title: Case T-110/00: Action brought on 28 April 2000 by Free Trade Foods NV against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 176/30              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    24.6.2000
— order the Commission to pay to the applicant compen-                 Action brought on 28 April 2000 by Free Trade Foods
    sation for the non-material damage suffered by him and             NV against the Commission of the European Communities
    for the harm done to his career, in a sum equivalent to that
    provided for by Article 50 of the Staff Regulations;
                                                                                (Case T-110/00)
— order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                                (2000/C 176/53)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
Between 1992 and 1996 the applicant was the Director of the
European Community Humanitarian Office (ECHO), in which
certain serious malpractices were discovered following an              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
investigation carried out by UCLAF in 1998. On 14 July                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
1999 the Commission decided not to pursue the disciplinary             European Communities on 28 April 2000 by Free Trade Foods
proceedings brought against the applicant, and did not impose          NV, represented by R.J. van Agteren, of the Rotterdam Bar,
any disciplinary measure on him. That decision was sub-                and M.M. Slotboom, of the Rotterdam and Brussels Bars, with
sequently criticised in the press and was also, according to the       an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
applicant, the subject of criticism by certain officials and           M. Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe.
members of the Community institutions. In bringing the
present action, the applicant complains that the Commission
has failed to fulfil its obligation to provide assistance, as          The applicant claims that the Court should:
required by Article 24 of the Staff Regulations, since it has
unlawfully refrained from taking the appropriate measures to           (1) declare the action brought by Free Trade Foods admissible;
defend the applicant against unjustified accusations.
                                                                       (2) annul Regulation No 465/2000 (1) of 29 February 2000
The applicant is seeking, in particular:                                   introducing safeguard measures for imports from the
                                                                           overseas countries and territories of sugar sector products
— annulment of the Commission’s decision of 23 February                    with EC/OCT cumulation of origin;
    2000, in which it expressed an opinion on the applicant’s
    activities as former Director of ECHO for the purposes of          (3) rule that the Community is liable for the damage suffered
    proceedings brought by the applicant before the German                 by Free Trade Foods as a result of the safeguard measure
    courts against a German weekly periodical;                             and that the parties should seek to reach agreement on the
                                                                           extent of the damage suffered by Free Trade Foods, and
— a declaration of illegality with regard to the Commission’s              order that, if no such agreement is reached within a time-
    failure to react following a press conference on 19 Nov-               limit to be specified by the Court, the proceedings are to
    ember 1999, in the course of which the Director of OLAF                continue with a view to determining the quantum of the
    called in question the decision adopted by the Commission              damage, and order the Community in any event to pay the
    in the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant;                 damages provisionally quantified and yet to be quantified,
                                                                           alternatively to pay such compensation as the Court may
                                                                           deem fair and equitable, together with interest thereon
— a declaration of illegality with regard to the absence of any            from the date of the application until payment in full;
    reaction by the Commission to an article published in a
    German daily newspaper, in which OLAF called in question
    the said decision of the Commission;                               (4) order the Commission to pay the costs.
— annulment of the Commission’s decision of 22 February
    2000 refusing to authorise the applicant to speak at a
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
    meeting of the European Parliament’s Committee on
    Budgetary Control;
                                                                       — infringement of Article 109 of the Council Decision of
— a declaration of illegality with regard to the absence of any            25 July 1991 on the association of the overseas countries
    appropriate reaction on the part of the Commission to                  and territories with the European Economic Com-
    certain draft reports prepared, and discussions held, within           munity (2);
    the Committee on Budgetary Control and at the time of
    the debates which took place in the plenary sessions of the        — infringement of the favourable treatment given in the
    Parliament on 11 and 13 April 2000.                                    Treaty (Articles 3(1)(s) and 183(1) EC) to OCT goods;
                                                                       — infringement of Article 7(5) of the Agreement on Safe-
                                                                           guards concluded within the framework of the WTO;
 ---pagebreak--- 24.6.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 176/31
— illegality of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2553/97 of                 It should be pointed out that the Commission rejected the
     17 December 1997 on rules for issuing import licences for           Community Producers’ complaint on the ground that the
     certain products covered by CN codes 1701, 1702,                    complaint was inadmissible, essentially by virtue of Article 27
     1703 and 1704 and qualifying as ACP/OCT originating                 of Regulation No 2820/98, which provides that ‘Preferences
     products (3), as a result of which Article 2(2) of the              shall normally be granted to producers which are subject to ...
     safeguard measure, which states that the provisions of              anti-subsidy measures’.
     Regulation No 2553/97 are to apply mutatis mutandis, is
     unlawful.
                                                                         In support of their action, the applicants make the following
                                                                         submissions:
(1) OJ L 56 of 1.3.2000, p. 39.
(2) OJ 1991 L 263, p. 1, as last amended by Decision 2000/168/EC.
(3) OJ 1997 L 349, p. 26.
                                                                         The contested decision is unlawful in that it is contrary to
                                                                         Community secondary legislation. Regulation No 2820/98
                                                                         does not provide that the existence of anti-subsidy measures
                                                                         precludes the opening of an investigation into the removal of
                                                                         GSP benefits. It provides that GSP benefits are not normally
                                                                         incompatible with anti-subsidy or anti-dumping measures but
                                                                         that those benefits can be withdrawn in manifest cases of
Action brought on 2 May 2000 by DuPont Teijin Films                      subsidisation or other unfair trading practices. The contested
Luxembourg S.A., Mitsubishi Polyester Film GmbH and                      decision, according to which benefits can never be withdrawn
Toray Plastics Europe S.A. against the Commission of the                 if anti-subsidy measures are in place, is therefore based upon a
                    European Communities                                 misinterpretation of Regulation No 2820/98. The Community
                                                                         Producers’ interpretation of this regulation is also consistent
                                                                         with trade policy, in that it would enable the Commission to
                         (Case T-113/00)                                 examine the possibility of withdrawing benefits from a trading
                                                                         partner who was persistently or grossly infringing international
                         (2000/C 176/54)                                 obligations or WTO rules.
                   (Language of the case: English)                       The Commission has failed to provide adequate reasoning for
                                                                         its decision rejecting the Community Producers’ complaint.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 2 May 2000 by DuPont Teijin                      (1) OJ L 357 of 30.12.1998, p. 1.
Films Luxembourg S.A. (Luxembourg), Mitsubishi Polyester
Film GmbH (Wiesbaden, Germany) and Toray Plastics Europe
S.A. (Miribel Cedex, France), represented by Mr. Ian S. Forrester
QC and Mr. James Killick, of White & Case LLP, Brussels.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the contested decision;
— order the Commission to pay the costs;
                                                                         Action brought on 11 May 2000 by Michael Nevin against
— take such other or further steps as justice may require.                      the Commission of the European Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                   (Case T-127/00)
On 17 September 1998 the Community producers requested                                            (2000/C 176/55)
the European Commission to investigate whether it was
appropriate to remove General System of Preferences (GSP)
tariff benefits from Indian polyethylene terephthalate film
(‘PET’ film), on the grounds that the subsidies being paid to                               (Language of the case: French)
Indian PET film producers constituted a ‘manifest case of
unfair trading practices’ under the current Article 22 of
Council Regulation (EC) No 2820/98, of 21 December 1998,                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
applying a multiannual scheme of generalised tariff preferences          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
for the period 1 July 1999 to 31 December 2001 (1). The                  European Communities on 11 May 2000 by Michael Nevin,
present action is brought by the three major producers of PET            residing at Tervuren (Belgium), represented by Nicolas Lhoëst,
film in Europe against the rejection of that request.                    of the Brussels Bar.


