title: Judgment of the Court of 12 December 2002 in Case C-273/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht): Ralf Sieckmann v Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt (Trade marks — Approximation of laws — Directive 89/104/EEC — Article 2 — Signs of which a trade mark may consist — Signs capable of being represented graphically — Olfactory signs)

text:
25.1.2003                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 19/3
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       of 12 December 2002                                                              (Sixth Chamber)
in Case C-273/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                                            of 5 December 2002
the Bundespatentgericht): Ralf Sieckmann v Deutsches
                    Patent- und Markenamt (1)
                                                                              in Case C-379/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                              from the VAT and Duties Tribunal, London): Overland
(Trade marks — Approximation of laws — Directive 89/                           Footwear Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise (1)
104/EEC — Article 2 — Signs of which a trade mark may
consist — Signs capable of being represented graphically —
                            Olfactory signs)                                  (Customs Code — Customs value of imported goods — Price
                                                                              of goods and buying commission — Reimbursement of duty
                                                                                payable on full amount)
                            (2003/C 19/04)
                                                                                (2003/C 19/05)
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                              In Case C-379/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
                                                                              EC by the VAT and Duties Tribunal, London (United Kingdom),
In Case C-273/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234                    for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
EC by the Bundespatentgericht (Germany) for a preliminary                     court between Overland Footwear Ltd and Commissioners of
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                   Customs and Excise, on the interpretation of Articles 29, 32,
Ralf Sieckmann and Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt, on the                    33, 78 and 236 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of
interpretation of Article 2 of First Council Directive 89/104/                12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code
EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the                        (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed
Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1),                   of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen,
the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President,                   C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), F. Macken and J.N. Cunha Rodri-
M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen, C.W.A. Timmermans (Presidents of                   gues, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal
Chambers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola,                          Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
V. Skouris, F. Macken (Rapporteur), N. Colneric and J.N. Cunha                5 December 2002, in which it has ruled:
Rodrigues, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General;
D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of Division, for the Registrar, has
given a judgment on 12 December 2002, in which it has ruled:                  1.    Articles 29, 32 and 33 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/
                                                                                92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs
                                                                                Code must be construed as meaning that a buying commission
(1) Article 2 of Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December                        which is included in the customs value declared and is not
      1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating                    shown separately from the selling price of the goods in the
      to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that a trade                    import declaration must be considered to be part of the
      mark may consist of a sign which is not in itself capable of                  transaction value within the meaning of Article 29 of that
      being perceived visually, provided that it can be represented                 regulation and is, therefore, dutiable.
      graphically, particularly by means of images, lines or characters,
      and that the representation is clear, precise, self-contained,
                                                                              2.    In a situation where the customs authorities have agreed to
      easily accessible, intelligible, durable and objective.
                                                                                undertake revision of an import declaration and have adopted a
                                                                                decision ‘regularising the situation’ within the meaning of
(2) In respect of an olfactory sign, the requirements of graphic                    Article 78(3) of Regulation No 2913/92 taking account of
      representability are not satisfied by a chemical formula, by a                the fact that the declaration was incomplete as a result of an
      description in written words, by the deposit of an odour sample               inadvertent error by the declarant, those authorities may not go
      or by a combination of those elements.                                        back on that decision.
( 1) OJ C 259 of 9.9.2000.                                                    (1 ) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.


title: Case C-475/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Efetio Athinon (Greece) lodged on 21 November 2006 — K.P. Marinopoulos — Anonimos Etairia Emporias kai Dianomis Farmakeftikon Proionton v GlaxoSmithKline Anonimi Emporiki Viomikhaniki Etairia Farmakeftikon Proionton

text:
               27.1.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 20/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Efetio Athinon (Greece) lodged on 21 November 2006 — K.P. Marinopoulos — Anonimos Etairia Emporias kai Dianomis Farmakeftikon Proionton v GlaxoSmithKline Anonimi Emporiki Viomikhaniki Etairia Farmakeftikon Proionton
   (Case C-475/06)
   (2007/C 20/10)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Referring court
   Efetio Athinon
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Claimant: K.P. Marinopoulos — Anonimos Etairia Emporias kai Dianomis Farmakeftikon Proionton

      Defendant: GlaxoSmithKline Anonimi Emporiki Viomikhaniki Etairia Farmakeftikon Proionton
   Questions referred:

               1.

               Where the refusal of an undertaking holding a dominant position to meet fully the orders sent to it by pharmaceutical wholesalers is due to its intention to limit their export activity and, thereby, the harm caused to it by parallel trade, does the refusal constitute per se an abuse within the meaning of Article 82 EC? Is the answer to that question affected by the fact that the parallel trade is particularly profitable for the wholesalers because of the different prices, resulting from State intervention, in the Member States of the European Union, that is to say by the fact that pure conditions of competition do not prevail in the pharmaceuticals market, but a regime which is governed to a large extent by State intervention? Is it ultimately correct for a national court to apply Community competition rules in the same way to markets which function competitively and those in which competition is distorted by State intervention?

               2.

               If the Court holds that limitation of parallel trade, for the reasons set out above, does not constitute an abusive practice in every case where it is engaged in by an undertaking holding a dominant position, how is possible abuse to be assessed? In particular:

               2.1

               Do the percentage by which normal domestic consumption is exceeded and/or the loss suffered by an undertaking holding a dominant position compared with its total turnover and total profits constitute appropriate criteria? If so, how are the level of that percentage and the level of that loss determined (the latter as a percentage of turnover and total profits), above which the conduct in question may be abusive?

               2.2

               Is an approach entailing the balancing of interests appropriate, and, if so, what are the interests to be compared? In particular:

                           (a)

                           is the answer affected by the fact that the ultimate consumer/patient derives limited financial advantage from the parallel trade and

                           (b)

                           is account to be taken, and to what extent, of the interests of social insurance bodies in cheaper medicinal products?

               2.3

               What other criteria and approaches are considered appropriate in the present case?


title: Case C-518/07: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 9 March 2010 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 95/46/EC — Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and the free movement of such data — Article 28(1) — National supervisory authorities — Independence — Administrative scrutiny of those authorities)

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/3

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 9 March 2010 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-518/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 95/46/EC - Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and the free movement of such data - Article 28(1) - National supervisory authorities - Independence - Administrative scrutiny of those authorities)
   2010/C 113/04
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Docksey, C. Ladenburger and H. Krämer, Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and J. Möller, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: European Data Protection Supervisor, (represented by: H. Hijmans and A. Scirocco, Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of the second sentence of Article 28(1) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31) — Obligation of Member States to ensure that the national supervisory authorities responsible for monitoring the processing of personal data act with complete independence in exercising their functions — Submission to State monitoring of the supervisory authorities of the Länder responsible for monitoring the processing of personal data in the private sector

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by making the authorities responsible for monitoring the processing of personal data by non-public bodies and undertakings governed by public law which compete on the market (öffentlich-rechtliche Wettbewerbsunternehmen) in the different Länder subject to State scrutiny, and by thus incorrectly transposing the requirement that those authorities perform their functions ‘with complete independence’, the Federal Republic of Germany failed to fulfil its obligations under the second subparagraph of Article 28(1) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data;

               2.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs of the Commission;

               3.

