication of Vacancy Notice No 5809 — the Court of First
Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J.D. Cooke, President,
                                                                                of 28 September 1999
and R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; H. Jung, Regis-
trar, has given a judgment on 28 September 1999, in which it:
                                                                          in Case T-140/97: Michel Hautem v European Investment
1. Orders the Parliament to pay to the applicant damages in the                                        Bank (1)
     sum of BEF 3 000 000 by way of compensation for the
     non-material damage suffered by him;
                                                                          (Officials — Removal from post — Articles 1, 4, 5 and 40
2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;                                 of the Staff Regulations of the European Investment Bank
                                                                          — Manifest error of assessment of the facts — Counterclaim
3. Orders the Parliament to pay the costs.                                    — Rejection of an application for measures of inquiry)
(1) OJ C 142 of 10.5.1997.
                                                                                (1999/C 333/57)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                          In Case T-140/97: Michel Hautem, a servant of the European
                                                                          Investment Bank, residing at Schouweiler (Luxembourg), rep-
                      of 29 September 1999
                                                                          resented initially by Pascale Delvaux de Fenffe and Pierre-Paul
                                                                          Van Gehuchten, of the Brussels Bar, and subsequently by
in Case T-68/97: Martin Neumann and Irmgard Neumann-
                                                                          Michel Karp, of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for
 Schölles v Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                          service in Luxembourg at his Chambers, 84 Grand-Rue, v
                                                                          European Investment Bank (Agents: Giannangelo Marchegiani
                (Officials — Orphan’s pension)
                                                                          and Georges Vandersanden) — application, first, for annul-
                                                                          ment of the decision of the European Investment Bank of
                         (1999/C 333/56)
                                                                          31 January 1997, by which the applicant was removed
                                                                          from his post without loss of his severance grant, and for
                   (Language of the case: German)                         reinstatement of the applicant, and, second, for an order
                                                                          requiring the Bank to compensate the applicant — the Court
In Case T-68197: Martin Neumann and Irmgard Neumann-                      of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J.D. Cooke,
Schölles, an official of the Commission of the European                   President, and R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges;
Communities, residing in Karlsruhe (Germany), represented by              J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
Hans-Josef Rüber, Rechtsanwalt, Cologne, with an address for              a judgment on 28 September 1999, in which it:
 ---pagebreak--- C 333/24                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      20.11.1999
1. Annuls the decision of the European Investment Bank of                  3. Dismisses as inadmissible the application for damages brought
     31 January 1997 by which the applicant was removed from his                by the European Investment Bank;
     post without loss of the severance grant;
                                                                           4. Orders the applicant to pay all of the costs.
2. Orders the European Investment Bank to pay to the applicant
     the arrears of the remuneration which he should have received
     since his dismissal;                                                  (1) OJ C 212 of 12.7.1997.
3. Dismisses the applications for compensation brought by the
     applicant;
4. Dismisses as inadmissible the application for damages brought
     by the European Investment Bank;
5. Orders the European Investment Bank to bear its own costs and
     to pay the costs of the applicant.                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
(1) OJ C 318 of 18.10.1997.                                                                      of 28 September 1999
                                                                           in Case T-254/97, Fruchthandelsgesellschaft mbH Chem-
                                                                               nitz v Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                           (Bananas — Imports from ACP States and third countries
                                                                           — Application for import licences — Case of hardship
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 — Transitional measures — Regulation (EEC) No 404/93)
                       of 28 September 1999
                                                                                (1999/C 333/59)
in Case T-141/97: Bernard Yasse v European Investment
                                Bank (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(Officials — Removal from post — Articles 1, 4 and 40 of
the Staff Regulations of the European Investment Bank                      In Case T-254/97: Fruchthandelsgesellschaft mbh Chemnitz,
— Manifest error of assessment of the facts — Rights of the                established in Chemnitz (Germany), represented by Jürgen
defence — Essential procedural requirements — Principle                    Mielke and Thorsten W. Albrecht, Rechtsanwälte, Hamburg
of proportionality — Counterclaim — Rejection of an                        with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
               application for measures of inquiry)                        of 34A Rue Philippe II, v Commission of the European
                                                                           Communities (Agents: Klaus-Dieter Borchardt and Hubert van
                           (1999/C 333/58)                                 Vliet), supported by Kingdom of Spain (Agent: Rosario Silva
                                                                           de Lapuerta) and French Republic (Agent: Kareen Rispal-
                                                                           Bellanger) — Application for the annulment of the Com-
                     (Language of the case: French)                        mission Decision (VI/6251/97/DE) of 9 July 1997 rejecting
                                                                           the applicant’s request for the grant of import licences under
                                                                           the transitional measures provided for in Article 30 of Council
In Case T-141/97: Bernard Yasse, a servant of the European                 Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 of 13 February 1993 on the
Investment Bank, residing at Fauvillers (Belgium), represented             common organisation of the market in bananas (OJ 1993
initially by Pascale Delvaux de Fenffe and Pierre-Paul Van                 L 47, p. 1) — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber),
Gehuchten, of the Brussels Bar, and subsequently by Olivier                composed of J.D. Cooke, President and R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas
Schmitz and Catherine Burton, of the Neufchateau Bar, 14                   and P. Lindh, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for
Chaussée de Houffalize, Bastogne (Belgium), v European                     the Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 September 1999, in
Investment Bank (Agents: Giannangelo Marchegiani and                       which it:
Georges Vandersanden) — application, first, for annulment of
the decision of the European Investment Bank of 31 January
                                                                           1. Dismisses the application;
1997, by which the applicant was removed from his post
without loss of his severance grant, and for reinstatement of
the applicant, and, second, for an order requiring the Bank to             2. Orders the applicant to bear its own costs as well as the costs of
compensate the applicant — the Court of First Instance                          the Commission;
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: J.D. Cooke, President, and
R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; J. Palacio González,          3. Orders the Kingdom of Spain and the French Republic to bear
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                       their own costs.
28 September 1999, in which it:
1. Dismisses the action;                                                   (1) OJ C 357 of 22.11.1997.
2. Dismisses the applications for compensation brought by the
     applicant;


title: Case T-581/08: Action brought on 29 December 2008 — Perusahaan Otomobil Nasional v OHIM — Proton Motor Fuel Cell (PM PROTON MOTOR)