title: Case C-284/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 11 June 2014  — Grünwald Logistik Service GmbH (GLS) v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/37

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 11 June 2014 — Grünwald Logistik Service GmbH (GLS) v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt
   (Case C-284/14)
   2014/C 315/59
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Hamburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Grünwald Logistik Service GmbH (GLS)

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt

      Question referred

   Is Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 158/2013 of 18 February 2013 re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits (namely mandarins, etc.) originating in the People’s Republic of China (1) valid, even though it was based not on an independent anti-dumping investigation carried out shortly before its adoption but on the continuation of an anti-dumping investigation which had at that time already been carried out in respect of the period from 1 October 2006 to 30 September 2007, the conduct of which, however, the Court of Justice of the European Union, in its judgment of 22 May 2012 in GLS C-338/10, (2) held to have infringed the requirements of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community, (3) as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2117/2005 of 21 December 2005 amending Regulation (EC) No 384/96 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community, (4) with the consequence that the Court, in that judgment, declared Council Regulation (EC) No 1355/2008 of 18 December 2008 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits (namely mandarins, etc.) originating in the People’s Republic of China, (5) adopted on the basis of that investigation, to be invalid?

      (1)  OJ 2013 L 49, p. 29.

      (2)  ECLI:EU:C:2012:158.

      (3)  OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1.

      (4)  OJ 2005 L 340, p. 17.

      (5)  OJ 2008 L 350, p. 35.


title: Case C-468/04: Action brought on 4 November 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
               18.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/9

         Action brought on 4 November 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-468/04)
   (2004/C 314/18)
   An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 4 November 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Georgios Zavvos and Arnaud Bordes, members of the Commission's Legal Service.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/33/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2002 amending Council Directives 90/425/EEC and 92/118/EEC as regards health requirements for animal by-products, and in any event by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposing the directive into national law expired on 30 April 2003.

      (1)  OJ L 315 of 31.10.2002, p. 14.


title: Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 April 2003 in Case C-149/00 P: Gregorio Valero Jordana and Serge Vadé v Commission of the European Communities (Appeals — Officials — Action become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

text:
6.9.2003                 EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                                C 213/3
                     ORDER OF THE COURT                                                           ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fourth Chamber)
                           (First Chamber)
                                                                                of 9 April 2003
                          of 22 April 2003
                                                                             in Case C-424/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                             the Bundesvergabeamt): CS Communications & Systems
                                                                             Austria GmbH v Allgemeine Unfallversicherungsan-
in Case C-149/00 P: Gregorio Valero Jordana and Serge                                                        stalt (1)
    Vadé v Commission of the European Communities ( 1)
                                                                             (Public contracts — Directive 89/665/EEC — Review pro-
                                                                             cedures for the award of public contracts — Action for
(Appeals — Officials — Action become devoid of purpose                       annulment of a decision of the contracting authority —
                      — No need to adjudicate)                               Application for interim measures — Duty or discretion of
                                                                             the body responsible for review procedures to take account
                                                                             of the prospects of success of the substantive claim —
                                                                             Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Question the
                           (2003/C 213/04)                                     answer to which does not admit of any reasonable doubt)
                                                                                (2003/C 213/05)
                    (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             In Case C-424/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
In Case 149/00 P: Gregorio Valero Jordana and Serge Vadé,                    by the Bundesvergabeamt (Austria) for a preliminary ruling
officials of the Commission of the European Communities,                     in the proceedings pending before that body between CS
residing at Brussels (lawyer: C. Amo Quiñones) — appeal                      Communications & Systems Austria GmbH and Allgemeine
against the order of the Court of First Instance of the European             Unfallversicherungsanstalt on the interpretation of Article 2 of
Communities, First Chamber, of 9 February 2000 in Case                       Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on
T-111/97 Valero Jordana et Vadé v Commission [2000] ECR-                     the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative
SC IA-15; SC-II-61, seeking to have that judgment set aside,                 provisions relating to the application of review procedures to
the other party to the proceedings being Commission of the                   the award of public supply and public works contracts (OJ
European Communities (Agents: E. Gippini Fournier and                        1989 L 395, p. 33), as amended by Council Directive 92/50/
C. Berardis-Kayser) — the Court, composed of M. Wathelet,                    EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures
President of the Chamber, P. Jann and A. Rosas (Rapporteur),                 for the award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1),
Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made                the Court, composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur),
an order on 22 April 2003, the operative part of which is as                 President of the Chamber, A. La Pergola and S. von Bahr,
follows:                                                                     Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
                                                                             made an order on 9 April 2003, the operative part of which is
                                                                             as follows:
1.    There is no need to adjudicate.
                                                                             Article 2 of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989
                                                                             on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative
2.    The Commission of the European Communities shall pay the               provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the
      costs of proceedings before both the Court of First Instance and       award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by
      the Court of Justice.                                                  Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the
                                                                             coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts,
                                                                             must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude the Member
                                                                             States from providing that when a body responsible for review
( 1) OJ C 163 of 10 June 2000.                                               procedures for the award of public contracts decides an application
                                                                             for interim measures, it is bound or authorised to take account of the
                                                                             prospects of success of an application for a decision of a contracting
                                                                             authority to be set aside on the ground that it is unlawful, so long as
                                                                             the national rules thus governing the adoption of those interim


title: Case T-415/14: Action brought on 12 June 2014  — Embutidos Rodríguez v Commission

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/54

         Action brought on 12 June 2014 — Embutidos Rodríguez v Commission
   (Case T-415/14)
   2014/C 253/71
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Embutidos Rodríguez, SL (Soto de la Vega, León, Spain) (represented by: A. López Gómez, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               in the alternative, annul the decision categorising the measures which together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ (‘STLS’) as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as the only beneficiaries of the alleged aid and, consequently, as solely liable for its recovery;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid in breach of general principles of EU law;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of private contracts between the investors and other entities; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are those raised in Case T-401/14 Duro Felguera SA v Commission.


title: Case C-392/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Oradea (Romania) lodged on 29 June 2017 — Sindicatul Energia Oradea v SC Termoelectrica SA

text:
               4.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 293/20

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Oradea (Romania) lodged on 29 June 2017 — Sindicatul Energia Oradea v SC Termoelectrica SA
   (Case C-392/17)
   (2017/C 293/24)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Oradea

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sindicatul Energia Oradea

      Defendant: SC Termoelectrica SA

      Question referred

   Are the provisions of Order No 50/1990, as interpreted by judgment No 9/2016 given by the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (High Court of Cassation and Justice, Romania) on a matter of public policy — a judgment binding on courts of law, according to which occupations classified in groups I and II are strictly and rigorously limited to those set out in Annex 1 and 2 of that order, and the courts may not extend the provisions of that order to include other similar cases, with the consequence that those former workers cannot receive the pension benefits owed as a result of the hard working conditions in which they have carried out their work — compatible with Articles 114(3), 151 and 153 TFEU, and with the provisions of framework Directive 89/391/EEC (1) and successive specific directives?