               Orders the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) to bear his own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 37, 9.2.2008.


title: Case T-79/16: Action brought on 19 February 2016 — Vereniging Gelijkberechtiging Grondbezitters and Others v Commission

text:
               4.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/41

         Action brought on 19 February 2016 — Vereniging Gelijkberechtiging Grondbezitters and Others v Commission
   (Case T-79/16)
   (2016/C 118/48)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicants: Vereniging Gelijkberechtiging Grondbezitters (Hoenderloo, Netherlands) and 21 other applicants (represented by: H. Viaene, D. Gillet and T. Ruys, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               declare the action for annulment admissible;

               —

               annul Commission Decision of 2 September 2015 on avooronderzoklleged illegal State aid in connection with the subsidised acquisition or free granting of nature land (State Aid SA.27301 (2015/NN) — Netherlands) as well as the implicit rejection of the Vereniging Gelijkberechtiging Grondbezitters’s complaint;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law: infringement of the procedural rights laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU. At the end of the preliminary investigation, the Commission could not, with sufficient certainly, have been capable of assessing the conformity of the subsidy scheme due to the following factors:

                           —

                           the unusually long duration of the investigation;

                           —

                           the frequent correspondence between the various relevant parties during the investigation;

                           —

                           the fact that the subsidy scheme approved by the decision at the time of the investigation was replaced by another subsidy scheme;

                           —

                           the content of the new subsidy scheme that was approved by the Commission.

               2.

               Second plea in law: infringement of the principle of non-retroactivity and of legal certainty.
               The Commission infringed the principles of non-retroactivity and of legal certainty in so far as it applied the framework for State aid (1) in the form of public service compensation, with effect from 31 January 2012, to a subsidy scheme which had no longer been applied since 2011 and had been replaced by a new subsidy scheme, which was approved by the Commission.

               3.

               Third plea in law: error of law and failure to state reasons in applying the framework.

                           —

                           The Commission made manifest errors of assessment in applying the requirement of an act of entrustment of services of general economic interest, in particular as regards the length of the entrustment period. Furthermore, the Commission also made manifest errors in assessing the amount of compensation and disregarded the requirement of keeping separate accounts.

                           —

                           In assessing whether the requirement of an act of entrustment of services of general economic interest had been satisfied, the Commission did not sufficiently address whether the gratuitous transfer of land is an act of entrustment. Furthermore, the Commission also made no assessment of the safeguards for avoiding overcompensation when land is transferred gratuitously.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law: infringement of Article 106(2) TFEU.

                           —

                           The gratuitous transfers and acquisition subsidies were manifestly unnecessary and unjustified to achieve the targeted objective of nature conservation.

                           —

                           The fact that the aid provisions were claimed by only thirteen land stewardship organisations is not in the least necessary or justified in enabling the common good of nature conservation.

      (1)  Commission Decision 2012/21/EU of 20 December 2011 on the application of Article 106(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to State aid in the form of public service compensation granted to certain undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest (OJ 2012 L 7, p. 3) and Communication from the Commission — European Union framework for State aid in the form of public service compensation (2011) (OJ 2012, C 8, p. 15).


title: Case C-13/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Juzgado de lo Social No 33 by order of that court of 7 January 2005 in the case of Sonia Chacón Navas against Eurest Colectividades SA

text:
               19.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Juzgado de lo Social No 33 by order of that court of 7 January 2005 in the case of Sonia Chacón Navas against Eurest Colectividades SA
   (Case C-13/05)
   (2005/C 69/16)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of Juzgado de lo Social (Social Court) No 33 (Spain) of 7 January 2005, received at the Court Registry on 19 January 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Sonia Chacón Navas against Eurest Colectividades SA on the following questions:

               1.

               Does Directive 2000/78 (1), in so far as Article 1 thereof lays down a general framework for combating discrimination on the grounds of disability, include within its protective scope an employee who has been dismissed by her employer solely because she is sick?

               2.

               In the alternative, if it should be concluded that sickness does not fall within the protective framework which Directive 2000/78 lays down against discrimination on grounds of disability and the first question is answered in the negative, can sickness be regarded as an identifying attribute in addition to the ones in relation to which Directive 2000/78 prohibits discrimination?

      (1)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation.


title: Case C-346/12 P: Appeal brought on 19 July 2012 by DMK Deutsches Milchkontor GmbH (formerly Nordmilch AG) against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 22 May 2012 in Case T-546/10 Nordmilch AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               22.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/26

         Appeal brought on 19 July 2012 by DMK Deutsches Milchkontor GmbH (formerly Nordmilch AG) against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 22 May 2012 in Case T-546/10 Nordmilch AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-346/12 P)
   2012/C 287/51
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: DMK Deutsches Milchkontor GmbH (formerly Nordmilch AG) (represented by: W. Berlit, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Lactimilk, SA

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside points 1 and 2 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of 22 May 2012 (Case T-546/10);

               —

               grant in full the applications made at first instance;

               —

               order Lactimilk, SA to pay the costs incurred by the appellant in the entire proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant submits that the contested decision of the General Court should be set aside because the General Court wrongly found a similarity between the trade mark applied for by the appellant and the trade marks of Lactimilk SA, and thus, in concluding that there is a likelihood of confusion, incorrectly applied Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94. The General Court erred in failing to compare the marks actually at issue as written in the manner in which they were applied for or registered (that is in capital letters), instead examining the likelihood of confusion on the basis of both marks written differently. In so doing the General Court distorted the facts. Moreover, the General Court wrongly assumed that the stress in the trade mark applied for falls on the second syllable, notwithstanding the fact that the trade mark applied for is written in capital letters so that, on the basis of the way in which it would be understood in Spanish also, there can be no question of the stress in the trade mark applied for falling only on the second syllable.


title: Case T-449/16: Action brought on 10 August 2016 — sheepworld v EUIPO (Bester Opa)

text:
               3.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 364/25

      Action brought on 10 August 2016 — sheepworld v EUIPO (Bester Opa)
      (Case T-449/16)
      (2016/C 364/26)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: sheepworld AG (Ursensollen, Germany) (represented by: S. von Rüden, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘Bester Opa’ — Application for registration No 14 169 528

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 May 2016 in Case R 92/2016-4

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs including the costs incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.