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/42

         Action brought on 29 December 2008 — Perusahaan Otomobil Nasional v OHIM — Proton Motor Fuel Cell (PM PROTON MOTOR)
   (Case T-581/08)
   (2009/C 69/95)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Perusahaan Otomobil Nasional Sdn. BHD (Shah Alam, Malaysia) (represented by: J. Blind, C. Kleiner and S. Ziegler, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Proton Motor Fuel Cell GmbH (Starnberg, Germany)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 October 2008 in case R 1675/2007-1, uphold the opposition No 501 306 for all goods and services and reject the application for the Community trade mark No 2 296 408; and

               —

               Order the defendant and, if the case might be, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of proceedings and the costs of appeal incurred before the defendant.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘PM PROTON MOTOR’, for goods and services in classes 7, 9 and 42 — application No 2 296 408

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited: Community trade mark registration No 198 564 of the word mark ‘PROTON’ for goods and services in classes 12 and 37; Community trade mark registration No 1 593 201 of the figurative mark ‘PROTON’ for goods and services in classes 12 and 37; United Kingdom trade mark registration No 1 322 343 of the series of marks ‘PROTON’ for services in class 37; United Kingdom trade mark registration No 2 227 660 of the figurative mark ‘PROTON’ for goods and services in classes 12 and 37; United Kingdom trade mark registration No 2 182 057 of the word mark ‘PROTON DIRECT’ for goods in class 12; Registration of the word mark ‘PROTON’ in Benelux, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain

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

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and dismissed the opposition

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal wrongly assessed that there was no likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned; Infringement of Article 8(5) of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal failed to find that the trade mark cited in the opposition proceedings has reputation in the United Kingdom.


title: Case C-544/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 19 October 2015 — Sahar Fahimian v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

text:
               21.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 429/13

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 19 October 2015 — Sahar Fahimian v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
   (Case C-544/15)
   (2015/C 429/17)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sahar Fahimian

      Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

      Other party to the proceedings: Stadt Darmstadt

      Questions referred

               1

                           a.

                           Is Article 6(1)(d) of Council Directive 2004/114/EC of 13 December 2004 on the conditions of admission of third-country nationals for the purposes of studies, pupil exchange, unremunerated training or voluntary service (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the competent authorities of the Member States are able to exercise a degree of discretion in examining whether a third-country national who applies to be admitted for the purposes set out in Articles 7 to 11 of that directive is regarded as a threat to public policy, public security or public health, as a result of which discretion the assessment by the authorities may be subject to only limited judicial review?

                           b.

                           If Question 1a is answered in the affirmative:
                           What are the legal limits placed on the competent authorities of the Member States when making the assessment that a third-country national who applies to be admitted for the purposes set out in Articles 7 to 11 of Council Directive 2004/114/EC of 13 December 2004 on the conditions of admission of third-country nationals for the purposes of studies, pupil exchange, unremunerated training or voluntary service is to be regarded as a threat to public policy, public security or public health, particularly in view of the facts underlying that assessment and their evaluation?

               2.

               Independently of the answers to Questions 1a and 1b:
               Is Article 6(1)(d) of Council Directive 2004/114/EC of 13 December 2004 on the conditions of admission of third-country nationals for the purposes of studies, pupil exchange, unremunerated training or voluntary service to be interpreted as meaning that the Member States are thereby empowered, in a case such as the present, in which a third-country national from Iran, who obtained her university degree from the Sharif University of Technology (Tehran) in Iran, which specialises in technology, engineering and physics, seeks entry for the purpose of taking up doctoral studies in the area of IT-security research within the framework of the ‘Trusted Embedded and Mobile Systems’ project, in particular the development of effective security mechanisms for smartphones, to deny entry to their territory, stating as grounds for this refusal that it could not be ruled out that the skills acquired in connection with the research project might be misused in Iran, for instance for the acquisition of sensitive information in Western countries, for the purpose of internal repression or more generally in connection with human rights violations?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 375, p. 12.


title: Case T-341/05 (Agriculture — Common organisation of the market in milk and milk products — Abolition of export refunds for all milk products to Ceuta and Melilla — Conditions — Principle of non-discrimination — Proportionality: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 September 2009 — Spain v Commission

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/53

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 September 2009 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-341/05 (1))
   (Agriculture - Common organisation of the market in milk and milk products - Abolition of export refunds for all milk products to Ceuta and Melilla - Conditions - Principle of non-discrimination - Proportionality)
   2009/C 267/89
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: J Cárcamo and M. Muñoz Pérez, abogados del Estado)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by C. Cattabriga and F. Jimeno Fernández, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 909/2005 of 16 June 2005 fixing the export refunds on milk and milk products (OJ 2005 L 154, p. 10), in so far as its Annex includes Ceuta and Mellila among the destinations grouped together under the destination L 01.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Annuls Commission Regulation (EC) No 909/2005 of 16 June 2005 fixing the export refunds on milk and milk products, in so far as it mentions Ceuta et Melilla among the destinations grouped together under the destination L 01.