      (1)  Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (OJ 1989 L 183, p. 1).


title: Case C-578/12 P: Order of the President of the Court of 5 June 2014  — El Corte Inglés, SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Emilio Pucci International BV

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/44

         Order of the President of the Court of 5 June 2014 — El Corte Inglés, SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Emilio Pucci International BV
   (Case C-578/12 P) (1)

   2014/C 315/71
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 46, 16.2.2013.


title: Case C-194/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 1, Oviedo (Spain) lodged on 27 April 2011 — Susana Natividad Martínez Álvarez v Consejería de la Presidencia, Justicia e Igualdad del Principado de Asturias

text:
               30.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 1, Oviedo (Spain) lodged on 27 April 2011 — Susana Natividad Martínez Álvarez v Consejería de la Presidencia, Justicia e Igualdad del Principado de Asturias
   (Case C-194/11)
   2011/C 226/19
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 1, Oviedo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Susana Natividad Martínez Álvarez

      Defendant: Consejería de la Presidencia, Justicia e Igualdad del Principado de Asturias

      Question referred

   Is Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, read in relation to Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as precluding a domestic provision (such as Article 502(4) of the Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial 6/1985 of 1 July) which provides that when temporary incapacity for work arises during leave which has already started, the leave can be deemed interrupted only if such incapacity involves admission to hospital, thus excluding other situations of incapacity, in which there would be no right to take the leave at a later date?

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9.


title: Case T-66/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 December 2007 — Sack v Commission (Civil service — Official — Action for annulment — Responsibility bonus — Duties of Head of unit — Equal treatment — Duty to state reasons — Language provisions)

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/40

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 December 2007 — Sack v Commission
   (Case T-66/05) (1)

   (Civil service - Official - Action for annulment - Responsibility bonus - Duties of ‘Head of unit’ - Equal treatment - Duty to state reasons - Language provisions)
   (2008/C 22/73)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Jörn Sack (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: U. Lehmann-Brauns and D. Mahlo, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Joris and H. Krämer, acting as Agents, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)
   Re:
   Action for annulment of the decisions relating to the fixing of the applicant's monthly salary for the months of May 2004 to February 2005, application for a fresh calculation of that salary and action for annulment of the express decision to reject the applicant's claim, notified to him on 26 November 2004.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 30.4.2005.


title: Case C-424/08: Action brought on 25 September 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/16

         Action brought on 25 September 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-424/08)
   (2009/C 69/27)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Schima and B. Sipos, Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11(1)(c) of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances, inasmuch as the competent German authorities have failed to draw up external emergency plans for all establishments to which Article 9 of the said Directive applies;

               —

               order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Article 11(1)(c) of Directive 96/82/EC requires Member States to ensure that, for all establishments to which Article 9 applies, the competent authorities draw up an external emergency plan for the measures to be taken outside the establishment. The external emergency plans must contain not only information concerning remedial measures on-site and off-site, but also specific information for the public concerning the accident and the requisite behaviour to be adopted. In addition, the information intended for the emergency services of other Member States in the case of a major accident which is capable of causing transboundary effects must also appear in the external emergency plans.
   The present action seeks a declaration that the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11(1)(c) of Directive 96/82/EC, inasmuch as it has failed to draw up external emergency plans for all establishments to which Article 9 of the said Directive applies.


title: Case C-603/14 P: Appeal brought on 29 December 2014 by El Corte Inglés, S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 15 October 2014 in Case T-515/12 El Corte Inglés v OHIM — English Cut (The English Cut)

text:
               30.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/17

      Appeal brought on 29 December 2014 by El Corte Inglés, S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 15 October 2014 in Case T-515/12 El Corte Inglés v OHIM — English Cut (The English Cut)
      (Case C-603/14 P)
      (2015/C 107/24)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Appellant: El Corte Inglés, S.A. (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

         Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

         Form of order sought

      The appellant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  set aside the judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2014 in Case T-515/12 in its entirety;

                  —

                  order the party or parties opposing this appeal to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

                  1.

                     The first ground of appeal is based on distortion of the facts, in that the General Court, in its judgment of 15 October 2014, categorised the conceptual similarity between the signs as low, whereas the Board of Appeal of OHIM took the view that there is conceptual similarity.

                  2.

                     The second ground of appeal is based on infringement of Community law, in that Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 (1) was applied incorrectly.

                  3.

                     The third ground of appeal is based on infringement of Community law, in that Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 was applied incorrectly.

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


title: Case T-260/09 P: Appeal brought on 6 July 2009 by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 5 May 2009 in Case F-27/08, Simões Dos Santos v OHIM

text:
               12.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/35

         Appeal brought on 6 July 2009 by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 5 May 2009 in Case F-27/08, Simões Dos Santos v OHIM
   (Case T-260/09 P)
   2009/C 220/74
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by I. de Medrano Caballero, Agent, and D. Waelbroeck, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Manuel Simões Dos Santos (Madrid, Spain)

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the Court of First Instance should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-27/08, including the ruling as to costs;

               —

               uphold the form of order contended for by OHIM at first instance, that is to say, dismiss the action as unfounded;

               —

               order the respondent to pay the costs of the present proceedings, together with those incurred in the proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present appeal, OHIM is seeking to have set aside the judgment of 5 May 2009 in Case F-27/08 Simões Dos Santos v OHIM, by which the Civil Service Tribunal annulled Decision PERS-01-07 and OHIM’s letter of 7 June 2007 in so far as they entail the elimination of the balance of the merit points held by Manuel Simões Dos Santos following his promotion.
   In support of its appeal, OHIM relies on three pleas in law:

               —

               error of law in that, contrary to the case-law concerning the conditions relating to the retroactive application of an act and in breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, the Civil Service Tribunal held that OHIM was in breach of the principles of legal certainty and non-retroactivity;