         Plea in law

                  —

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


title: Case T-371/12: Action brought on 20 August 2012 — American Express Marketing & Development v OHIM (EUROPEAN IP ZONE)

text:
               20.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/14

         Action brought on 20 August 2012 — American Express Marketing & Development v OHIM (EUROPEAN IP ZONE)
   (Case T-371/12)
   2012/C 319/26
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: American Express Marketing & Development Corp. (New York, United States) (represented by: V. Spitz, A. Gaul, T. Golda, and S. Kirschstein-Freund, lawyers)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 June 2012 in case R 1453/2011-2;

               —

               In the alternative, amend the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 June 2012 in case R 1453/2011-2, and rule that the appeal is justified; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings and of the proceedings before the Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘EUROPEAN IP ZONE’ for services in class 42 — Community trade mark application No 9488041

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejected the CTM application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-259/14 P: Appeal brought on 23 May 2014 by ADR Center Srl against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 23 March 2014 in Case T-110/14: ADR Center Srl v European Commission

text:
               9.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/17

         Appeal brought on 23 May 2014 by ADR Center Srl against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 23 March 2014 in Case T-110/14: ADR Center Srl v European Commission
   (Case C-259/14 P)
   (2015/C 046/23)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: ADR Center Srl (represented by: L. Tantalo, advocate, G. De Palo, advocate)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
   By order of 4 December 2014 the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


title: Corrigendum to Official Journal of the European Communities No C 274 of 19 October 1995, page 11

text:
11 . 11 . 95         EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                            No C 299/23
                                                               CORRIGENDA
               Corrigendum to Official Journal of the European Communities No C 274 of 19 October 1995 , page 11
                                                                ( 95 /C 299/50 )
             In the communication concerning the laying down ot criteria for allocating cases between the Chambers , the
             following sentence is to be added after paragraph 2 on page 12 :
                 'The President of the Court of First Instance may , however , depart from those lists in order to take account of
                 related cases or to ensure that the work load is evenly shared .'


title: Judgment of the Court of Justice (Grand Chamber) of 16 June 2005 in Case C-105/03, Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Firenze (Italy), in criminal proceedings against Maria Pupino (Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Articles 34 EU and 35 EU — Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA — Standing of victims in criminal proceedings — Protection of vulnerable persons — Hearing of minors as witnesses — Effects of a framework decision)

text:
               6.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/3

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE

   (Grand Chamber)
   of 16 June 2005
   in Case C-105/03, Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Firenze (Italy), in criminal proceedings against Maria Pupino (1)

   (Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Articles 34 EU and 35 EU - Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA - Standing of victims in criminal proceedings - Protection of vulnerable persons - Hearing of minors as witnesses - Effects of a framework decision)
   (2005/C 193/05)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case C-105/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 35 EU, by the judge in charge of preliminary enquiries at the Tribunale di Firenze (Italy), made by decision of 3 February 2003, received at the Court on 5 March 2003, in criminal proceedings against Maria Pupino — the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas, R. Silva de Lapuerta and A. Borg Barthet, Presidents of Chambers, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), P. Kūris, E. Juhász, G. Arestis and M. Ilešič, Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General, L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 16 June 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               Articles 2, 3 and 8(4) of Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that the national court must be able to authorise young children, who, as in this case, claim to have been victims of maltreatment, to give their testimony in accordance with arrangements allowing those children to be guaranteed an appropriate level of protection, for example outside the trial and before it takes place.

               2.

               The national court is required to take into consideration all the rules of national law and to interpret them, so far as possible, in the light of the wording and purpose of the Framework Decision.

      (1)  OJ C 146 of 21.06.2003


title: Case C-209/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 8 May 2006 — Canon Deutschland GmbH v Hauptzollamt Krefeld

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 8 May 2006 — Canon Deutschland GmbH v Hauptzollamt Krefeld
   (Case C-209/06)
   (2006/C 224/34)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Finanzgericht Düsseldorf
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Canon Deutschland GmbH

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Krefeld
   Question referred
   Should a camcorder, which at the time of importation is unable to record video signals from an external source, be classified under subheading 8525 4099 of the Combined Nomenclature, if its video interface can subsequently be reconfigured as a video input by using certain software, even though the manufacturer and the seller neither have mentioned nor support this possibility? (1)

      (1)  Interpretation of Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and of the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1).


title: Case C-154/09: Action brought on 4 May 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/28

         Action brought on 4 May 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-154/09)
   2009/C 153/52
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Guerra e Andrade and A. Nijenhuis, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic

      Forms of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to transpose correctly into national law the rules of Community law governing the designation of the universal service provider or providers, and, in any event, by failing to ensure in practice that those rules are applied, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3(2) and 8(2) of Directive 2002/22/EC. (1)

               —

               Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Article 121 of the Portuguese Law on Electronic Communications (Law No 5/2004 of 10 February) retains the public service, the exclusive public service concession and the corresponding rights and obligations until 2025, with PT Comunicações SA holding the concession for the public telecommunications service.
   The Commission submits that, in terms of designating the companies responsible for providing the universal service, the Portuguese Law on Electronic Communications is confused, incoherent and inconsistent.
   Consequently, the Portuguese State has failed to designate, by means of an efficient, objective, transparent and non-discriminatory procedure, the company or companies responsible for providing the universal service, as laid down by Article 8(2) in conjunction with Article 3(2) of Directive 2002/22.

      (1)  Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51).


title: Case T-690/15: Action brought on 29 November 2015 — Marcas Costa Brava v OHIM — Excellent Brands JMI (Cremcaffé)

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/85

         Action brought on 29 November 2015 — Marcas Costa Brava v OHIM — Excellent Brands JMI (Cremcaffé)
   (Case T-690/15)
   (2016/C 048/93)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Marcas Costa Brava, SL (Sils, Spain) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina and J. Manresa Medina, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Excellent Brands JMI Ltd (Baar, Switzerland)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

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

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark in red and white colours containing the word element ‘Cremcaffé’ — Community trade mark No 11 407 021

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 September 2015 in Case R 2586/2014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               consider proved the use of the Community Trademark No 2 423 705 Class 30 deemed and the Community Trademark application No 11 407 021 is incompatible with the Community Trademark No 2 423 705;

               —

               order OHIM and possible co-defendants to pay all costs of the procedure.

      Plea in law

               —

               Erroneous interpretation of Article 15(1), 15(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) CTMR.