               2)

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

      (1)  OJ C 217 of 29.10.2005.


title: Case T-88/08: Action brought on 18 February 2008 — Republic of Cyprus v Commission

text:
               7.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/27

         Action brought on 18 February 2008 — Republic of Cyprus v Commission
   (Case T-88/08)
   (2008/C 142/49)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: P. Kliridis)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the procurement notice under reference EuropeAid/125242/C/SER/CY for the conclusion of a contract entitled ‘Technical assistance to support implementation of the Rural Development Sector Programme’, which was published, only in English, on the webpage http://ec.europa.eu/europaid/tender/data/ on or around 6 December 2007, and annul points 5 and 28.2 of the notice;

               —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant submits that the notice is unlawful for the following reasons:

               —

               first, because, in issuing the notice, the Commission exceeded and/or infringed its legal basis, to be specific Council Regulation (EC) No 389/2006 of 27 February 2006 establishing an instrument of financial support for encouraging the economic development of the Turkish Cypriot community and amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2667/2000 on the European Agency for Reconstruction (1);

               —

               second, because the notice is contrary to and/or incompatible with Article 299 EC, as amended by Article 19 of the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic (2) (‘the 2003 Act of Accession’) and Protocol No 10, on Cyprus, to the 2003 Act of Accession (3);

               —

               third, because the notice is contrary to or incompatible with both obligations flowing from rules of mandatory international law and United Nations Security Council Resolutions 541(1983) and 550(1984); and

               —

               fourth, because the notice was not published in the Official Journal.

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 65, p. 5.

      (2)  OJ 2003 L 236, p. 33.

      (3)  OJ 2003 L 236, p. 955.


title: Case C-604/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 27 December 2012 — HN v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Ireland and the Attorney General

text:
               23.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 27 December 2012 — HN v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Ireland and the Attorney General
   (Case C-604/12)
   2013/C 86/14
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Supreme Court

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: HN

      Defendants: Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Ireland and the Attorney General

      Question referred

   Does Council Directive 2004/83/EC (1), interpreted in the light of the principle of good administration in the law of the European Union and, in particular, as provided by Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, permit a Member State, to provide in its law that an application for subsidiary protection status can be considered only if the applicant has applied for and been refused refugee status in accordance with national law?

      (1)  Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted
   OJ L 304, p. 2


title: Case T-295/10: Order of the General Court of 14 September 2011 — Camara v Council

text:
               12.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/28

         Order of the General Court of 14 September 2011 — Camara v Council
   (Case T-295/10) (1)

   2011/C 331/55
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 234, 28.8.2010.


title: Case T-194/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  23 February 2006  — Il Ponte Finanziaria v OHIM (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark composed of the word  Bainbridge  — Earlier national, figurative three-dimensional and word marks including the word  Bridge  — Proof of use — Use in a different form —  Defensive  trade marks — Family of trade marks)

text:
               22.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/11

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 February 2006 — Il Ponte Finanziaria v OHIM
   (Case T-194/03) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark composed of the word ‘Bainbridge’ - Earlier national, figurative three-dimensional and word marks including the word ‘Bridge’ - Proof of use - Use in a different form - ‘Defensive’ trade marks - Family of trade marks)
   (2006/C 96/19)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties:

      Applicant: Il Ponte Finanziaria (Scandicci, Italy) (represented by: P.L. Roncaglia, A. Torrigiani Malaspina and M. Boletto, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: M. Buffolo and O. Montalto, agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Marine Enterprise Projects — Società Unipersonale di Alberto Fiorenzi Srl (Numana, Italy) (represented by: D. Marchi, lawyer)
   Action
   brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 March 2003 (Case R 1015/2001-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Il Ponte Finanziaria SpA and Marine Enterprise Projects — Società Unipersonale di Alberto Fiorenzi Srl
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ 2003 C 184.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 16 July 1998 in Case T-93/96 Catherine Presle v. European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Officials - Change of posting - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of protection of legitimate expectations - Duty of care)

text:
C 312/10             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  10.10.98
                                                   COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                       of 21 July 1998                                                     of 16 July 1998
                                                                    in Case T-93/96 Catherine Presle v. European Centre for
in Joined Cases T-66/96 and T-221/97: John Mellett v.
                                                                             the Development of Vocational Training (1)
     Court of Justice of the European Communities (1)
                                                                    (Officials Ð Change of posting Ð Obligation to state
(Officials Ð Admissibility Ð Establishment Ð Legitimate             reasons Ð Principle of protection of legitimate
              expectations Ð Equal treatment)                                       expectations Ð Duty of care)
                        (98/C 312/26)                                                        (98/C 312/27)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                    In Case T-93/96 Catherine Presle, an official of the
                                                                    European Centre for the Development of Vocational
                                                                    Training, residing in Berlin, represented by Frank Montag,
In Joined Cases T-66/96 and T-221/97: John Mellett, a               of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
member of the temporary staff at the Court of Justice of            Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-
the European Communities, residing at 61 Rue des                    rue, against European Centre for the Development of
Maraîchers, Plateau du Kirchberg, Luxembourg,                       Vocational Training (Agent: Bertrand Wägenbaur) Ð
represented by Brendan O'Donovan, Solicitor, and Conor              application for annulment of the decision of the European
Quigley, Barrister, with an address for service in                  Centre for the Development of Vocational Training of
Luxembourg at the aforementioned address, against Court             22 May 1996 transferring the applicant to Thessalonika
of Justice of the European Communities (Agent: Timothy              (Greece) as from 1 July 1996 Ð the Court (Fifth
Millett) Ð application, in Case T-66/96, for annulment of           Chamber), composed of: J. Azizi, President, and R.
the decision of the Court of Justice of the European                García-Valdecasas and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung,
Communities of 14 June 1995 and, in Case T-221/97, for              Registrar, gave a judgment on 16 July 1998, the operative
annulment of the decisions of the President of the Court            part of which is as follows:
of Justice of 17 October 1996 and 4 December 1996 not
to commence the procedure leading to the establishment
of the applicant as a permanent official Ð the Court of             1. The application is dismissed.
First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J. Azizi,
President, R. García-Valdecasas and M. Jaeger, Judges; A.           2. Each of the parties shall bear their own costs,
Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a                     including those incurred in the interim proceedings.
judgment on 21 July 1998, in which it:
                                                                    (1) OJ C 233, 10.8.1996.
1. joins Cases T-66/96 and T-221/97 for the purposes of
    the judgment;
                                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
2. annuls the decision of 14 June 1995 of the
    Administrative Committee of the Court of Justice, as it                                of 16 July 1998
    is apparent from point 4 of the minutes, and the                in Case T-72/97: Proderec Ð FormacËaÄo e Desinvolvi-
    decisions of the President of the Court of Justice of           mento de Recursos Humanos, ACE v. Commission of the
    17 October 1996 and 4 December 1996 not to                                        European Communities (1)
    commence the procedure which could have led to the
    establishment of the applicant as a permanent official;         (European Social Fund Ð Decision to reduce two financial
                                                                    aids Ð Action for annulment Ð Admissibility Ð
                                                                    Certification of factual and accounting accuracy Ð Lack
                                                                    of competence of the national body Ð Statement of
3. orders the Court of Justice to pay the costs in Case                           reasons Ð Rights of the defence)
    T-66/96 and in Case T-221/97.
                                                                                (98/C 312/28)
(1) OJ C 233, 10.8.1996 and C 331, 1.11.1997.                                    (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                                                                    In Case T-72/97: Proderec FormacËaÄo e Desinvolvimento
                                                                    de Recursos Humanos, ACE, established in Almada