               —

               error of law, in that the Civil Service Tribunal held that OHIM had infringed Article 233 EC and disregarded the authority of res iudicata of the judgment in Case T-435/04 Simões Dos Santos v OHIM, whereas in fact the measures taken by OHIM for the purposes of complying with that judgment are the only measures permissible if the principle of non-discrimination is not to be infringed;

               —

               unlawfulness of the award by the Civil Service Tribunal of costs for the reparation of purported non-physical damage, since OHIM is in no way at fault and the ruling of the Civil Service Tribunal in that respect is ultra petita.


title: Case F-96/15: Action brought on 1 July 2015 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/84

         Action brought on 1 July 2015 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-96/15)
   (2015/C 294/103)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the proposal to transfer the pension rights of the applicant into the European Union pension scheme, which applies the new general implementing provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, and the request that the defendant be ordered to pay a provisional advance of one euro in respect of the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare Article 9 of the general implementing provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 15.7.2011 to be unlawful;

               —

               Annul the decision of 3 October 2014 to credit the pension rights acquired by the applicant before his entry into service, in the context of the transfer of those rights into the pension scheme of the EU institutions, in accordance with the general implementing provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 15.7.2011;

               —

               In the alternative, order the European Commission to make a provisional payment of one euro in respect of the loss suffered by the applicant;

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-317/16: Action brought on 21 June 2016 — Moravia Consulting v EUIPO — Citizen Systems Europe (SDC-888TII RU)

text:
               8.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/31

         Action brought on 21 June 2016 — Moravia Consulting v EUIPO — Citizen Systems Europe (SDC-888TII RU)
   (Case T-317/16)
   (2016/C 287/37)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Czech

      Parties

      Applicant: Moravia Consulting spol. s.r.o. (Brno, Czech Republic) (represented by: M. Kyjovský, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Citizen Systems Europe GmbH (Stuttgart, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘SDC-888TII RU’– Application for registration No 12 781 225

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 April 2016 in Case R 1566/2015-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Rule 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95.


title: Case T-71/09: Order of the General Court of 5 January 2010 — Química Atlântica v Commission (Action for failure to act — Adoption of a position — Article 44(1)(c)of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance — Inadmissibility)

text:
               27.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/32

         Order of the General Court of 5 January 2010 — Química Atlântica v Commission
   (Case T-71/09) (1)

   (Action for failure to act - Adoption of a position - Article 44(1)(c)of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance - Inadmissibility)
   2010/C 51/62
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: Química Atlântica Lda (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: J. Teixeira Alves, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Afonso and L. Bouyon, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for a declaration that the Commission failed to act in that it unlawfully failed to take the measures necessary to harmonise the tariff heading criteria for dicalcium phosphate, and an application for reimbursement of the difference between the amounts that the applicant has had to pay since 1995 by way of customs duties and those which would have been payable had the rate for Tariff Code 28 35 52 90 been applied to the importation of dicalcium phosphate from Tunisia or an indemnity of an equivalent amount.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               There is no need to adjudicate on Timab Ibérica SL’s application to intervene application.

               3.

               Química Atlântica Lda is ordered to pay its own costs as well as those of the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 16.5.2009.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 21 September 1998 in Case T-237/97: Nicolaos Progoulis v. Commission of the European Communities (Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
7.11.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 340/21
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            of publication of the decision and for damages in respect
                      (Fourth Chamber)                               of the losses incurred as a result thereof, the Court
                                                                     (Second Chamber) composed of: A. Kalogeropoulos,
                        of 15 July 1998                              President, C. W. Bellamy and J. Pirrung, Judges; Registrar:
in Case T-115/94 (92): Opel Austria GmbH v. Council of               H. Jung, made an order on 15 September 1998, the
                   the European Union (1)                            operative part of which is as follows:
                      (Taxation of costs)                            1. the application is dismissed;
                         (98/C 340/39)
                                                                     2. the applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                     (1) OJ C 229 of 2.9.1995.
In Case T-115/94 (92): Opel Austria GmbH, formerly
General Motors Austria GmbH, whose registered office is
in Vienna, represented by Dirk Vandermeersch, of the
Brussels Bar, and Till Müller-Ibold, Rechtsanwalt,
Frankfurt am Main, with an address for service in                         ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt and Medernach,                                      of 21 September 1998
8Ð10 rue Mathias Hardt, against Council of the
                                                                     in Case T-237/97: Nicolaos Progoulis v. Commission of
European Union (Agents: Bjarne Hoff-Nielsen, Hans-
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
Jürgen Rabe and Georg M. Berrisch) Ð application for
taxation of costs made following the judgment of the                                    (Manifest inadmissibility)
Court of First Instance of 22 January 1997 in Case T-115/
                                                                                (98/C 340/41)
94 Opel Austria v. Council [1997] ECR II-39 Ð the Court
of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: P.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Lindh, President, K. Lenaerts and J. D. Cooke, Judges; H.
Jung, Registrar, made an order on 15 July 1998, the                  In Case T-237/97: Nicolaos Progoulis, an official of the
operative part of which is as follows:                               Commission of the European Communities, residing in
                                                                     Brussels, represented by Vassilis Akritidis and
The total amount of the costs to be paid by the Council to           Konstantinos Adamantopoulos, of the Athens Bar, with an
the applicant is fixed at BFR 4 000 000.                             address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                     ArseÁne Kronshagen, 12 Boulevard de la Foire, v.
(1) OJ C 132 of 14.5.1994.                                           Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
                                                                     Gianluigi Valsesia, Julian Currall and Florence Clotuche)
                                                                     Ð application for annulment of the Commission's
                                                                     decision of 13 May 1997 rejecting the applicant's
                                                                     complaint against the decision rejecting his request for a
                                                                     review of his classification Ð the Court of First Instance
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            (First Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President,
                    of 15 September 1998                             and J. Pirrung and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung,
                                                                     Registrar, made an order on 21 September 1998, the
in Case T-136/95, Industria del Frio Auxiliar Conservera
                                                                     operative part of which is as follows:
 SA against Commission of the European Communities (1)
(Health policy Ð Protective measures Ð Decision 95/119/              1. the application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible;
EC Ð Principle of legal certainty Ð Principle of the
protection of legitimate expectations Ð Principle of                 2. the applicant shall bear his own costs.
proportionality Ð Principle of equal treatment Ð
         Statement of reasons Ð Misuse of powers)                    (1) OJ C 7 of 10.1.1998.
                         (98/C 340/40)
              (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                          ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
In Case T-136/95, Industria del Frio Auxiliar Conservera
SA, established in Bermeo (Spain), represented by Ignacio                                 of 9 September 1998
SaÂenz-Cortabarría FernaÂndez and Marta Morales Isasi, of            in Case T-269/97: Azienda Agricola Tre e Mezzo v.
the Vizcaya Bar, with an address for service in                             Commission of the European Communities (1)
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Guy Harles, 8Ð10 rue
Mathias Hardt, against the Commission of the European                (Agriculture Ð Action for annulment of a regulation
Communities (Agents: JoseÂ Luis Iglesias Buhigues and                       having general application Ð Inadmissibility)
Blanca Vila Costa), relating to an application for                                            (98/C 340/42)
annulment of Commission Decision 95/119/EC of 7 April
1995 concerning certain protective measures with regard                              (Language of the case: Italian)
to fishery products originating in Japan (OJ L 80 of
8.4.1995, p. 56) to the extent that those measures relate            In Case T-269/97: Azienda Agricola Tre e Mezzo,
to fishery products en route to the Community at the time            established at Forlì (Italy), and Carlo Bazzocchi, residing