               11.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/1

         2010/C 246/01
   Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 234, 28.8.2010

      Past publications

      OJ C 221, 14.8.2010

      OJ C 209, 31.7.2010

      OJ C 195, 17.7.2010

      OJ C 179, 3.7.2010

      OJ C 161, 19.6.2010

      OJ C 148, 5.6.2010

   These texts are available on:
   EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 July 1999 in Case C-199/92 P: Hüls AG v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal - Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance - Reopening of the oral procedure - Commission's Rules of Procedure - Procedure for the adoption of a decision by the College of Members of the Commission - Competition rules applicable to undertakings - Concepts of agreement and concerted practice - Principles and rules applicable to evidence - Presumption of innocence - Fine)

text:
C 333/4                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        20.11.1999
4. Dismisses the cross-appeal by Anic Partecipazioni SpA, formerly        2. Orders Hercules Chemicals NV to pay the costs.
    Anic SpA, then Enichem Anic SpA;
                                                                          (1) OJ C 77 of 28.3.1992.
5. Orders each party to bear its own costs relating to the proceedings
    before the Court of First Instance;
6. Orders Anic Partecipazioni SpA, formerly Anic SpA, then
    Enichem Anic SpA, to pay the costs relating to these proceedings.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(1) OJ C 77 of 28.3.1992.                                                                          (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 8 July 1999
                                                                          in Case C-199/92 P: Hüls AG v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
                                                                          (Appeal — Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance
                                                                          — Reopening of the oral procedure — Commission’s Rules
                                                                          of Procedure — Procedure for the adoption of a decision by
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     the College of Members of the Commission — Competition
                                                                          rules applicable to undertakings — Concepts of agreement
                                                                          and concerted practice — Principles and rules applicable to
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                           evidence — Presumption of innocence — Fine)
                           of 8 July 1999                                                           (1999/C 333/07)
in Case C-51/92 P: Hercules Chemicals NV v Commission                                        (Language of the case: German)
               of the European Communities (1)
                                                                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Appeal — Procedure — Obligation to deliver judgments in                                     in the European Court Reports)
cases concerning the same decision at the same time — Rules
of Procedure of the Commission — Procedure for the
                                                                          In Case C-199/92 P: Hüls AG, whose registered office is in Marl,
adoption of a decision by the College of Members of the                   Germany, represented by H.-J. Herrmann and subsequently by
Commission — Competition rules applicable to undertakings                 F. Montag, Rechtsanwälte, Cologne, with an address for service
    — Rights of the defence — Access to the file — Fine)                  in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Messrs Loesch & Wolter, 8
                                                                          Rue Zithe, supported by DSM NV, whose registered office is in
                         (1999/C 333/06)                                  Heerlen, Netherlands, represented by I.G.F. Cath, of The Hague
                                                                          Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                          Chambers of L. Dupong, 14a Rue des Bains, appeal against the
                                                                          judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of
                   (Language of the case: English)                        10 March 1992 in Case T-9/89 Hüls v Commission [1992]
                                                                          ECR II-499, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other
                                                                          party to the proceedings being the Commission of the
In Case C-51/92 P: Hercules Chemicals NV, whose registered                European Communities (Agents: G. zur Hausen and B. Jansen)
office is at Beringen, Belgium, represented by M. Siragusa, of            the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn,
the Rome Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                          President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch, G.F. Mancini (Rapporte-
the Chambers of Messrs Elvinger & Hoss, 15 Côte d’Eich,
                                                                          ur), J.L. Murray and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advo-
appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                          cate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, and D. Louter-
the European Communities (First Chamber) of 17 December                   man-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
1991 in Case T-7/89 Hercules v Commission[1991] ECR II-                   given a judgment on 8 July 1999, in which it:
1711, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other party
to the proceedings being the Commission of the European                   1. Dismisses the appeal;
Communities (Agent: K. Banks) — the Court (Sixth Chamber),
composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn, President of the Chamber,                    2. Orders Hüls AG to pay the costs;
G. Hirsch, G.F. Mancini (Rapporteur), J.L. Murray and H. Rag-
nemalm, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General; H. von Hol-                  3. Orders DSM NV to pay its own costs.
stein, Deputy Registrar, and D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
8 July 1999, in which it:                                                 (1) OJ C 167 of 4.7.1992.
1. Dismisses the appeal;


title: Case T-880/16: Action brought on 5 December 2016 — RF v Commission

text:
               20.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 53/35

         Action brought on 5 December 2016 — RF v Commission
   (Case T-880/16)
   (2017/C 053/44)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: RF (Gdynia, Poland) (represented by: K. Komar-Komarowski, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Decision C(2016)5925 final of 15 September 2016 rejecting the complaint in case COMP AT.40251 — Rail transport, freight forwarding, and remit the case back to the Commission for re-examination;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 13 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1) through misinterpretation or possible misapplication thereof.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 105(1) TFEU.


title: Case C-574/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Varese (Italy) lodged on 9 November 2015 — Criminal proceedings against Mauro Scialdone

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Varese (Italy) lodged on 9 November 2015 — Criminal proceedings against Mauro Scialdone
   (Case C-574/15)
   (2016/C 048/18)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Varese

      Criminal proceedings against

   Mauro Scialdone

      Questions referred

               1.

               May EU law, and more particularly Article 4(3) TEU, in conjunction with Article 325 TFEU and Directive 2006/112/EC (1), which lay down for the Member States the duty of equal treatment so far as concerns policies relating to penalties, be interpreted as precluding the enactment of a provision of national law providing that the penal consequences of failure to pay VAT follow once a financial threshold is crossed greater than the threshold provided for in the case of failure to pay income tax?

               2.

               May EU law, and more particularly Article 4(3) TEU in conjunction with Article 325 TFEU and Directive 2006/112/EC, which oblige the Member States to provide effective, dissuasive and proportionate penalties to protect the financial interests of the European Union, be interpreted as precluding the enactment of a national provision which exempts the defendant (whether a director, legal representative, person to whom responsibility for fiscal matters has been delegated or an accessory to the offence) from liability to punishment, if the entity with legal personality concerned has made late payment both of the tax itself and of the administrative penalties owed in connection with VAT, even though the tax assessment has already been made, criminal proceedings and indictment initiated, and the establishment of inter partes proceedings duly confirmed, but before trial proceedings have been declared opened, in a system that does not impose on that director, legal representative, or delegate and accessory to the offence any other penalty, not even an administrative penalty?

               3.

               Must the concept of fraud governed by Article 1 of the PFI Convention be interpreted as encompassing cases of failure to pay or of partial or late payment of VAT and, consequently, does Article 2 of that Convention require the Member State to punish with a term of imprisonment failure to pay or partial or late payment of VAT in relation to sums in excess of EUR 50 000?

         If the answer is in the negative, it will be necessary to determine whether the rule under Article 325 TFEU, which requires the Member States to provide penalties, including criminal penalties, which are dissuasive, proportionate and effective, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which exempts from criminal and administrative liability the directors and legal representatives of legal persons, or the persons to whom the functions of those legal persons are delegated and persons who are accessories to the offence, for failure to pay or partial or late payment of VAT in relation to sums equivalent to three or five times the minimum threshold laid down in case of fraud, that is to say, EUR 50 000.