title: Case C-615/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 23 December 2010 — Insinööritoimisto InsTiimi Oy

text:
               5.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 23 December 2010 — Insinööritoimisto InsTiimi Oy
   (Case C-615/10)
   2011/C 72/23
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Korkein hallinto-oikeus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Insinööritoimisto InsTiimi Oy

      Other party: Puolustusvoimat

      Question referred

   Is Directive 2004/18/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts applicable, having regard to Article 10 of that directive and to Article 346(1)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and to the list of arms, munitions and war material adopted by decision of the Council on 15 April 1958, to a procurement which otherwise falls within the scope of the directive, when according to the contracting entity the intended purpose of the object of procurement is specifically military, but there also exist largely identical technical applications of the object of procurement in the civilian market?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT of 20 March 1996 in Case C-2/96: Criminal proceedings against Carlo Sunino and Giancarlo Data (Interpretation of Articles 48, 55, 59, 60, 66, 86 and 90 of the EC Treaty)

text:
No C 180/ 18           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      22 . 6 . 96
                 ORDER OF THE COURT                                   Lisboa ( Lisbon Local Civil Court) for a preliminary ruling in
                         ( First Chamber )                            the proceedings pending before that court between Banco de
                                                                      Fomento e Exterior SA and Amândio Mauricio Martins
                       of 28 March 1996                               Pechim, Maria da Luz Lima Barros Raposo Pechim,
in Case C-270/95 P: Christina Kik v . Council of the                  Confecçoes Têxteis de Vouzela Ld .a ( CTV ) — on the
European Union and Commission of the European                         interpretation of Articles 59 , 90 and 92 of the EC Treaty —
   Communities , supported by the Kingdom of Spain ( ! )              the Court, composed of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias , President,
(Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark                 C. N. Kakouris, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet and
— Languages — Actions for annulment of measures —                     G. Hirsch ( Presidents of Chambers), G. F. Mancini,
Natural and legal persons — Acts of direct and individual             F. A. Schockweiler, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida
    concern to them — Appeal manifestly unfounded)                    ( Rapporteur ), P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray,
                                                                      P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet, Judges;
                           ( 96/C 180/36 )                            Advocate-General , D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer; Registrar,
                                                                      R. Grass, made an order on 13 March 1996 , the operative
                (Language of the case: Dutch)                         part of which is as follows :
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
         published in the European Court Reports)                     The request for a preliminary ruling submitted by the
                                                                      Tribunal Civel da Comarca de Lisboa is inadmissible.
In Case C-270/95 P: Christina Kik, represented by Goosen
L. Kooy — appeal against the order of the Court of First              (') OJ No C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .
Instance of the European Communities ( First Chamber ) of
 19 June 1995 in Case T-107/94 Kik v. Council and
Commission [1 995 ] ECR 11-1717, seeking to have that
order set aside, the other parties to the proceedings being the
Council of the European Union ( Agents: Giorgio Maganza
and Guus Houttuin ) and the Commission of the European
Communities ( Agent: Pieter Van Nuffel ), supported by the
Kingdom of Spain ( Agents : Alberto José Navarro Gonzalez
and Gloria Calvo Diaz ) — the Court ( First Chamber ),                                   ORDER OF THE COURT
composed of D. A. O. Edward , President of the Chamber, P.                                     of 20 March 1996
Jann ( Rapporteur ) and L. Sevón, Judges; P. Léger,
Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on               in Case C-2/96: Criminal proceedings against Carlo Sunino
28 March 1 996 , the operative part of which is as                                         and Giancarlo Data ( 1 )
follows :                                                             (Interpretation ofArticles 48, 55, 59, 60, 66, 86 and 90 of
                                                                                the EC Treaty)
1 . The appeal is dismissed.                                                                      ( 96/C 180/38 )
2 . The appellant is ordered to pay her own costs and the
    costs of the Council and the Commission . The                                     (Language of the case: Italian)
    intervener is ordered to bear its own costs .
(') O ] No C 268 , 14 . 10 . 1995 .                                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                              published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                      In Case C-2/96 : reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                                                                      the EC Treaty from the Pretura Circondariale di Ivrea ,
                 ORDER OF THE COURT                                   Sezione di Strambino ( Ivrea District Magistrate's Court,
                       of 13 March 1996                               Strambino Division ) ( Italy ), for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                      criminal proceedings pending before that court against
in Case C-326/95 : Banco de Fomento e Exterior SA v .
                                                                      Carlo Sunino and Giancarlo Data — on the interpretation of
    Amândio Maurício Martins Pechim and Others (')                    Articles 48 , 55 , 59 , 60, 66 , 86 and 90 of the EC Treaty with
             (Preliminary ruling — Inadmissible)                      regard to national legislation which precludes private
                           ( 96/C 180/37 )                            undertakings from pursuing the activity of intermediary in
                                                                      the temporary employment market — the Court, composed
                                                                      of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C. N. Kakouris ,
             (Language of the case: Portuguese)                       D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet and G. Hirsch ( Presidents
                                                                      of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, F. A. Schockweiler,
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be         J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ),
         published in the European Court Reports)                     C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm, L. Sevón