title: Action brought on 25 September 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic (Case C-354/98)

text:
C 340/14               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     7.11.98
    4. The vehicles in respect of which aid has been                 25 September 1998 by the Commission of the European
        granted under the plan account for less than 0,5 %           Communities, represented by Michel Nolin and Laura
        of the total number of Spanish industrial vehicles           Pignataro, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an
        and for a minuscule proportion of the total                  address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
        number of such vehicles in Europe.                           Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
    5. 81 % of recipients of aid who have acquired
        vehicles having a greater tonnage (types A and E)            The Commission of the European Communities claims
        possess only one vehicle of that category, and 97 %          that the Court should:
        have less than 5 vehicles. The undertakings
        concerned are thus very small.
                                                                     Ð declare that, by failing within the prescribed periods to
                                                                          adopt or, at all events, to communicate the laws,
Ð Infringement of Article 92(3)(c) of the EC Treaty:                      regulations and administrative measures necessary in
                                                                          order to comply with Council Directives 95/18/EC (1)
    The Kingdom of Spain maintains that there are                         and 95/19/EC (2), respectively, the licensing of railway
    reasons relating to environmental protection and road                 undertakings and the allocation of railway
    safety which justify the application in the present case              infrastructure capacity and the charging of
    of the provisions of Article 92(3)(c) of the EC Treaty,               infrastructure fees, the French Republic has failed to
    and that the measures proposed will clearly have a                    fulfil its obligations under those directives;
    positive effect in those two areas, without any increase
    in capacity.
                                                                     Ð order the French Republic to pay the costs.
Ð Breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate
    expectations:
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    The time which elapsed following the submission of
    each request for information (3 periods of total silence         Under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty,
    on the part of the Commission, respectively lasting 4            directives are binding, as to the result to be achieved,
    months, 7 months and 3 months) prompted the logical              upon the Member States to which they are addressed. The
    and legitimate conclusion that the Commission had no             Member States' obligations in that regard include the
    objection whatever to the measures laid down in the              obligation to comply with the time-limits laid down by the
    Plan Renove Industrial. Furthermore, although the                directives in question. In the present case, the time-limit
    Commission on one occasion gave notice that it might             expired on 27 June 1997, but the French Republic has
    have to adopt a provisional decision requiring the               failed to adopt or, at all events, to communicate the
    Spanish authorities to suspend payment of the aid in             requisite measures.
    issue, it never imposed any such requirement. The
    legitimate expectation referred to above gave rise to a
                                                                     (1) OJ L 143 of 27.6.1995, p. 70.
    substantial increase in the number of recipients of aid          (2) OJ L 143 of 27.6.1995, p. 75.
    under the Plan Renove Industrial.
Ð Absence of proportionality and absence of a statement
    of reasons:
    The fact that aid is declared to be prohibited by
    Article 92 is not enough to give rise simultaneously to          Action brought on 25 September 1998 by the Commission
    an obligation to repay that aid. Upon weighing in the            of the European Communities against the French Republic
    balance, on the one hand, the restoration of free                                         (Case C-354/98)
    competition, which the Commission claims to have
    been under threat, and, on the other, the whole series                                     (98/C 340/25)
    of actual losses which the recipients of aid under the
    Plan would suffer if they were obliged to repay such
    aid, it is clearly impossible to achieve any equilibrium.        An action against the French Republic was brought before
                                                                     the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                     25 September 1998 by the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities, represented by Marie Wolfcarius, of its
                                                                     Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service
                                                                     in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
Action brought on 25 September 1998 by the Commission                Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
of the European Communities against the French Republic
                        (Case C-353/98)                              The Commission of the European Communities claims
                         (98/C 340/24)                               that the Court should:
An action against the French Republic was brought before             Ð declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                       and administrative measures necessary in order to
 ---pagebreak--- 7.11.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 340/15
    comply      with    Directive     96/97/EC     on    the       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    implementation of the principle of equal treatment for
    men and women in occupational social security                  Under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty
    schemes (1), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its      and Article 5 of the EC Treaty, together with Article 3 of
    obligations under that directive;                              Council Directive 96/97/EC, the French Republic was
                                                                   required to conform with that directive by 1 July 1997.
Ð order the French Republic to pay the costs.                      (1) OJ L 46 of 17.2.1997, p. 20.
                                                  COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                          21 September 1994 relating to a proceeding pursuant to
                                                                   Article 85 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA
                   of 15 September 1998                            Agreement (IV/34.600 Ð Night Services) (OJ L 259 of
in Joined Cases T-374/94, T-375/94, T-384/94 and                   7.10.1994, p. 20) Ð the Court of First Instance (Second
T-388/94: European Night Services Ltd (ENS) and Others             Chamber), composed of: A. Kalogeropoulos, President,
      v. Commission of the European Communities (1)                C. W. Bellamy and J. Pirrung, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
                                                                   has given a judgment on 15 September 1998, in which it:
(Competition Ð Transport by rail Ð Agreements on
overnight rail services through the Channel Tunnel Ð
Restrictions on competition Ð Directive 91/440/EEC Ð               1. annuls       Commission       Decision    94/663/EC    of
Appreciable effect on trade Ð Supply of necessary services             21 September 1994 relating to a proceeding pursuant
Ð Essential facilities' Ð Statement of reasons Ð                      to Article 85 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the
                       Admissibility)                                  EEA Agreement (IV/34.600 Ð Night Services);
                       (98/C 340/26)
                                                                   2. orders the Commission to pay the costs;
         (Language of the case: English and French)
                                                                   3. orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
                                                                       Northern Ireland, as intervener, to bear its own costs.
In Joined Cases T-374/94: European Night Services Ltd              (1) OJ C 392 of 31.12.1994 and OJ C 386 of 31.12.1994.
(ENS), established in London, T-375/94: Eurostar (UK)
Ltd, formerly European Passenger Services Ltd (EPS),
established in London, represented by Thomas Sharpe
QC, of the Bar of England and Wales, and Alexandre
Nourry, Solicitor, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger, Hoss &
Prussen, 15 Côte d'Eich, supported by SocieÂteÂ Nationale
des Chemins de Fer FrancËais (SNCF), established in Paris,           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
represented by Chantal MomeÁge, of the Paris Bar, with an                              of 15 September 1998
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Alex Schmitt, 62 Avenue Guillaume, T-384/94: Union                 in Case T-11/95: BP Chemicals Limited v. Commission of
Internationale des Chemins de Fer (UIC), established in                            the European Communities (1)
Paris, and NV Nederlandse Spoorwegen (NS), established             (State aid Ð Action for annulment Ð Time-limits Ð
in Utrecht, the Netherlands, represented by Erik H.                Persons individually concerned Ð Private market economy
Pijnacker Hordijk, of the Amsterdam Bar, with an address           investor principle Ð Opening of the procedure provided
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Luc                                 for in Article 93(2) of the Treaty)
Frieden, 62 Avenue Guillaume, and T-388/94: SocieÂteÂ
Nationale des Chemins de Fer FrancËais (SNCF),                                             (98/C 340/27)
established in Paris, represented by Chantal MomeÁge, of
the Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
at the Chambers of Alex Schmitt, 62 Avenue Guillaume,                             (Language of the case: English)
supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland (Agents: Lindsey Nicoll and Paul Lasok),
against Commission of the European Communities                     In Case T-11/95: BP Chemicals Limited, established in
(Agents: initially Francisco Enrique GonzaÂlez Díaz, then          London, represented by James Flynn, Barrister, of the Bar
Giuliano Marenco and Ami Barav) Ð application for                  of England and Wales, and Alec Burnside, Solicitor, with
annulment of Commission Decision 94/663/EC of                      an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of