      (1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).


title: Case C-272/15: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) — United Kingdom) — Swiss International Air Lines AG v The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Environment Agency (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2003/87/EC — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading — Obligation to surrender emission allowances in respect of flights between EU Member States and most third countries — Decision No 377/2013/EU — Article 1 — Temporary derogation — Exclusion of flights to and from airports situated in Switzerland — Difference of treatment of third countries — General principle of equal treatment — Inapplicable)

text:
               20.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 53/12

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) — United Kingdom) — Swiss International Air Lines AG v The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Environment Agency
   (Case C-272/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2003/87/EC - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading - Obligation to surrender emission allowances in respect of flights between EU Member States and most third countries - Decision No 377/2013/EU - Article 1 - Temporary derogation - Exclusion of flights to and from airports situated in Switzerland - Difference of treatment of third countries - General principle of equal treatment - Inapplicable))
   (2017/C 053/14)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Swiss International Air Lines AG

      Respondents: The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Environment Agency

      Operative part of the judgment

   Examination in the light of the principle of equal treatment of Decision No 377/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 April 2013 derogating temporarily from Directive 2003/87/EC establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community has disclosed nothing to affect the validity of that decision in so far as the temporary derogation provided for in Article 1 of that decision from the requirements laid down in Article 12(2a) and Article 16 of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC, as amended by Directive 2008/101/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008, with respect to the surrender of greenhouse gas emission allowances in respect of flights operated in 2012 between Member States of the European Union and most third countries, does not apply to, inter alia, flights to and from airports situated in Switzerland.

      (1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2015.


title: Case T-342/12: Action brought on 1 August 2012 — Fuchs/OHIM — Les Complices (Star)

text:
               29.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 295/28

         Action brought on 1 August 2012 — Fuchs/OHIM — Les Complices (Star)
   (Case T-342/12)
   2012/C 295/51
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Max Fuchs (Freyung, Germany) (represented by: C. Onken, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Les Complices SA (Montreuil-sous-Bois, France)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 May 2012 in case R 2040/2011-5;

               —

               Reject the opposition No 1299967 in its entirety; and

               —

               Order the defendant and the other party before the Board of Appeal to bear the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark representing a black star, for goods in classes 18, 24 and 25 — Community trade mark application No 5588694

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 632232 of the figurative mark representing a white star in a black circle, for goods in classes 3, 9, 14, 16, 18, 20, 24 and 28; French trade mark registration No 1579557 of the figurative mark representing a white star in a black circle, for goods in class 25

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for part of the contested goods

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

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


26.10.2002             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 261/21
      Bank provide for any extension of the probation period;                  Removal from the register of Case T-50/01 ( 1)
      the bank cannot claim that there has been an amendment
      in that regard.                                                                          (2002/C 261/39)
—     Infringement of the principle pacta sunt servanda, in that                          (Language of the Case: English)
      the Bank did not exercise, within the probation period,
      its right of termination without requiring to give reasons
      and with 15 days’ notice and the defendant cannot
      unilaterally modify the terms of the contract.                   By order of 11 July 2002 the President of the First Chamber of
                                                                       the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                       ordered the removal from the register of Case T-50/01:
The applicant further alleges breach of the duty to have regard        Saffron Investments N.V. v Commission of the European
for the welfare of officials and breach of the principle that          Communities.
legitimate expectations be protected.
                                                                       (1 ) OJ C 200, 14.7.2001.


title: Case C-26/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 20 January 2014 — Beaudout Père et Fils SARL v Ministre du travail, de l’emploi, de la formation professionnelle et du dialogue social, Confédération nationale de la boulangerie et boulangerie-pâtisserie française, Fédération Générale Agroalimentaire — CFDT and Others

text:
               22.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 85/17

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 20 January 2014 — Beaudout Père et Fils SARL v Ministre du travail, de l’emploi, de la formation professionnelle et du dialogue social, Confédération nationale de la boulangerie et boulangerie-pâtisserie française, Fédération Générale Agroalimentaire — CFDT and Others
   (Case C-26/14)
   2014/C 85/31
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Beaudout Père et Fils SARL

      Defendants: Ministre du travail, de l’emploi, de la formation professionnelle et du dialogue social, Confédération nationale de la boulangerie et boulangerie-pâtisserie française, Fédération Générale Agroalimentaire — CFDT and Others

      Question referred

   Is compliance with the obligation of transparency flowing from Article 56 TFEU a mandatory prior condition for the extension, by a Member State, to all undertakings within a sector, of a collective agreement under which a single operator, chosen by the social partners, is entrusted with the management of a compulsory supplementary social security scheme for employees?


title: Case T-28/16: Action brought on 26 January 2016 — Germany v Commission

text:
               14.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/56

         Action brought on 26 January 2016 — Germany v Commission
   (Case T-28/16)
   (2016/C 098/72)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and A. Lippstreu, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Article 1 and the annex to Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/2098 of 13 November 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as the payments incurred by the competent authorities of the Federal Republic of Germany under the EAFRD in the total amount of EUR 7 719 920,30 are excluded from EU financing;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law: Infringement of Article 71(2) read in conjunction with Article 2(e) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, (1) in so far as the Commission required selection criteria to be applied not only to a concrete ‘operation’ within the meaning of Article 2(e) of Regulation No 1698/2005, but also to preliminary phases of the national land reorganisation and village renewal procedures, and in so far as the Commission misconstrued the conditions applicable to selection criteria.

               2.

               Second plea in law: Infringement of the partnership principle set out in Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, the principle of sincere cooperation (the first paragraph of Article 4(3) TEU) and the principle that legitimate expectations be protected, in so far as the Commission based its corrective decision on an approach that the Commission itself had approved or had not called into question.

               3.

               Third plea in law: Infringement of the principle of subsidiarity (Article 5 TEU), in so far as the Commission encroached upon the procedural autonomy and the planning prerogatives of the Member States.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law: Infringement of Article 52(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013, (2) of Article 31(2) of Regulation No 1290/2005 (3) and of the principle of proportionality, since, by a flat-rate correction of 10 %, the Commission did not have due regard to the nature and, in any event, limited extent of a potential infringement in connection with the selection criteria and did not take into account the circumstance that the European Union did not suffer any actual financial loss nor was there ever any real risk that it would suffer loss.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2005 L 277, p. 1).

      (2)  Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549).