                                                                      and M. Wathelet, Judges; Advocate-General, M. B. Elmer;
In Case C-326/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177           Registrar, R. Grass, made an order on 20 March 1996 , the
of the EC Treaty from the Tribunal Cível da Comarca de                operative part of which is as follows :
 ---pagebreak---  22 . 6 . 96           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 180/ 19
 The request for a preliminary ruling submitted by the                  Gerichtshof ( Austrian Supreme Court) of 11 March 1996 ,
 Pretura Circondariale di Ivrea, Sezione di Strambino, by an            which was received at the Court Registry on 16 April 1996 ,
 order of 14 December 1995 is inadmissible.                             for a preliminary ruling in the case of Stephen Austin
                                                                        Saldanha and MTS Securities Corporation v . Hiross
.(') OJ No C 46 , 17 . 2 . 1996 .                                       Holding Aktiengesellschaft on the following question :
                                                                        Where proceedings are brought before an Austrian civil
                                                                        court by a British national who is also a national of the
                                                                        United States of America, who resides in that country ( in
 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht              Florida ) and does not have any residence or assets in Austria ,
 Dusseldorf — Fourth Chamber — by order of that court of                against a joint-stock company whose registered office is in
 26 March 1996, in the case of Fruko-Handelsgesellschaft                Austria, by which he seeks to restrain that company from
               mbH v. Hauptzollamt Emmerich                             selling or otherwise transferring shares in specified
                          ( Case C-120/96 )                             subsidiary companies to its Italian subsidiary company, or
                                                                        to subsidiaries of that company established in Italy, without
                            ( 96/C 180/39 )                             the approval of a qualified majority of three quarters of the
                                                                        general meeting of shareholders or, in the alternative, of a
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 simple majority of the general meeting of shareholders, does
 European Communities by an order of the Finanzgericht                  the fact that he has been ordered by the competent Austrian
 ( Finance Court ) Dusseldorf, Fourth Chamber, of 26 March              court ( of first instance ), on application by the defendant
 1 996 , which was received at the Court Registry on 15 April           company pursuant to paragraph 57 ( 1 ) of the Austrian Code
 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of                         of Civil Procedure, to provide security for costs in a specified
 Fruko-Handelsgesellschaft           mbH      v.    Hauptzollamt        sum constitute discrimination on grounds of nationality
 Emmerich on the following questions :                                  contrary to the first paragraph of Article 6 of the EC
                                                                        Treaty ?
 1 . What degree of severity is required before there can be
      any finding of irreparable damage within the meaning of
      the second paragraph of Article 244 of Regulation
      ( EEC ) No 2913/92 0 ?
 2 . When is there damage within the meaning of the second              Action brought on 17 April 1996 by Kingdom of Spain
                                                                          against the Commission of the European Communities
      paragraph of Article 244 of Regulation ( EEC )
      No 2913 /92 ?                                                                             ( Case C-123 /96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 180/41 )
 3 . What degree of probability must be held to exist for it to
      be found that there is a possibility of the occurrence of         An action against the Commission of the European
      the irreparable damage referred to in the second                  Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
      paragraph of Article 244 of Regulation ( EEC )                    European Communities on 17 April 1 996 by Kingdom of
      No 2913/92 ?
                                                                        Spain, represented by Gloria Calvo Diaz, Abodago del
                                                                        Estado, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
 4 . If the answer to Question 1 is that sufficiently severe            Spanish Embassy, 4—6 Boulevard E. Servais .
      damage is constituted by the mere possibility of a
      winding-up petition based on the disputed but not                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
      suspended decision of the customs authority being
      presented with prospects of success in view of the tax            1 , annul the following Articles of Commission Directive
      debtor's       financial         circumstances,      should            96/2/EC of 16 January 1996 ( ! ):
      implementation of the decision be suspended if a
      winding-up petition could be presented even in the                     — Article 1 ( 3 ) in so far as follows :
      absence of the customs authority's decision ?
                                                                                — the second indent of Article 3 ( a ) inserted into
 (!) OJ No L 302 , 1992 , p . 1 .                                                   Directive 90/388/EEC ( 2 ),
                                                                                — the fifth ( last) indent of Article 3 ( a ) inserted into
                                                                                Directive 90/388/EEC ,
                                                                                — Article 3          (c)   inserted    into      Directive
 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster                               90/388/EEC,
 Gerichtshof by order of that court of 11 March 1996, in the
 case of Stephen Austin Saldanha and MTS Securities                              — Article 3          (d)   inserted    into      Directive
       Corporation v. Hiross Holding Aktiengesellschaft                             90/388 /EEC ,
                          ( Case C-122/96 )
                                                                             — Articles 2 ( 1 ) and 2 ( 2 ), and
                             ( 96/C 180/40 )
                                                                             — Article 4 ;
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
 European Communities by an order of the Oberster                       2 , order the Commission to pay the costs .


title: Order of the president of the court of first instance 3February 2004 in Case T-422/03 R: Enviro Tech Europe Ltd and EnviroTech International Inc v Commission of the European Communities (Interim measures— Directive 67/548 — Urgency)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/65

      ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   3 February 2004
   in Case T-422/03 R: Enviro Tech Europe Ltd and Enviro Tech International Inc v Commission of the European Communities
   (Interim measures - Directive 67/548 - Urgency)
   (2004/C 106/134)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case T-422/03 R, Enviro Tech Europe Ltd, established in Surrey (United Kingdom), and Enviro Tech International Inc, established in Chicago (United States of America), represented by C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers, v Commission of the European Communities (Agents: X. Lewis and F. Simonetti); APPLICATION for suspension of two acts of the Commission of 3 November 2003 and an order requiring the Commission not to propose the reclassification of nPB under the 29th adaptation to technical progress of Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging, and labelling of dangerous substances (OJ, English Special Edition 1967, p. 234), the President of the Court of First Instance, has given an order on 3 February 2004, in which it:

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case T-296/02: Action brought on 27 September 2002 by Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
C 289/36              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    23.11.2002
Communities on 27 September 2002 by Koninklijke BAM                     The applicant also claims infringement of Article 9(3) of
NBM N.V., whose registered office is in the Hague (Nether-              Regulation No 4064/89 concerning the market for the pro-
lands), represented by E.H. Pijnacker Hordijk and G.W.H. Cor-           duction of asphalt. The Commission omitted to indicate the
stens.                                                                  specific regional markets on which there would be negative
                                                                        consequences for competition.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        Furthermore, the applicant claims infringement of the principle
                                                                        of the right to a fair hearing and the obligation to state
1.    Annul the Commission Decision of 3 September 2002                 reasons. The Commission bases its finding concerning the
      pursuant to Article 9(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89           consequences of the concentration for the civil and utility
      in Case COMP/M.2881-BAM NMB/HBG;                                  construction sectors, on the one hand, and the earth-moving,
                                                                        hydraulic engineering and road construction sectors, on the
                                                                        other, on the results of a survey. The applicant states that it
2.    Order the Commission to pay the costs.                            was never able to inspect that information and was unable to
                                                                        comment on it.
                                                                        Finally, the applicant claims infringement of the obligation to
Plea in law and main arguments                                          state reasons with regard to the markets for the production of
                                                                        asphalt.
The applicant notified the Commission of its planned acqui-             (1 ) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on
sition of the Hollandsche Beton Group N.V. Both undertakings                 the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ 1989
are active in the construction sector and in related markets.                L 395, p. 1) (corrected version published in OJ 1990 L 257,
                                                                             p. 13).
By the contested decision, the Commission, at the request of
the Netherlands Minister for economic affairs, referred the case
to the Netherlands competition authority as regards the
construction sector and the regional asphalt markets. As
regards the other activities of the applicant and of Hollandsche
Beton Group, the planned concentration was approved by a
Commission decision of the same date pursuant to
Article 6(1)(b) of Regulation No 4064/89 (1).                           Action brought on 27 September 2002 by Lidl Stiftung &
                                                                        Co. KG against the Office for Harmonisation in the
                                                                                Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
In support of its application the applicant submits, first, that
in its referral decision the Commission made a manifestly                                         (Case T-296/02)
incorrect appraisal of the facts. According to the applicant, the
Commission errs in finding that the applicant and Hollandsche
Beton Group N.V. have a joint market share of more than                                           (2002/C 289/66)
25 % on the relevant market for major works.
                                                                        (Language of the case: to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
                                                                        of the Rules of Procedure — Language in which the application has
The applicant also submits that the contested decision infringes
                                                                                been drafted: German)
Article 9(3) of Regulation No 4064/89. The Commission
misappraises the effects of the concentration on the civil and
utility construction sectors, on the one hand, and the earth-
moving, hydraulic engineering and road construction sectors
on the other hand. In particular the market shares of the
                                                                        An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
applicant and of Hollandsche Beton Group for major projects
                                                                        Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
in those sectors are much smaller than the Commission
                                                                        Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
concludes. Projects of that kind are implemented by various
                                                                        27 September 2002 by Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG, of Neckarsulm
undertakings which work together on one project. According
                                                                        (Germany), represented by Peter Gross, Rechtsanwalt.
to the applicant, the Commission erred in completely attribu-
ting to the applicant and Hollandsche Beton Group the market
shares of those groups of undertakings in which they took
part, without taking into account the other undertakings                A further party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
cooperating with them.                                                  was REWE-Zentral AG, of Cologne (Germany).
 ---pagebreak--- 23.11.2002             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 289/37
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               Action brought on 30 September 2002 by ACEA S.p.A.
                                                                            against the Commission of the European Communities
—     declare void and annul the decision adopted on 17 July
      2002 by the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for
      Harmonisation in the Internal Market, concerning appeal                                     (Case T-297/02)
      No R 0036/2002-3 relating to registration of the Com-
      munity trade mark ‘Lindenhof’ (application No 629741);
                                                                                (2002/C 289/67)
—     order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for the Com-         REWE-Zentral AG                            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
munity trade mark:                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 30 September 2002 by ACEA
The Community trade            the word mark ‘Lindenhof’, inter           S.p.A., represented by Andrea Giardina, Luca G. Radicati di
mark applied for:              alia for goods in Class 32 (mineral        Brozolo and Vincenzo Puca, avvocati.
                               waters and aerated waters and
                               other non-alcoholic drinks; fruit
                               drinks and fruit juices) — appli-
                               cation No 629741                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
Proprietor of the trade-       the applicant in these proceedings
                                                                          —     annul the Commission’s decision of 5 June 2002 (State
mark right opposed in
                                                                                Aid No C.27/99) in so far as it declares unlawful and
the opposition proceed-
                                                                                incompatible with the common market the three-year
ings:
                                                                                exemption from tax on profits granted by Italy to local
                                                                                public service undertakings the majority of the shares
Trade-mark            right    the German pictorial mark ‘LIND-                 in which are publicly owned within the meaning of
opposed:                       ERHOF’ for goods in Class 33                     Article 3(70) of Law No 549/1995, and loans granted on
                               (champagne-like wines)                           preferential terms pursuant to Article 9a of Decree-Law
                                                                                No 488/1986, and in so far as it requires Italy to recover
Decision of the Oppo-          partial rejection of the opposition              the aid in question from the recipients thereof, including
sition Division:                                                                the applicant (Articles 2 and 3 of the decision);
Decision of the Board of       rejection of the applicant’s appeal        —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
Appeal:
Grounds of claim:              —     likelihood of confusion
                                     within the meaning of
                                     Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation
                                     (EC) No 40/94 (1);                   Pleas in law and main arguments
                               —     the competing marks are
                                     extremely similar;
                                                                          The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
                               —     the goods of the trade-mark          advanced in Case T-292/02 Confederazione Nazionale dei
                                     applicant are not sufficiently       Servizi v Commission.
                                     dissimilar to those of the
                                     applicant in these proceed-
                                     ings.
                                                                          In particular, the applicant pleads that the measures at issue
                                                                          cannot constitute State aid, inasmuch as the companies
( 1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the          benefitting from the system in question do not operate within
     Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).                           a framework of competition. Furthermore, even if the measures
                                                                          at issue were to be regarded as State aid and were not classified
                                                                          as existing aid, they should be regarded as compatible aid
                                                                          within the meaning of Article 87(3)(c) EC.