title: Case T-29/08: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2011 — LPN v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Refusal of access — Documents concerning proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations concerning a dam project on the river Sabor — Exception concerning the protection of the objectives of inspections, investigations and audits — Environmental information — Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 — Obligation to carry out a specific and individual examination — Overriding public interest)

text:
               22.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/37

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2011 — LPN v Commission
   (Case T-29/08) (1)

   (Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Refusal of access - Documents concerning proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations concerning a dam project on the river Sabor - Exception concerning the protection of the objectives of inspections, investigations and audits - Environmental information - Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Obligation to carry out a specific and individual examination - Overriding public interest)
   2011/C 311/65
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: Liga para Protecção de Natureza (LPN) (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: P. Vinagre e Silva, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Costa de Oliveira and D. Recchia, agents)

      Interveners in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented initially by B. Weis Fogh, then by C. Vang, agents); Republic of Finland (represented initially by J. Heliskoski, A. Guimaraes-Purokoski, M. Pere and H. Leppo, then by J. Heliskoski and A. Guimaraes-Purokoski, agents); and Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk, S. Johannesson and K. Petkovska, Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of the Commission decision of 22 November 2007 confirming the refusal to grant access to the documents contained in the file relating to proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations brought against the Portuguese Republic concerning a dam construction project on the river Sabor (Portugal) which could infringe Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1) and Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action in so far at it relates to documents and parts of documents to which access was refused to the Liga para Protecção de Natureza (LPN) in Commission Decision SG.E.3/MIB/psi D(2008) 8639 of 24 October 2008;

               2.

               Rules that there is no further need to adjudicate as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the LPN to bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission;

               4.

               Orders the Kingdom of Denmark, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 79, 29.3.2008.


title: Case T-331/08: Judgment of the General Court of 27 January 2010 — REWE Zentral v OHIM — Grupo Corporativo Teype (Solfrutta) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark Solfrutta — Earlier Community word mark FRUTISOL — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Partial refusal of registration — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/47

         Judgment of the General Court of 27 January 2010 — REWE Zentral v OHIM — Grupo Corporativo Teype (Solfrutta)
   (Case T-331/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark Solfrutta - Earlier Community word mark FRUTISOL - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Partial refusal of registration - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2010/C 63/82
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: REWE Zentral AG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey and A. Bognár, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Grupo Corporativo Teype, SL (Madrid, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 May 2008 (Case R 1679/2007-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Grupo Corporativo Teype, SL and REWE-Zentral AG.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 May 2008 (Case R 1679/2007-2);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 260 of 11.10.2008.


title: Case T-317/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 February 2007 — Kustom Musical Amplification v OHIM (Shape of a guitar) (Community trade mark — Three-dimensional mark — Shape of a guitar — Absolute ground for refusal — Infringement of the rights of the defence — Statement of reasons — Article 73 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/37

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 February 2007 — Kustom Musical Amplification v OHIM (Shape of a guitar)
   (Case T-317/05) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Three-dimensional mark - Shape of a guitar - Absolute ground for refusal - Infringement of the rights of the defence - Statement of reasons - Article 73 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2007/C 82/81)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Kustom Musical Amplification Inc., (Cincinnati, Ohio, United States) (represented by: M. Edenborough, Barrister, and T. Bamford, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 June 2005 (Case R 1035/2004-2) concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional mark in the shape of a guitar as a Community trade mark.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 7 June 2005 (Case R 1035/2004-2);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant.

      (1)  OJ C 271, 29.10.2005.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 April 2003 in Joined Cases T-93/00 and T-46/01: Alessandrini Srl and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Bananas — Third-country imports — Regulation (EC) No 2362/98 — Import licences for bananas from ACP countries — Measures under Article 20(d) of Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 — Action for annulment — Action for compensation)