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2005 L 209, p. 1).


title: Case C-241/16 P: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 1 February 2017 — Darko Graf v European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Action for damages — Act of accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union — Commitments relating to a strategy for judicial reform — Creation followed by the abolition of the position of public bailiff — Damage suffered by persons appointed as public bailiffs — Monitoring of the Republic of Croatia’s commitments by the European Commission — Appeal dismissed — Appeal manifestly inadmissible)

text:
               24.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/3

         Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 1 February 2017 — Darko Graf v European Commission
   (Case C-241/16 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Action for damages - Act of accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union - Commitments relating to a strategy for judicial reform - Creation followed by the abolition of the position of public bailiff - Damage suffered by persons appointed as public bailiffs - Monitoring of the Republic of Croatia’s commitments by the European Commission - Appeal dismissed - Appeal manifestly inadmissible))
   (2017/C 129/04)
   Language of the case: Croatian

      Parties

      Appellant: Darko Graf (represented by: L. Duvnjak, odvjetnik)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: S. Ječmenica and G. Wils, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Darko Graf is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 251, 11.7.2016.


title: Case C-120/12 P: Appeal brought on 5 March 2012 by Bernhard Rintisch against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2011 in Case T-62/09: Bernhard Rintisch v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
               9.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/9

         Appeal brought on 5 March 2012 by Bernhard Rintisch against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2011 in Case T-62/09: Bernhard Rintisch v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case C-120/12 P)
   2012/C 165/15
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Bernhard Rintisch (represented by: A. Dreyer, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Bariatrix Europe Inc., SAS

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Seventh Chamber of the General Court (Court of First Instance) of 16 December 2011 in Case T-62/09;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant submits that the contested judgment should be annulled on the ground that the General Court infringed Article 74(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) (CMTR) [now Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (2)] and on the ground of misuse of power. According to the appellant the General Court wrongly interpreted Article 74/2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 by deciding that the Board of Appeal was right in not taking into account documents and evidence submitted by the appellant. The General Court wrongly decided that the Board lawfully refused to exercise discretion when refusing to take the aforementioned documents into account.

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

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


title: Case C-487/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 30 November 2009 — INMOGOLF SA v Administración General del Estado

text:
               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 30 November 2009 — INMOGOLF SA v Administración General del Estado
   (Case C-487/09)
   2010/C 63/32
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: INMOGOLF SA

      Defendant: Administración General del Estado

      Questions referred

   Having regard to the fact that Article 11(a) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC (1) of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (now Directive 2008/71/EC …) (2) prohibited the taxation of making available on the market or dealing in stocks, shares or other securities of the same type, and Article 12(1)(a) thereof only authorised Member States to charge duties on the transfer of securities, whether charged at a flat rate or not, and in the light of the fact that Article 108 of Law 24/1988 … on stock markets (in the wording of the 12th additional provision of Law 18/1991 …) nevertheless establishes a general exemption, from value added tax and from tax on capital transfers, for the transfer of securities, but subjects these transactions to tax on capital transfers, as transfers of assets for consideration, provided that they represent part of the capital of companies in which at least 50 % of the assets comprise immovable property and where the purchaser, as a result of that transfer, obtains a position which enables him to exercise control over the entity, without distinguishing between holding companies and companies which carry on an economic activity:

               1.

               Does Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 preclude the automatic application of legislation of Member States, such as Article 108(2) of Law 24/1988 on stock markets, which taxes certain transfers of securities which conceal transfers of immovable assets, even if there has been no intention to avoid taxation?
               If it is not necessary for there to be an intention to avoid taxation,

               2.

               Does Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 preclude legislation such as … Law 24/1988, which establishes a charge on the acquisition of major shareholdings in companies whose assets comprise mainly immovable property, even though those companies are fully operative and the immovable assets cannot be disassociated from their economic activities?

      (1)  OJ English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412.

      (2)  OJ 2008 L 46, p. 11.


title: Case C-450/16 P: Appeal brought on 11 August 2016 (fax of 4 August) by U-R LAB against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 25 May 2016 in Joined Cases T-422/15 and T-423/15 U-R LAB v European Union Intellectual Property Office

text:
               6.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 70/8

         Appeal brought on 11 August 2016 (fax of 4 August) by U-R LAB against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 25 May 2016 in Joined Cases T-422/15 and T-423/15 U-R LAB v European Union Intellectual Property Office

   (Case C-450/16 P)
   (2017/C 070/12)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: U-R LAB (represented by: A. Rudoni, avocat)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office
   By order of 25 November 2016 the Court (Tenth Chamber) dismissed the appeal.


title: Case C-290/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour de Cassation (Chambre commerciale, financière et économique) by judgment of that court of 17 July 2001 in the case of Receveur Principal des Douanes Françaises de Villepinte against Société Tang Frères, subrogated to the rights of Derruder et Cie

text:
13.10.2001            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 289/13
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour de                     expressly authorised, and also in with regard to compliance
Cassation (Chambre commerciale, financière et écono-                  with the principle of equal treatment? (1)’
mique) by judgment of that court of 17 July 2001 in the
case of Receveur Principal des Douanes Françaises de
Villepinte against Société Tang Frères, subrogated to the             (1) OJ L 117 of 7.5.1997, p. 15.
                   rights of Derruder et Cie
                        (Case C-290/01)
                       (2001/C 289/24)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Giudice di pace
European Communities by judgment of the Cour de Cassation             di Casale Monferrato by order of 16 July 2001 in the case
(Court of Cassation), Chambre commerciale, financière et              of Fontaneto Industria Alimentare S.r.l. v A.S.L. No 21
économique (Commercial, Financial and Economic Division)              — Dipartimento di Prevenzione Servizio Igiene Alimenti
of 17 July 2001, which was received at the Court Registry on                      e Nutrizione, Casale Monferrato (AL)
23 July 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Receveur
Principal des Douanes Françaises de Villepinte against Société                                (Case C-295/01)
Tang Frères, subrogated to the rights of Derruder et Cie.
The Cour de Cassation (Chambre commerciale, financière et
économique) asks the Court of Justice to give a preliminary                                   (2001/C 289/26)
ruling on the following question:
                                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
‘On a proper construction of Article 70(1) of the Community           European Communities by order of 16 July 2001 by the
Customs Code, where a representative of the declarant is              Giudice di pace di Casale Monferrato (Magistrate’s Court,
present when the customs authorities takes a sample of the            Casale Monferrato) which was received at the Court Registry
goods and he does not challenge the representativeness of that        on 25 July 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
sample, is the declarant no longer entitled to challenge the          Fontaneto Industria Alimentare S.r.l. A.S.L. No 21 — Diparti-
representativeness of that sample before the Tribunal hearing         mento di Prevenzione Servizio Igiene Alimenti e Nutrizione,
the application for payment of the additional import levies           Casale Monferrato (AL), on the following questions:
considered by the Customs authorities to be due?’
                                                                      1.   On a proper interpretation of Article 3(1)(5) of Directive
                                                                           2000/13/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the
                                                                           Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the
                                                                           laws of the Member States relating to the labelling,
                                                                           presentation and advertising of foodstuffs, with reference
                                                                           to Article 1 of Council Directive 85/374/EEC (2) of 25 July
                                                                           1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations
                                                                           and administrative provisions of the Member States
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Consiglio di                     concerning liability for defective products, is the indi-
Stato by order of that court of 12 June 2001 in the case                   cation on the label of the period within which the
of Infostrada S.p.A. against Ministero del Tesoro, del                     foodstuff must be consumed solely a matter for the
        Bilancio e della Programmazione economica                          producer himself under his sole responsibility?
                        (Case C-293/01)                               2.   If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, does
                                                                           Community law prohibit Member States from unilaterally
                                                                           imposing on foodstuff producers the obligation to indi-
                       (2001/C 289/25)                                     cate on the label an expiry date for a product for which
                                                                           Community law makes no provision?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Consiglio di Stato               3.   If the answer to Question 2 is in the affirmative, can the
(Council of State) of 12 June 2001, received at the Court                  national court disapply the provisions of national law
Registry on 23 July 2001, in the case of Infostrada S.p.A.                 which conflict with Community legislation on the points
against Ministero del Tesoro, del Bilancio e della Programma-              referred to in the previous questions?
zione economica on the following question:
                                                                      (1) OJ L 109, 6.5.2000, p. 29.
‘Does Directive 97/13/EC permit the Member States to require          (2) OJ L 210, 7.8.1985, p. 29.
solely those undertakings holding a licence or authorisation to
carry on telecommunications activities to make compulsory
financial payments, other than and in addition to those


title: Case T-399/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 21 January 2009 — giropay v OHIM (GIROPAY) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark GIROPAY — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/22

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 21 January 2009 — giropay v OHIM (GIROPAY)
   (Case T-399/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark GIROPAY - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2009/C 55/39)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: giropay GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: K. Gründig-Schnelle, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: B. Schmidt, Agent)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 October 2006 (Case R 308/2005-4) concerning an application for registration of the word mark GIROPAY as a Community trade mark.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders giropay GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.


title: Case C-23/00 P: Appeal brought on 27 January 2000 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment delivered on 1 December 1999 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-125/96 Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH and C.H. Boehringer Sohn Ltd, supported by Fédération Européenne de la Santé Animale (Fedesa) and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Council of the European Union, supported by Stichting Kwaliteitsgarantie Vleeskalverensector (SKV) and the Commission of the European Communities, and T-152/96 Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH and C.H. Boehringer Sohn Ltd, supported by Fédération Européenne de la Santé Animale (Fedesa), and the Commission of the European Communities, supported by Stichting Kwaliteitsgarantie Vleeskalveren sector (SKV) and the Council of the European Union

text:
C 102/12              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         8.4.2000
Appeal brought on 27 January 2000 by the Council of                    Pleas in law and main arguments
the European Union against the judgment delivered on
1 December 1999 by the Second Chamber of the Court
of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined                In accordance with the terms of the judgment, the Council has
Cases T-125/96 Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH                     been entirely successful in its defence of all claims raised before
and C.H. Boehringer Sohn Ltd, supported by Fédération                  the Court, namely, in the action for partial annulment of
Européenne de la Santé Animale (Fedesa) and the United                 Council Directive 96/22/EC (3) and the claim for compensation
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the                 arising from the adoption of the said directive in Case
Council of the European Union, supported by Stichting                  T-125/96 and the related plea of illegality raised in the context
Kwaliteitsgarantie Vleeskalverensector (SKV) and the                   of the action for the partial annulment of Commission
Commission of the European Communities, and T-152/96                   Regulation 1312/96 (4) in Case T-152/96.
Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH and C.H. Boeh-
ringer Sohn Ltd, supported by Fédération Européenne de
la Santé Animale (Fedesa), and the Commission of the                   Notwithstanding the apparently successful outcome of the
European Communities, supported by Stichting Kwali-                    action, the Council lodges the present appeal in relation to the
teitsgarantie Vleeskalveren sector (SKV) and the Council               judgment in Case T-125/96, as it considers that the Court of
                   of the European Union                               First Instance committed a fundamental error of law by failing
                                                                       to properly examine the Council’s plea of inadmissibility. In
                                                                       the submission of the Council, failure by the Court to firstly
                                                                       rule on the right of a natural or legal person to bring annulment
                                                                       proceedings against a directive, prior to its consideration of
                        (Case C-23/00 P)
                                                                       the merits of the case, is in contradiction with the letter and
                                                                       the spirit of Article 230(4)EC and in contradiction with the
                                                                       Court’s own case-law.
                        (2000/C 102/19)
                                                                       (1) OJ C 318 of 26.10.1996, p. 15.
                                                                       (2) OJ C 354 of 23.11.1996, p. 32.
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 1 December                 (3) Of 29 April 1996 concerning the prohibition on the use in
1999 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of               stockfarming of certain substances having a hormonal or thyro-
the European Communities in Joined Cases T-125/96 (1)                      static action and of beta-agonists, and repealing Directives
                                                                           81/602/EEC, 88/146/EEC and 88/299/EEC (OJ L 125, 23.05.96,
Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH and C.H. Boehringer
                                                                           p. 3).
Sohn Ltd, supported by Fédération Européenne de la Santé
                                                                       (4) Of 8 July 1996 amending Annex III of Council Regulation (EEC)
Animale (Fedesa) and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
                                                                           No 2377/90 laying down a Community procedure for the
Northern Ireland, and the Council of the European Union,                   establishment of maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal
supported by Stichting Kwaliteitsgarantie Vleeskalverensector              products in foodstuffs of animal origin (OJ L 170 of 9.7.1996,
(SKV) and the Commission of the European Communities, and                  p. 8).
T-152/96 (2) Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH and
C.H. Boehringer Sohn Ltd, supported by Fédération Européen-
ne de la Santé Animale (Fedesa), and the Commission of the
European Communities, supported by Stichting Kwaliteitsga-
rantie Vleeskalverensector (SKV) and the Council of the
European Union, was brought before the Court of Justice of
the European Communities on 27 January 2000 by the
Council of the European Union, represented by Mrs Moyra
Sims-Robertson and Mr Ignacio Dı́ez Parra, Legal Advisers,
acting as agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione
the office of Mr Alessandro Morbilli, Director of the Legal            Tributaria Regionale di Venezia — Sezione No 31, by
Affairs Directorate of the European Investment Bank, 100               order of that court of 9 December 1999 in the case of
Boulevard Konrad Adenauer, Kirchberg.                                  Ufficio delle Entrate di Venezia 2 against Hôtel Plaza SpA
                                                                                (Case C-25/00)
The Appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (2000/C 102/20)
— rule on the objection of inadmissibility raised by the               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    Council in Case T-125/96;                                          European Communities by order of the Commissione Tributa-
                                                                       ria Regionale di Venezia 2 — Sezione 31 (Regional Tax Court,
                                                                       Venice — Section 31) of 9 December 1999, received at the
— set aside that part of the decision of the Court of First            Court Registry on 28 January 2000, for a preliminary ruling
    Instance dispensing with the need to rule on the objection         in the case of Ufficio delle Entrate di Venezia 2 against Hôtel
    of inadmissibility raised by the Council.                          Plaza SpA on the following questions:


title: Action brought on 25 February 1997 by Bergpracht Milchwerk GmbH & Co. KG and others against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-82/97)

text:
5 . 4 . 97            EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 108/ 19
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating                 Action brought on 24 February 1997 by the Commission
to cosmetic products (*) preclude a national provision                  of the European Communities against the Federal
which contains prohibitions of statements in connection                                         Republic of Germany
with the marketing of cosmetic products which go beyond                                             ( Case C-83/97)
the restrictions contained in the Directive ?
                                                                                ( 97/C 108/38 )
(') OJ No L 262 , 27. 9 . 1976 , p . 169 .
                                                                        An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
                                                                        brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                        Communities on 24 February 1997 by the Commission of
                                                                        the European Communities, represented by Gotz zur
                                                                        Hausen, of the Legal Service of the Commission of the
Action brought on 25 February 1997 by Societe Anonyme                   European Communities, with an address for service in
des Caves et des Producteurs Reunis de Roquefort                        Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of
(Aveyron) and Others against the Commission of the                      the Legal Service of the Commission of the European
                   European Communities                                 Communities, Wagner Centre, C 254, Kirchberg.
                          ( Case C-80/97 )
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                            ( 97/C 108/36 )
                                                                        — declare that, by failing to adopt within the period
An action against the Commission of the European                               prescribed all the measures necessary in order to
Communities which had previously been brought before                           comply with Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May
the Court of First Instance was brought before the Court                        1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of
of Justice of the European Communities on 25 February                          wild fauna and flora ('), the Federal Republic of
 1997 by Societe Anonyme des Caves et des Producteurs                           Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
Reunis de Roquefort ( Aveyron ) and Others . That action,                       EC Treaty,
T-140/97, was the subject of an order declining
jurisdiction and the Court of First Instance referred it to             — order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
 the Court of Justice in order that it might hear and                           costs .
 determine the claim for annulment.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                         The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
 The pleas in law and main arguments were published in a                 Case C-56/97 (2); the time-limit for transposition of the
 notice in Official Journal of the European Communities                  Directive expired on 5 June 1994 .
 No C 318 of 26 October 1996 , page 24 .
                                                                         (') OJ No L 206 , 22 . 7. 1992, p. 7 .
                                                                         ( 2 ) See page 12 of this Official Journal .
 Action brought on 25 February 1997 by Bergpracht
 Milchwerk GmbH & Co. KG and others against the
           Commission of the European Communities                        Action brought on 28 February 1997 by the Commission
                            ( Case C-82/97)                              of the European Communities against the Portuguese
                                                                                Republic
                              ( 97/C 108/37)
                                                                                ( Case C-88/ 97)
                                                                                ( 97/C 108/39 )
  An action against the Commission of the European
  Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
  the European Communities on 25 February 1997 by                         An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
  Bergpracht Milchwerk GmbH & Co . KG and others. The                     before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
  action in question had previously been brought before the               on 28 February 1997 by the Commission of the European
  Court of First Instance under Case T-141/96 ; the Court of              Communities, represented by Francisco de Sousa Fialho,
  First Instance made an order declining jurisdiction in the              of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for
  case and transferred it to the Court of Justice for                     service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la
  determination by the latter Court of the application for                 Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
  annulment .
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                           — declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
  The pleas in law and main arguments are set out in a                           the laws, regulations or administrative provisions
   notice published in Official Journal of the European                          necessary to comply with Council Directive 92/43/EEC
   Communities No C 336 of 9 November 1996, page 30.                             of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural
                                                                                habitats and of wild fauna and flora ('), the
                                                                                Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations


title: Action brought on 11 July 1997 by Christopher Atkin and others against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-205/97)

text:
18 . 10. 97           I EN 1                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 318/21
3 . the demand that EPAC undertake work that is the                     ( d ) in any event, the Commission's interim decision,
       responsibility of the State;                                           inasmuch as it is radical, takes no account of the
                                                                              circumstances of the case and of the interests and
                                                                              values at issue, is in breach of the principles of good
4 . the failure of Silopor, Empresa de Silos Portuários SA,                   faith and of the legitimate expectations of the
       to pay its debt to EPAC.                                               economic operators affected by it and seriously
                                                                              offends against the principle of proportionality.
Thus, an economic viability and financial restructuring
plan for EPAC was drawn up by Government Order
No 887/96 — SETF of 17 May 1996, which was
approved jointly by the SETF and the SEPAA by way of
Government Order of 26 July 1996 . That joint order                     Action brought on 11 July 1997 by Christopher Atkin
proposed that EPAC be authorized to negotiate a loan at                 and others against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
market rates up to a maximum of Esc 50 000 000 000,
30 000 000 000 of which were to be guaranteed by the                                              (Case T-205/97)
State .
                                                                                ( 97/C 318/41
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
In support of its claims the applicant makes the following
submissions :
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities was brought before the Court of First
I.       The statement of reasons for the           Commission 's
                                                                        Instance of the European Communities on 11 July 1997
                                                                        by Christopher Atkin, residing in Brussels, David
decision is not adequate. It considers in this respect that             Cornwell, residing at Kraainem ( Belgium ), and Paul
the statement of reasons for the adoption of the contested              Smeulders, residing at Sutton Courtney ( United Kingdom ),
decision is even more necessary in view of the fact that the            represented by Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Liege Bar, with
extraordinary power which the case-law of the Court of                  an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Justice conferred on the Commission to impose interim                   Evelyne Korn, 21 rue de Nassau .
measures by way of provisional decisions envisaged until
now only the suspension of payments by the State to
undertakings receiving aid and not the suspension of a                  The applicants claim that the Court should:
mere State guarantee which does not constitute any form
of aid for the banks to which it was extended and which                 — annul the Commission's decision rejecting their request
are in a third-party relationship to the undertaking which                    to be regraded,
obtained the State guarantee .
                                                                        — annul the Commission's decision rejecting their
                                                                              administrative complaint,
II .      The   Commission's     decision  is  unlawful    in  the
conditions in which it was adopted:                                     — order the Commission to pay the costs .
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 ( a ) the Portuguese State 's guarantee did not constitute
        State aid within the meaning of Article 92 of the EC
       Treaty. The applicant points out in this respect                  The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
       that the Commission does not claim that the State 's              Case T- 16/97 (').
       guarantee for nothing more than a restructuring
        operation of EPAC's assets — a guarantee which did               (>) OJ C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
        not involve either the direct or indirect transfer of
        State resources to that public           undertaking —
        constitutes State aid . Likewise, the contested decision
        makes no mention of the right/duty of the Portuguese
        State, in its capacity as holder of the whole of the
        undertaking's capital, to lend it such support;                  Action brought on 15 July 1997 by Georges Berthu
                                                                                against the Council of the European Union
                                                                                ( Case T-207/97 )
 ( b ) even if it should be characterized as aid, the
        Portuguese State was entitled to grant it without being                                       ( 97/C 318/42 )
        required to notify it to the Commission;
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
 ( c) accordingly, there was no breach of Article 93 ( 3 ) of            An action against the Council of the European Union was
        the EC Treaty;                                                   brought before the Court of First Instance of the European