title: Case C-243/09: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Halle (Germany)) — Günter Fuß v Stadt Halle (Social policy — Protection of the safety and health of workers — Directive 2003/88/EC — Organisation of working time — Fire fighters employed in the public sector — Operational service — Article 6(b) and Article 22(1)(b) — Maximum weekly working time — Refusal to work longer than that time — Compulsory transfer to another service — Direct effect — Consequence for national courts)

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/16

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Halle (Germany)) — Günter Fuß v Stadt Halle
   (Case C-243/09) (1)

   (Social policy - Protection of the safety and health of workers - Directive 2003/88/EC - Organisation of working time - Fire fighters employed in the public sector - Operational service - Article 6(b) and Article 22(1)(b) - Maximum weekly working time - Refusal to work longer than that time - Compulsory transfer to another service - Direct effect - Consequence for national courts)
   2010/C 346/26
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Halle

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Günter Fuß

      Defendant: Stadt Halle

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht Halle — Interpretation of Article 22(1)(b) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9) — National legislation providing, in breach of that directive, for working time of more than 48 hours during a seven-day period for officials working as on-call professional firefighters — Compulsory transfer of an official who refused to work such hours to a post at the same grade in the administration — Concept of ‘detriment’

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 6(b) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be interpreted as precluding national rules, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which allow a public-sector employer to transfer compulsorily to another service a worker employed as a fire fighter in an operational service on the ground that that worker has requested compliance, within the latter service, with the maximum average weekly working time laid down in that provision. The fact that such a worker suffers no specific detriment by reason of that transfer, other than that resulting from the infringement of Article 6(b) of Directive 2003/88, is irrelevant in that regard.

      (1)  OJ C 233, 26.9.2009.


title: Case T-354/00: Action brought on 23 November 2000 by Métropole Télévision (M6) against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 79/22                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       10.3.2001
                                                          COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Action brought on 23 November 2000 by Métropole                            —     The existence, in the present case, of a manifest error of
Télévision (M6) against Commission of the European                               assessment, inasmuch as:
                             Communities
                                                                                —     the current circumstances have changed from those
                           (Case T-354/00)                                             prevailing in December 1997. Such a change
                                                                                involves, in particular, the adoption on 3 April
                                                                                1998, of new membership conditions as well as of
                            (2001/C 79/39)                                             new rules fixing the criteria for the interpretation of
                                                                                Article 3(3) of the EBU Statutes;
                     (Language of the case: French)                              —     the complaint of 6 March 2000 does not reproduce
                                                                                the terms or arguments of the first complaint of 5
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                              December 1997, the rejection of which formed
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                             the subject-matter of Case T-206/99 Métropole
European Communities on 23 November 2000 by Métropole                                  Télévision v Commission (3).
Télévision (M6), established in Neuilly-sur-Seine (France), rep-
resented by Didier Téophile, of the Paris Bar.
                                                                           (1) Joined Cases T-528/93, T-542/93, T-543/93, T-543/93,
                                                                               T-546/93, T-546/93 Métropole Télévision and Others v Com-
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    mission [1996] ECR II-649.
                                                                           (2) OJ 1998 L 354, p. 18.
—     annul in its entirety the decision of the Commission of              (3) OJ 1999 C 333, p. 33.
      12 September 2000 in Case COMP/C2/37.825 (M6) v
      European Broadcasting Union (EBU);
—     Order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant company observes that, on 13 July 2000 it                    Action brought on 6 December 2000 by N.V. Master
brought an action against the exemption decision of the                    Foods against the Commission of the European Communi-
Commission of 10 May 2000 by which it declared the                                                         ties
provisions of Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty inapplicable for
the period 26 February 1993 to 31 December 2005 to certain
                                                                                (Case T-370/00)
EBU agreements. That decision is in line with the judgment of
the Court of First Instance of 11 July 1996 (1) and the new
rules which the EBU subsequently adopted, supplementing                                              (2001/C 79/40)
and amending its Statutes. In that regard, the applicant claims
to find itself in a situation in which, pending the next judgment
of the Court of First Instance, the EBU is benefiting from a
situation in which the Commission expressly states that the                                   (Language of the case: English)
new membership conditions do not result in a restriction of
competition. That is why M6 was forced to lodge a complaint                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
on 6 March 2000, the rejection of which is now the subject-                ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
matter of the present action, seeking a declaration from the               European Communities on 6 December 2000 by N.V. Master
Commission prohibiting the new EBU membership conditions                   Foods, a company incorporated under Belgian law, represented
and the rules supplementing them.                                          by Laurent Ruessmann and Ivo Onkelinx of De Bandt, Van
                                                                           Hecke, Lagae & Loesch, Brussels (Belgium).
In support of its arguments, the applicant alleges:
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     Breach of essential procedural requirements in that the
      Commission disregarded the procedural rules introduced
      by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2842/98 of 22 De-                   —     annul the Commission Decision set out in the DG Budget
      cember 1998 on the hearing of parties in certain proceed-                  letter of 29 September 2000, as regards the determination
      ings under Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty, (2) by                     of the import prices and resulting amount of definitive
      sending M6, in reply to its complaint of 6 March 2000, a                   duties due by the applicant under the CRS; and
      definitive rejection, without giving it the opportunity
      beforehand of making known its views.                                —     order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 October 2003 in Case T-292/01: Phillips-Van Heusen Corp. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Regulations (EC) No 40/94 and No 2868/95 — Opposition — Likelihood of confusion — Alteration of a decision of the Board of Appeal — Application for registration of Community word mark BASS — Earlier word mark PASH)