text:
7.6.2003                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 135/23
                                                        COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                         of 27 March 2003
                                                                                of 10 April 2003
in Case T-33/00: Natalia Martínez Páramo and Others v
        Commission of the European Communities ( 1)
                                                                           in Joined Cases T-93/00 and T-46/01: Alessandrini Srl and
                                                                            Others v Commission of the European Communities ( 1)
(Officials — Competition — Selection board — Decision of
the selection board not admitting candidate to oral tests —
Scope of obligation to provide reasons — Scope of judicial
review — Requests for reexamination of marking — Com-                      (Bananas — Third-country imports — Regulation (EC)
pliance with rules governing the work of selection boards —                No 2362/98 — Import licences for bananas from ACP
                            Manifest error)                                countries — Measures under Article 20(d) of Regulation
                                                                           (EEC) No 404/93 — Action for annulment — Action for
                                                                                compensation)
                           (2003/C 135/33)
                                                                                (2003/C 135/34)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
In Case T-33/00: Natalia Martínez Páramo, residing in Brussels,
Anna Sodro, residing in Sterrebeek (Belgium), Ines van Lierde,
residing in Beersel (Belgium), Jean-Martial Marenne, residing in
Brussels, Ron Moys, residing in West Mallins, Kent (United
Kingdom) and Michel Horgan, residing in Brussels, represented
by É. Boigelot, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxem-              In Joined Cases T-93/00 and T-46/01, Alessandrini Srl,
bourg, against Commission of the European Communities                      established in Treviso (Italy), Anello Gino di Anello Luigi & C.
(Agents: G. Valsesia and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart) — application             Snc, established in Brescia (Italy), Arpigi Spa, established in
for annulment of the decisions of the chairman of the selection            Padua (Italy), Bestefruit Srl, established in Milan (Italy), Co-
board for internal competitions to establish members of the                Frutta SpA, established in Padua, Co-Frutta Soc.coop.arl,
temporary staff (COM/TA/2/98 and COM/TB/2/98) not to                       established in Padua, Dal Bello SIFE Srl, established in Padua,
admit the applicants to the oral tests in those competitions               Frigofrutta Srl, established in Palermo (Italy), Garletti Snc,
after requests for reexamination of the marking of the written             established in Bergamo (Italy), London Fruit Ltd, established in
tests in those competitions were submitted by the applicants               London (United Kingdom), represented by W. Viscardini
— the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of                 Donà and G. Donà, lawyers, with an address for service in
R. García-Valdecasas, President, P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke,                  Luxembourg, v Commission of the European Communities
Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the              (Agents: L. Visaggio, C. Van der Hauwaert, A. Dal Ferro and
Registrar, gave a judgment on 27 March 2003, in which it:                  G. Braun): Application, in Case T-93/00, for annulment of
                                                                           Commission letter No 02418 of 26 January 2000 and for
                                                                           compensation for damage allegedly suffered due to that act
1.     Dismisses the application;                                          and, in Case T-46/01, for annulment of Commission letter
                                                                           No AGR 030905 of 8 December 2000 and for compensation
                                                                           for damage allegedly suffered due to that act, the Court of First
2.     Orders the parties to bear their own costs.                         Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of: R. García-Valdecasas,
                                                                           President, P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges; B. Pastor, Deputy
                                                                           Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 April 2003, in which it:
( 1) OJ 2000 C 135.
                                                                           1.   Dismisses the applications in Joined Cases T-93/00 and T-46/
                                                                                01;
 ---pagebreak--- C 135/24                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                              7.6.2003
2.     Orders the applicants to pay their own costs and those of the            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
       Commission in Joined Cases T-93/00 and T-46/01.
                                                                                of 3 April 2003
( 1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000 and C 134 of 5.5.2001.
                                                                           in Case T-342/00: Petrolessence SA and Société de gestion
                                                                           de restauration routière SA (SG2R) v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
                                                                           (Competition — Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 — Decision
                                                                           declaring a merger compatible with the common market —
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               Petroleum sector — Commitments — Decision refusing
                                                                           approval of transferees — Inadmissibility — Definitive
                                                                           binding act — Infringement of essential procedural require-
                          of 10 April 2003                                 ments — Procedural time-limits for reply — Error of
                                                                                assessment)
in Case T-195/00: Travelex Global and Financial Services
Ltd and Interpayment Services Ltd v Commission of the
                   European Communities ( 1)                                                          (2003/C 135/36)
(Non-contractual liability — Directive 89/104/EEC — Trade                                        (Language of the case: French)
                 marks — Official euro symbol)
                          (2003/C 135/35)
                   (Language of the case: English)                         In Case T-342/00: Petrolessence SA, established in Nancy
                                                                           (France), Société de gestion de restauration routière SA (SG2R),
                                                                           established in Nancy, represented by F. Puel and M. Troncoso
                                                                           Ferrer, avocats, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
                                                                           against Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
                                                                           W. Mölls, F. Siredey-Garnier and F. Lelièvre), supported by
In Case T-195/00, Travelex Global and Financial Services Ltd,              French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues and F. Million) —
formerly Thomas Cook Group Ltd, established in London                      application for the annulment of the Commission decision
(United Kingdom), Interpayment Services Ltd, established in                of 13 September 2000 rejecting TotalFina Elf’s proposal
London, represented by C. Delcorde and D. Alexander, lawyers,              concerning approval of the applicants as transferees of six
with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of                 motorway service stations — the Court of First Instance (Fifth
the European Communities (Agents: K. Banks and R. Z. Swift):               Chamber), composed of J.D. Cooke, President, R. García-
Application for compensation for the damage allegedly caused               Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; B. Pastor, Deputy Registrar,
to the applicants by the Commission’s adoption, use and                    for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 3 April 2003, in
promotion of the official euro symbol, which is allegedly                  which it:
substantially identical to a graphic trade mark registered by
the applicants, the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber),
composed of: J.D. Cooke, President, R. García-Valdecasas and
P. Lindh, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar,           1.     Dismisses the application as unfounded;
has given a judgment on 10 April 2003, in which it:
                                                                           2.     Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and pay those of
1.     Dismisses the action;                                                      the Commission, including the costs relating to the application
                                                                                for interim relief.
2.     Orders the applicants to pay the costs.
                                                                           (1 ) OJ C 4 of 6.1.01.
( 1) OJ C 302 of 21.10.2000.


title: Case T-163/16: Action brought on 15 April 2016 — Reisswolf v EUIPO (secret. service.)

text:
               6.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/30

         Action brought on 15 April 2016 — Reisswolf v EUIPO (secret. service.)
   (Case T-163/16)
   (2016/C 200/43)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Reisswolf Akten- und Datenvernichtung GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: A. Ebert-Weidenfeller, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘secret. service.’ — Application No 14 108 757

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 February 2016 in Case R 1820/2015-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 75(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Judgment of the Court of 27 April 1999 in Case C-48/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties Tribunal, London): Kuwait Petroleum (GB) Ltd v Commissioners of Customs & Excise (Sixth VAT Directive - Sales promotion scheme - Goods supplied on redemption of vouchers - Supply for consideration - Price discounts and rebates - Definition)