text:
13.12.2003                EN                             Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 304/25
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                      4.    Orders the Office to pay, in addition to its own costs, one third
                                                                                of the costs incurred by the applicant;
                          of 14 October 2003                                     5.    Orders the intervener to pay, in addition to its own costs, two
                                                                                thirds of the costs incurred by the applicant.
in Case T-292/01: Phillips-Van Heusen Corp. v Office for                         (1) OJ C 44 of 16.2.2002.
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                          Designs) (OHIM) (1)
(Community trade mark — Regulations (EC) No 40/94 and
No 2868/95 — Opposition — Likelihood of confusion —
Alteration of a decision of the Board of Appeal — Appli-
cation for registration of Community word mark BASS —
                      Earlier word mark PASH)                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 15 October 2003
                            (2003/C 304/44)
                                                                                in Case T-295/01: Nordmilch eG v Office for Harmonis-
                                                                                ation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                     (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (OHIM) (1)
                                                                                (Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94
                                                                                — OLDENBURGER — Absolute ground for refusal —
                                                                                Descriptive character — Geographical origin —
In Case T-292/01, Phillips-Van Heusen Corp., established in                      Articles 7(1)(c) and 7(2) — Limitation of the right conferred
New York (United States of America), represented by F. Jaco-                     — Article 12(b) — Statement as to the scope of protection
bacci, lawyer, v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                                                   — Article 38(2))
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: E. Joly and
S. Laitinen), the intervener before the Court being Pash
Textilvertrieb und Einzelhandel GmbH, established in Munich                                                 (2003/C 304/45)
(Germany), represented by W. Städtler, lawyer: Action brought
against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office
for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and                                            (Language of the case: German.)
Designs) of 12 September 2001 (Case R-740/2000-3) relating
to opposition proceedings between Pash Textilvertrieb und
Einzelhandel GmbH and Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation, the
Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of:                           In Case T-295/01, Nordmilch eG, established in Zeven (Ger-
N.J. Forwood, President, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges;                     many), represented by C. Spintig, lawyer, v Office for Harmon-
J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,                 isation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
has given a judgment on 14 October 2003, in which it:                            (OHIM) (Agents: A. von Mühlendahl and G. Schneider): Action
                                                                                brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of
                                                                                the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
1.    Declares that it is unnecessary to rule on the action in so far as         Marks and Designs) of 19 September 2001 (Case R 826/2000-
      it is directed against the rejection in the contested decision of          3), concerning the application for registration of the word
      the application for registration of the trade mark in respect of           OLDENBURGER, the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),
      goods other than ‘clothing’;                                               composed of: V. Tiili, President, P. Mengozzi and M. Vilaras,
                                                                                Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
                                                                                given a judgment on 15 October 2003, in which it:
2.    Alters the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office
      for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
      Designs) of 12 September 2001 (Case R-740/2000-3), as                      1.    Dismisses the application;
      rectified by the decision of 18 February 2002, so that the
      intervener’s appeal before the Office is dismissed;                        2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
3.    Declares that it is unnecessary to rule on the application to              (1) OJ C 44 of 16.2.2002.
      reject definitively and in its entirety the opposition to registration
      of the trade mark applied for in respect of goods falling within
      Class 25;


title: Case T-257/07: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2011 — France v Commission (Animal health — Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 — Protection against transmissible spongiform encephalopathies — Sheep and goats — Regulation (EC) No 746/2008 — Adoption of less restrictive eradication measures than those earlier prescribed — Precautionary principle)

text:
               22.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/33

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2011 — France v Commission
   (Case T-257/07) (1)

   (Animal health - Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 - Protection against transmissible spongiform encephalopathies - Sheep and goats - Regulation (EC) No 746/2008 - Adoption of less restrictive eradication measures than those earlier prescribed - Precautionary principle)
   2011/C 311/58
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: French Republic (represented initially by E. Belliard, G. de Bergues, R. Loosli-Surrans and A.-L. During, then by E. Belliard, G. de Bergues, R. Loosli Surrans and B. Cabouat, agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Nolin, agent)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented initially by I. Rao and C. Gibbs, then by I. Rao and L. Seeboruth, and then by L. Seeboruth and F. Penlington, agents, and T. Ward, Barrister)

      Re:

   Annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 746/2008 of 17 June 2008 amending Annex VII to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (OJ 2008 L 202, p. 11), in that it authorises less restrictive measures of surveillance and eradication than those earlier prescribed for sheep and goat herds.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission in respect of the main proceedings and the proceedings for interim measures;

               3.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.