text:
C 204/6                  EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                           17.7.1999
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                          It is in this regard irrelevant that the contracting parties have
                                                                                described their contract as a ‘contract of sale’. A contract having
                          of 27 April 1999                                       the characteristics mentioned above is however to be classified as
                                                                                a contract for the supply of services or of goods within the
                                                                                meaning of Article 13, first paragraph, point 3, of the
in Case C-99/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                                Convention of 27 September 1968. It is for the national court,
the Bundesgerichtshof): Hans-Hermann Mietz v Intership
                       Yachting Sneek BV (1)                                     should the need arise, to determine whether the particular case
                                                                                before it involves a supply of services or a supply of goods.
(Brussels Convention — Concept of provisional measures —
          Construction and delivery of a motor yacht)                        2. A judgment ordering interim payment of contractual consider-
                                                                                ation, delivered at the end of a procedure such as that provided
                           (1999/C 204/10)                                       for under Articles 289 to 297 of the Netherlands Code of Civil
                                                                                Procedure by a court not having jurisdiction under the Convention
                                                                                of 27 September 1968 as to the substance of the matter is not a
                    (Language of the case: German)                               provisional measure capable of being granted under Article 24
                                                                                of that Convention unless, first, repayment to the defendant of
                                                                                the sum awarded is guaranteed if the plaintiff is unsuccessful as
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published           regards the substance of his claim and, second, the measure
                    in the European Court Reports)                               ordered relates only to specific assets of the defendant located or
                                                                                to be located within the confines of the territorial jurisdiction of
In Case C-99/96: reference to the Court under the Protocol of                    the court to which application is made.
3 June 1971 on the Interpretation by the Court of Justice of
the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the
Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters
from the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice)                        (1) OJ C 145 of 18.5.1996.
(Germany), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Hans-Hermann Mietz and Intership
Yachting Sneek BV — on the interpretation of Article 13, first
paragraph, points 1 and 3, Article 24, Article 28, second
paragraph, and Article 34, second paragraph, of the above
Convention of 27 September 1968 (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 36), as
amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the
Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ 1978 L
304, p. 1 and — amended text — p. 77) and by the Convention
of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic
Republic (OJ 1982 L 388, p. 1) — the Court, composed of:                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
G.C. Rodrı́guez         Iglesias,     President,        P.J.G. Kapteyn,
J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann (Presidents of Cham-
bers), G.F. Mancini, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann,                                             of 27 April 1999
J.L. Murray, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), H. Ragnemalm,
L. Sevón and M. Wathelet, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General;
L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a                    in Case C-48/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling by the
judgment on 27 April 1999, in which it has ruled:                            VAT and Duties Tribunal, London): Kuwait Petroleum
                                                                                (GB) Ltd v Commissioners of Customs & Excise (1)
1. Article 13, first paragraph, point 1, of the Convention of
     27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of
     Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended by the            (Sixth VAT Directive — Sales promotion scheme — Goods
     Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom            supplied on redemption of vouchers — Supply for consider-
     of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain                  ation — Price discounts and rebates — Definition)
     and Northern Ireland, and by the Convention of 25 October
     1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic, must be
     construed as not applying to a contract between two parties                                       (1999/C 204/11)
     having the following characteristics, that is to say, a contract:
     — relating to the manufacture by the first contracting party of
         goods corresponding to a standard model, to which certain                               (Language of the case: English)
         alterations have been made;
     — by which the first contracting party has undertaken to                In Case C-48/97, reference to the Court under Article 177 of
         transfer the property in those goods to the second contracting      the EC Treaty by the VAT and Duties Tribunal, London, for a
         party, who has undertaken, by way of consideration, to pay          preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
         the price in several instalments; and                               court between Kuwait Petroleum (GB) Ltd and Commissioners
                                                                             of Customs & Excise on the interpretation of Articles 2, point
     — in which provision is made for the final instalment to be             1, 5(6), 11A(3)(b) and 27 of the Sixth Council Directive
         paid before possession of the goods is transferred definitively     77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the
         to the second contracting party.                                    laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —
 ---pagebreak--- 17.7.1999               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 204/7
Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assess-                  at the rate of ECU 43.09 per day of late payment from 1 April
ment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — the Court, composed of                         1988 and, second, to pay the Commission the sum of
G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P.J.G. Kapteyn and G. Hirsch           ECU 60 000 by way of compensation for the damage suffered
(Rapporteur) (Presidents of Chambers), G.F. Mancini, J.C.                   — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of J.-P. Puissochet
Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, L. Sevón                   (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, P. Jann, C. Gulmann
and M. Wathelet, Judges, Advocate General: N. Fennelly,                     D.A.O. Edward and L. Sevón, Judges; Advocate General: A. La
Registrar: D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator —                   Pergola; Registrar: H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, has
has given a judgment on 27 April 1999 in which it held that:                given a judgment on 27 April 1999, in which it:
1. On a proper construction of Article 11A(3)(b) of the Sixth               1. Orders SNUA Srl to pay to the Commission of the European
    Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the                           Communities the sum of EUR 195 397 together with interest
    harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to                   at a rate of EUR 43.09 per day of late payment as from 1 April
    turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform                   1988 until final settlement of the debt;
    basis of assessment, the terms ‘rebates’ and ‘price discounts’
    cannot be applied to reductions covering the whole cost of              2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;
    supplying redemption goods.
                                                                            3. Orders SNUA Srl to pay the costs.
2. On a proper construction of Article 5(6) of the Sixth Directive
    77/388, the application by an oil company of goods which are            (1) OJ C 131 of 26.4.1997.
    disposed of to a purchaser of fuel in exchange for vouchers which
    he has obtained in varying quantifies, depending on the volume
    of fuel purchased, on payment of the full retail price for fuel from
    the pump — under a sales promotion scheme such as that in
    issue in the main proceedings — must, where the goods are not
    of small value, be treated as a supply for consideration within the
    meaning of that provision.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(1) OJ C 108 of 5.4.1997.                                                                               (First Chamber)
                                                                                of 28 April 1999
                                                                            in Case C-405/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                            by the Finanzgericht Bremen): Mövenpick Deutschland
                                                                              GmbH für das Gastgewerbe v Hauptzollamt Bremen (1)
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                            (Combined nomenclature — Tariff heading 0802 — Dried
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                  walnut pieces temporarily stored at a temperature of −24 oC)
                                                                                (1999/C 204/13)
                          of 27 April 1999
in Case C-69/97 Commission of the European Communi-                                             (Language of the case: German)
                         ties v SNUA Srl (1)
                                                                            (Provisional translation: the definitive translation will be published
           (Arbitration clause — Breach of contract)
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                          (1999/C 204/12)                                   In Case C-405/97, reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                                                                            the EC Treaty by the Finanzgericht Bremen (Germany) for a
                                                                            preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                         between Mövenpick Deutschland GmbH für das Gastgewerbe v
                                                                            Hauptzollamt Bremen, on the interpretation of tariff heading
                                                                            0802 of the Combined Nomenclature, in the version contained
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      in Annex I to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2551/93 of
                   in the European Court Reports)                           10 August 1993, amending Annex I to Council Regulation
                                                                            (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature
In Case C-69/97: Commission of the European Communities                     and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1993 L 241, p. 1)
(Agents: Paolo Stancanelli and Jean-Francis Pasquier, assisted              and on the interpretation of Article 522(3) of Commission
by Alberto Dal Ferro) v SNUA Srl, a company incorporated in                 Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down
Pordenone (Italy), represented by Andrea Guarino, of the Rome               provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC)
Bar, and Ezio Trampus — application by the Commission of                    No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ
the European Communities under Article 181 of the EC Treaty                 1993 L 253, p. 1) — the Court (First Chamber), composed of
for an order requiring SNUA Srl, first, to reimburse an advance             P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward
payment of ECU 195 397 made by the Commission for the                       and L. Sevón, Judges, Advocate General: A. Saggio, Registrar:
completion of an integrated system for the collection and                   R. Grass — has given a judgment on 28 April 1999, in which
recycling of solid waste at a private plant, together with interest         it held that: