title: Case T-179/14: Action brought on 20 March 2014  — Schmiedewerke Gröditz v Commission

text:
               12.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/52

         Action brought on 20 March 2014 — Schmiedewerke Gröditz v Commission
   (Case T-179/14)
   2014/C 142/66
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Schmiedewerke Gröditz GmbH (Gröditz, Germany) (represented by: H. Höfler, C. Kahle and V. Winkler, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the defendant’s decision, in respect of State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) — Germany — Support for renewable electricity and reduced EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users, to initiate the formal procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU, notified with the invitation to submit comments (OJ 2014 C 37, p. 73);

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies in essence on the following pleas in law:

               1.

               Breach of essential procedural requirements

                           —

                           The applicant submits here that the defendant failed to give sufficient reasons, in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU, for its decision to initiate a formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU. The decision to initiate the investigation procedure contains no specific substantive assessment based on factual and legal aspects with regard to the existence of all the constituent elements for the purpose of Article 107(1) TFEU.

               2.

               Infringement of the Treaties

                           —

                           The applicant submits here that the Commission’s decision to initiate the investigation procedure infringes Article 107(1) TFEU. In this respect, the applicant states that the European Court of Justice has already held in Case C-397/98 PreussenElektra [2001] ECR I-2099 that the Law on the priority of renewable energy sources (‘EEG’) does not grant any aid. The EEG remains in force essentially unchanged. Particularly the essential aspects for the State aid assessment have remained unchanged. The same applies to the defendant’s decision of 22 May 2002 (OJ 2002 C 164, p. 5), in which the defendant stated that the EEG did not constitute aid.

                           —

                           The applicant further submits that the reduced EEG-surcharge does not fulfil the State aid conditions under Article 107(1) TFEU. In that regard, it submits, in particular, that the reduced EEG-surcharge does not constitute an advantage which a user would not have received under normal market conditions, that it is not selective, that it is not aid granted by a Member State or through State resources and that it does not result in a distortion of competition or in a possible effect upon trade between Member States.

               3.

               Compatibility with the common market

                           —

                           If the Court is of the opinion that State aid exists, that aid would, in the applicant’s view, be compatible with the common market in accordance with Article 107(3)(b) and (c) TFEU.


title: Case F-102/10: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 12 July 2011 — Geradon v Council

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/58

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 12 July 2011 — Geradon v Council
   (Case F-102/10) (1)

   2011/C 252/133
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011, p. 64.


C 48/22               EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                20.2.1999
Removal from the register of Joined Cases C-388/97 and                  Removal from the register of Case C-409/97 (1)
                          C-389/97 (1)                                                    (1999/C 48/44)
                        (1999/C 48/40)
                                                                  By order of 19 November 1998 the Court of Justice of the
By order of 11 November 1998, the President of the                European Communities (First Chamber) has ordered the
Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered the          removal from the register of Case C-409/97: Commission
removal from the register of Joined Cases C-388/97 and            of the European Communities v. Grand Duchy of
C-389/97 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the             Luxembourg.
Conseil d'EÂtat): Fromagerie Philipona SA and Others v.
French Republic.
                                                                  (1) OJ C 41, 7.2.1998.
(1) OJ C 7, 10.1.1998.
                                                                        Removal from the register of Case C-415/97 (1)
      Removal from the register of Case C-253/98 (1)                                      (1999/C 48/45)
                        (1999/C 48/41)
                                                                  By order of 24 November 1998, the President of the
                                                                  Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
By order of 11 November 1998 the Court of Justice of the          removal from the register of Case C-415/97: Commission
European Communities has ordered the removal from the             of the European Communities v. Italian Republic.
register of Case C-253/98: Commission of the European
Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium.
                                                                  (1) OJ C 41, 7.2.1998.
(1) OJ C 278, 5.9.1998.
                                                                        Removal from the register of Case C-167/98 (1)
      Removal from the register of Case C-397/97 (1)                                      (1999/C 48/46)
                        (1999/C 48/42)
                                                                  By order of 2 December 1998 the Court of Justice of the
By order of 13 November 1998 the Court of Justice of the          European Communities has ordered the removal from the
European Communities has ordered the removal from the             register of Case C-167/98 (request for a preliminary ruling
register of Case C-397/97: Commission of the European             from the Oberster Gerichtshof): Westdeutsche Landesbank
Communities v. Italian Republic.                                  Girozentrale v. Johannes Leon.
(1) OJ C 26, 24.1.1998.                                           (1) OJ C 209, 4.7.1998.
      Removal from the register of Case C-274/94 (1)                   Removal from the register of Case C-305/98 P (1)
                        (1999/C 48/43)                                                    (1999/C 48/47)
By order of 17 November 1998 the Court of Justice of the          By order of 7 December 1998 the Court of Justice of the
European Communities has ordered the removal from the             European Communities has ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-274/94: United Kingdom of Great                register of Case 305/98 P: David T. Keeling v. Office for
Britain and Northern Ireland v. Commission of the                 Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
European Communities.                                             Designs).
(1) OJ C 351, 10.12.1994.                                         (1) OJ C 312, 10.10.1998.


title: Case T-359/06: Action brought on 5 December 2006 — Heijmans Infrastructuur v Commission

text:
               27.1.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 20/25

         Action brought on 5 December 2006 — Heijmans Infrastructuur v Commission
   (Case T-359/06)
   (2007/C 20/38)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Claimant: Heijmans Infrastructuur B.V. (represented by: M.F.A.M. Smeets and A.M. van den Oord, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               set aside, in whole or in part, the decision addressed to the claimant;

               —

               set aside or reduce the fine imposed on the claimant;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The claimant is challenging the Commission's decision of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case No COMP/38.456 — Bitumen — NL), by which a fine was imposed on the claimant for breach of Article 81 EC.
   In support of its action, the claimant invokes the same pleas in law and arguments as those set out by the claimant in Case T-358/06 Wegenbouwmaatschappij J. Heijmans B.V. v Commission.


title: Case T-47/06: Action brought on  16 February 2006  — Antartica/OHIM

text:
               25.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 74/31

         Action brought on 16 February 2006 — Antartica/OHIM
   (Case T-47/06)
   (2006/C 74/58)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Antartica S.r.l. (Rome, Italy) [represented by: E. Racca, lawyer]

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. (Washington D.C., USA)
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the contested decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the OHIM, of 7 December 2005, in case R 752/2004 — 2, on the grounds that it does not comply with Article 63 (2) and Article 8 (5) of Regulation No. 40/94 and Article 5.1.2. of the Directive No 89/104/CEE;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘Nasdaq’ for goods in classes 9, 12, 14, 25 and 28

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc.

      Mark or sign cited: Community word trade mark ‘Nasdaq’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38 and 42 as well as earlier well known mark ‘Nasdaq’ in all Members States of the European Union

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejects opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annuls the decision of the opposition division and rejects the application

      Pleas in law: Violation of Articles 63 (2) and 8 (5) of Regulation No 40/94 as well as Article 5.1.2. of Directive No. 89/104/CEE; the applicant submits that the earlier unregistered word mark was not, in fact, invoked in the notice of opposition. It also contests the findings that the reputation of the stock exchange index ‘nasdaq’ is the same as the reputation of the trade mark of the same name. It finally submits that the notion of reputation in Regulation 40/94 and Directive 89/104 is not the same as notoriety under the Paris Convention.


title: Case T-774/16: Action brought on 7 November 2016 — Consejo Regulador del Cava v EUIPO — Cave de Tain L'Hermitage, union des propriétaires (CAVE DE TAIN)

text:
               9.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/50

         Action brought on 7 November 2016 — Consejo Regulador del Cava v EUIPO — Cave de Tain L'Hermitage, union des propriétaires (CAVE DE TAIN)
   (Case T-774/16)
   (2017/C 006/63)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Consejo Regulador del Cava (Villafranca del Penedès, Spain) (represented by: C. Prat, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cave de Tain L'Hermitage, union des proprietaires (Tain L'Hermitage, France)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

      Trade mark at issue: EU word figurative mark in colours containing the word elements ‘CAVE DE TAIN’ – EU trade mark No 11 345 824

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 September 2016 in Case R 980/2015-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision in so far as it does not invalidate the Contested EUTM with regard to ‘sparkling wines with a registered designation of origin’;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 in relation to Articles 102(1)(b) and 103(2)(b) of Regulation No 1308/2013.


title: Case F-50/10: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 16 October 2013 — De Roos-Le Large v Commission

text:
               11.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/29

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 16 October 2013 — De Roos-Le Large v Commission
   (Case F-50/10) (1)

   2014/C 9/49
   Language of the case: Dutch
   The President of the Tribunal sitting in a Full Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 25.9.2010, p. 27.


title: Case F-151/15: Action brought on 23 December 2015 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               15.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 59/52

         Action brought on 23 December 2015 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-151/15)
   (2016/C 059/61)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Tymen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision refusing to grant the applicant entitlement to the survivor’s pension and for compensation in respect of the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements of 13 or 14 April 2015 refusing to grant the applicant entitlement to the survivor’s pension;

               —

               So far as necessary, annul the Commission’s decision of 15 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 15 June 2015;

               —

               Order the payment of compensation in respect of material harm suffered by the applicant;

               —

               Order the payment of compensation in respect of the non-material harm suffered by the applicant, assessed on equitable principles at EUR 5 000;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay all the costs.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 September 2003 in Case C-201/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof): Maria Walcher v Bundesamt für Soziales und Behindertenwesen Steiermark (Protection of workers — Insolvency of the employer — Scope of Directive 80/987/EEC — National case-law on shareholder loans in lieu of capital contributions — Total loss of entitlement)

text:
C 275/12                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                            15.11.2003
4.   In Case C-172/01 P, orders International Power plc to pay its           marketed in Denmark only if it is shown that such enrichment
     own costs in the proceedings before the Court of Justice                with nutrients meets a need in the Danish population, the
     and those incurred by NALOO in these proceedings. The                   Kingdom of Denmark has failed to fulfil its obligations under
     Commission of the European Communities is to pay its own                Article 28 EC, the Court, composed of: J.-P. Puissochet,
     costs.                                                                  President of the Sixth Chamber, acting for the President,
                                                                             M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen and C.W.A. Timmermans (Presi-
5.   In Case C-175/01 P, orders NALOO to pay its own costs in                dents of Chambers), C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola, F. Macken
     the proceedings before the Court of Justice and those incurred by       (Rapporteur), N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues
     British Coal Corporation and the Commission of the European             and A. Rosas, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; H. von
     Communities in these proceedings.                                       Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 Sep-
                                                                             tember 2003, in which it:
6.   In Case C-176/01 P, orders PowerGen (UK) plc to pay its own
     costs in the proceedings before the Court of Justice and those
                                                                             1.    Declares that by applying an administrative practice which
     incurred by NALOO in these proceedings. The Commission of
                                                                                entails that enriched foodstuffs lawfully produced or marketed
     the European Communities is to pay its own costs.                             in other Member States can be marketed in Denmark only if it
                                                                                is shown that such enrichment with nutrients meets a need in
7.   In Case C-180/01 P, orders each party to pay its own costs in                 the Danish population, the Kingdom of Denmark has failed to
     the proceedings before the Court of Justice.                                  fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC.
8.   Orders the Commission of the European Communities and
                                                                             2.    Orders the Kingdom of Denmark to pay the costs.
     NALOO each to pay their own costs in the proceedings before
     the Court of First Instance. International Power plc, British
     Coal Corporation and PowerGen (UK) plc are each to pay their
                                                                             (1) OJ C 200 of 14.7.2001.
     own costs as interveners in the proceedings before the Court of
     First Instance.
(1) OJ C 200 of 14.07.2001.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                      of 23 September 2003                                                            of 11 September 2003
in Case C-192/01: Commission of the European Communi-                        in Case C-201/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                ties v Kingdom of Denmark (1)                                the Oberster Gerichtshof): Maria Walcher v Bundesamt
                                                                                für Soziales und Behindertenwesen Steiermark (1)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 28
EC and 30 EC — Prohibition on marketing of foodstuffs to                     (Protection of workers — Insolvency of the employer —
which vitamins and minerals have been added — Justifi-                       Scope of Directive 80/987/EEC — National case-law on
         cation — Public health — Nutritional need)                          shareholder loans in lieu of capital contributions — Total
                                                                                loss of entitlement)
                         (2003/C 275/19)
                                                                                (2003/C 275/20)
                   (Language of the case: Danish)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-192/01, Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: H. C. Støvlbæk) v Kingdom of Denmark (Agent:
J. Molde): Application for a declaration that, by applying an                In Case C-201/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
administrative practice which entails that enriched foodstuffs               EC by the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary
lawfully produced or marketed in other Member States may be                  ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
 ---pagebreak--- 15.11.2003              EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                 C 275/13
Maria Walcher and Bundesamt für Soziales und Behinderten-                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
wesen Steiermark, on the interpretation of Council Directive
80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the
laws of the Member States relating to the protection of                                              of 30 September 2003
employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (OJ
1980 L 283, p. 23), as amended by the Act concerning the
conditions of accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic             in Case C-224/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments to                  the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien): Gerhard
the Treaties on which the European Union is founded (OJ                                       Köbler v Republik Österreich (1)
1994 C 241, p. 21, and OJ 1995 L 1, p. 1), the Court (Sixth
Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the
Chamber, C. Gulmann, F. Macken, N. Colneric (Rapporteur)                     (Equal treatment — Remuneration of university professors
and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General;               — Indirect discrimination — Length-of-service increment —
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 September                    Liability of a Member State for damage caused to individuals
2003, in which it has ruled:                                                 by infringements of Community law for which it is respon-
                                                                                sible — Infringements attributable to a national court)
                                                                                (2003/C 275/21)
1.    Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the
      approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the
      protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their                             (Language of the case: German)
      employer, as amended by the Act concerning the conditions of
      accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland
      and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments to the Treaties          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
      on which the European Union is founded precludes a rule that                                in the European Court Reports)
      an employee with a significant shareholding in the private
      limited company that employs him, but who does not exercise a
      dominant influence over that company, loses, pursuant to the
      Austrian case-law relating to shareholder loans in lieu of capital
      contributions, his entitlement to the guarantee in respect of          In Case C-224/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
      claims for outstanding pay which result from the employer’s            EC by the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien (Austria),
      insolvency and are covered by Article 4(2) of that directive if, in    for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
      the 60 days from the time he first could have become aware             court between Gerhard Köbler and Republik Österreich, on
      that the company was no longer creditworthy, he fails to make          the interpretation, first, of Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now,
      any genuine demand for payment of salary owed to him.                  after amendment, Article 39 EC) and, secondly, the judgments
                                                                             of the Court in Joined Cases C-46/93 and C-48/93Brasserie du
                                                                             Pêcheur and Factortame [1996] ECR I-1029 and Case C-54/
                                                                             96Dorsch Consult [1997] ECR I-4961, the Court, composed of:
2.    To avoid abuses a Member State is, in principle, entitled to take      G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet,
      measures that deny such an employee an entitlement to a                R. Schintgen and C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur) (Presi-
      guarantee in respect of claims for outstanding salary arising          dents of Chambers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La
      after the date on which an employee who is not a shareholder           Pergola, P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von
      would have resigned on the ground of non-payment of his                Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and A. Rosas, Judges; P. Léger,
      salary, unless it is established that there has been no abusive        Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the
      conduct. As regards the guarantee to pay claims covered by             Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 September 2003, in
      Article 4(2) of Directive 80/987, as amended, the Member               which it has ruled:
      State is not entitled to assume that, as a general rule, an
      employee who is not a shareholder would have resigned on the
      ground of non-payment of his salary before his salary had been         1.    The principle that Member States are obliged to make good
      in arrears for a period of three months.                                     damage caused to individuals by infringements of Community
                                                                                law for which they are responsible is also applicable where the
                                                                                alleged infringement stems from a decision of a court adjudicat-
                                                                                ing at last instance where the rule of Community law infringed
                                                                                is intended to confer rights on individuals, the breach is
                                                                                sufficiently serious and there is a direct causal link between that
(1) OJ C 212 of 28.7.2001.                                                         breach and the loss or damage sustained by the injured parties.
                                                                                In order to determine whether the infringement is sufficiently
                                                                                serious when the infringement at issue stems from such a
                                                                                decision, the competent national court, taking into account the
                                                                                specific nature of the judicial function, must determine whether
                                                                                that infringement is manifest. It is for the legal system of each
                                                                                Member State to designate the court competent to determine
                                                                                disputes relating to that reparation.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 July 2003 in Case T-102/00 Vlaams Fonds voor de Sociale Integratie van Personen met een Handicap v Commission of the European Communities (Social policy — European Social Fund — Reduction of financial assistance — Right to a fair hearing — Article 24 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 — Statement of reasons)

text:
C 213/26               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                             6.9.2003
                                                       COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 17 June 2003
                           of 2 July 2003
                                                                          in Case T-52/00: Coe Clerici Logistics SpA v Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities ( 1)
in Case T-99/98: Hameico Stuttgart GmbH and Others v
Council of the European Union and Commission of the                       (Competition — Complaint — Articles 82 EC and 86 EC —
                   European Communities ( 1)                                                Admissibility — Port services)
                                                                                (2003/C 213/49)
(Actions for damages — Common organisation of the
markets — Bananas — Import scheme — Undertakings in                                            (Language of the case: Italian)
                         the former GDR)
                                                                          In Case T-52/00, Coe Clerici Logistics SpA, established in
                          (2003/C 213/48)
                                                                          Trieste (Italy), represented by G. Conte, G.M. Giacomini and
                                                                          E. Minozzi, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
                   (Language of the case: German)                         v Commission of the European Communities (Agents: R. Lyal
                                                                          and L. Pignataro), supported by Autorità Portuale di Ancona,
                                                                          represented by S. Zunarelli, C. Perrella and P. Manzini, lawyers:
                                                                          Application for annulment of the Commission’s letter of
                                                                          20 December 1999 (D 17482) refusing to act on the
In Case T-99/98, Hameico Stuttgart GmbH, formerly A & B                   applicant’s complaint based on Articles 82 EC and 86 EC,
Fruchthandel GmbH, established in Stuttgart (Germany),                    the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
Amhof Frucht GmbH, established in Schwabhausen                            J.D. Cooke, President, R. García-Valdecasas and P. Lindh,
(Germany), Hameico Dortmund GmbH, formerly Dessau-                        Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the
Bremer Frucht GmbH, established in Dortmund (Germany),                    Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 June 2003, in which it:
Hameico Fruchthandelsgesellschaft mbH, formerly Bremen-
Rostocker-Frucht GmbH, established in Rostock (Germany),                  1.     Dismisses the application;
Leipzig-Bremer Frucht GmbH, established in Leipzig (Ger-
many), represented by G. Schohe, lawyer, with an address for              2.     Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay those
service in Luxembourg, v Council of the European Union                           incurred by the Commission;
(Agents: J.-P. Hix and A. Tanca), Commission of the European
                                                                          3.     Orders the Autorità Portuale di Ancona to bear its own costs.
Communities (Agents: K.-D. Borchardt and A. von Bogdandy),
supported by Kingdom of Spain (Agent: R. Silva de Lapuerta):
Application for compensation for the damage allegedly suf-                (1 ) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.
fered by the applicants as a result of the application of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 of 13 February 1993 on the
common organisation of the market in bananas (OJ 1993
L 47, p. 1) and of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1442/93
of 10 June 1993 laying down detailed rules for the application                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
of the arrangements for importing bananas into the Com-
munity (OJ 1993 L 142, p. 6), the Court of First Instance (First                                     of 9 July 2003
Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, N.J. Forwood
and H. Legal, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the                 in Case T-102/00 Vlaams Fonds voor de Sociale Integratie
Registrar, has given a judgment on 2 July 2003, in which it:              van Personen met een Handicap v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
1.     Dismisses the application;
                                                                          (Social policy — European Social Fund — Reduction of
                                                                          financial assistance — Right to a fair hearing — Article 24
2.     Orders the applicants to bear their own costs in addition to        of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 — Statement of reasons)
       those incurred by the Council and the Commission. The
       Kingdom of Spain is to bear its own costs.                                                   (2003/C 213/50)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
( 1) OJ C 312 of 10.10.1998.
                                                                          In Case T-102/00, Vlaams Fonds voor de Sociale Integratie
                                                                          van Personen met een Handicap, established in Brussels
 ---pagebreak--- 6.9.2003                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                             C 213/27
(Belgium), represented by J. Stuyck, lawyer, with an address for            cation for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2001/
service in Luxembourg, v Commission of the European                         418/EC of 7 June 2000 relating to a proceeding pursuant to
Communities (agents: H.M.H. Speyart and L. Flynn) — an                      Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA
application for annulment of Commission Decision C (2000)                   Agreement (Case COMP/36.545/F3 — Amino Acids) (OJ 2001
36 of 31 January 2000 reducing the amount of financial                      L 152, p. 24) or a reduction in the fine imposed on the
assistance initially provided by Decision C (1994) 3059 of                  applicants, the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),
25 November 1994 approving the grant of assistance through                  composed of: M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi,
the European Social Fund for an operational programme under                 Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
the Community framework of support for the achievement of                   given a judgment on 9 July 2003, in which it:
Objective 3 in Belgium (Flemish Community) — the Court of
First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of V. Tiili, Presi-
dent, and P. Mengozzi and M. Vilaras, Judges; Registrar:                    1.     Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Cheil Jedang Corp. at
J. Plingers, Administrator, gave the following judgment on                         EUR 10 080 000;
9 July 2003:
                                                                            2.     Dismisses the remainder of the application;
1.     Commission Decision C (2000) 36 of 31 January 2000
       reducing the amount of financial assistance initially provided       3.     Orders Cheil Jedang Corp. to bear its own costs and to pay two
       by Decision C (1994) 3059 of 25 November 1994 approving                     thirds of the Commission’s costs and orders the Commission to
       the grant of assistance through the European Social Fund for                bear one third of its own costs.
       an operational programme under the Community framework of
       support for the achievement of Objective 3 in Belgium
       (Flemish Community) is annulled in so far as it reduces by           (1 ) OJ C 316 of 4.11.2000.
       EUR 181 067 the financial assistance under the European
       Social Fund of which the Vlaams Fonds voor de Sociale
       Integratie van Personen met een Handicap is the recipient;
2.     The Commission is ordered to pay the costs.
( 1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.00.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 9 July 2003
                                                                            in Case T-223/00: Kyowa Hakko Kogyo Co. Ltd and
                                                                            Kyowa Hakko Europe GmbH v Commission of the
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                     European Communities ( 1)
                            of 9 July 2003
                                                                            (Competition — Cartel — Lysine — Guidelines on the
                                                                            method of setting fines — Applicability — Gravity of the
in Case T-220/00: Cheil Jedang Corp. v Commission of the                          infringement — Turnover — Concurrent sanctions)
                    European Communities ( 1)
                                                                                (2003/C 213/52)
(Competition — Cartel — Lysine — Guidelines on the
method of setting fines — Applicability — Gravity and
duration of the infringement — Turnover — Mitigating                                             (Language of the case: English)
                            circumstances)
                           (2003/C 213/51)
                                                                            In Case T-223/00, Kyowa Hakko Kogyo Co. Ltd, established in
                                                                            Tokyo (Japan), Kyowa Hakko Europe GmbH, established in
                    (Language of the case: English)                         Düsseldorf (Germany), represented by C. Canenbley, and
                                                                            K. Diedrich, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxem-
                                                                            bourg, v Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
                                                                            W. Wils, R. Lyal and J. Flynn): Application for partial annul-
In Case T-220/00, Cheil Jedang Corp., established in London                 ment of Commission Decision 2001/418/EC of 7 June 2000
(United Kingdom), represented by A.R.M. Bell, solicitor,                    relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC
R.P. Gerrits, lawyer, and J. Killick, barrister, with an address for        Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/
service in Luxembourg, v Commission of the European                         36.545/F3 — Amino Acids) (OJ 2001 L 152, p. 24) or a
Communities (Agents: W. Wils, R. Lyal and J. Flynn): Appli-                 reduction in the fine imposed on the applicants, the Court of


title: Judgment of the Court of 26 July 2011 in Case E-4/11 — Arnulf Clauder (Directive 2004/38/EC — Family reunification — Right of residence for family members of EEA nationals holding a right of permanent residence — Condition to have sufficient resources)

text:
               24.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/9

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 26 July 2011
   in Case E-4/11
   Arnulf Clauder
   (Directive 2004/38/EC — Family reunification — Right of residence for family members of EEA nationals holding a right of permanent residence — Condition to have sufficient resources)
   2011/C 344/06
   In Case E-4/11 Arnulf Clauder — REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof des Fürstentums Liechtenstein (Administrative Court of the Principality of Liechtenstein), concerning the interpretation of Article 16(1) in conjunction with Article 7(1) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Benedikt Bogason (ad hoc), Judges, gave judgment on 26 July 2011, the operative part of which is as follows:
   Article 16(1) of Directive 2004/38/EC is to be interpreted such that an EEA national with a right of permanent residence, who is a pensioner and in receipt of social welfare benefits in the host EEA State, may claim the right to family reunification even if the family member will also be claiming social welfare benefits.


title: Case C-279/13: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen — Sweden) — C More Entertainment AB v Linus Sandberg (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Copyright and related rights — Directive 2001/29/EC — Information society — Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights — Article 3(2) — Direct broadcast of a sporting fixture on an internet site)

text:
               26.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/2

         Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen — Sweden) — C More Entertainment AB v Linus Sandberg
   (Case C-279/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Copyright and related rights - Directive 2001/29/EC - Information society - Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights - Article 3(2) - Direct broadcast of a sporting fixture on an internet site))
   (2015/C 171/02)
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Högsta domstolen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: C More Entertainment AB

      Defendant: Linus Sandberg

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 3(2) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation extending the exclusive right of the broadcasting organisations referred to in Article 3(2)(d) as regards acts of communication to the public which broadcasts of sporting fixtures made live on internet, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, may constitute, provided that such an extension does not undermine the protection of copyright.

      (1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.


title: Case T-749/16: Action brought on 28 October 2016 — Stemcor London and Samac Steel Supplies v Commission

text:
               9.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/41

         Action brought on 28 October 2016 — Stemcor London and Samac Steel Supplies v Commission
   (Case T-749/16)
   (2017/C 006/51)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Stemcor London Ltd (London, United Kingdom), Samac Steel Supplies Ltd (London) (represented by: F. Di Gianni and C. Van Hemelrijck, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1329 of 29 July 2016 levying the definitive anti-dumping duty on the registered imports of certain cold-rolled flat steel products originating in the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation (OJ 2016, L 210, p. 27), and

               —

               order the Commission to bear the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the interpretation and application of the ‘importer’s awareness’ condition laid down in Article 10(4)(c) of the Basic Anti-dumping Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 is wrong and unlawful.

                           —

                           First limb: the interpretation contained in the Regulation (EU) 2016/1329 (the ‘Contested Regulation’) about the importer’s awareness condition laid down in Article 10(4)(c) of the Basic Anti-dumping Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 is wrong and unlawful.

                           —

                           Second limb: an interpretation of Article 10(4)(c) of the Basic Anti-dumping Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 in light of the well-established means of interpretation of EU law and of the WTO AD Agreement shows that, in order to determine whether such condition is satisfied, the Commission must assess the actual knowledge of the importer.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the assessment of the ‘substantial rise in imports’ condition was wrongfully based on a period starting in the first full month after publication of the initiation of the investigation in the Official Journal and ending in the last full month preceding the imposition of provisional measures.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the interpretation relied upon in the Contested Regulation about the ‘seriously undermining of the remedial effect’ condition laid down in Article 10(4)(d) of the Basic Anti-dumping Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 is wrong and unlawful.

                           —

                           First limb: the Commission wrongfully carried out a global assessment of the ‘seriously undermining of the remedial effect’ condition laid down in Article 10(4)b of the Basic regulation, while it should have carried out an individual analysis of the conduct of each importer to determine whether its imports did contribute to the alleged serious undermining of the remedial effects of the duties.

                           —

                           Second limb: the Contested Regulation is flawed insofar as it concludes that the retrospective application of duties on imports occurred during the registration period would avoid the remedial effect of the duties from being seriously undermined.


title: Case T-654/13: Action brought on 6 December 2013 — Gako Konietzko v OHIM (Shape of packaging)

text:
               8.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/26

         Action brought on 6 December 2013 — Gako Konietzko v OHIM (Shape of packaging)
   (Case T-654/13)
   2014/C 39/46
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Gako Konietzko GmbH (Bamberg, Germany) (represented by S. Reinhardt, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 September 2013 in Case R 2232/2012-1;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs including the costs incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: the three-dimensional mark, representing the shape of packaging, for goods in Classes 3, 5 and 10 — Community trade mark application No 10899037

      Decision of the Examiner: the application was rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009


title: Case T-669/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — Trioplast Industrier v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market in industrial plastic bags — Action for annulment — Challengeable act — Admissibility — Action for damages — Default interest — Concept of a debt which is certain, of a fixed amount and due — Proportionality — Legal certainty — Principle that penalties must be specific to the individual and to the offence — Lack of legal basis — Article 266 TFEU — Causal link)

text:
               27.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/12

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — Trioplast Industrier v Commission
   (Case T-669/14) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market in industrial plastic bags - Action for annulment - Challengeable act - Admissibility - Action for damages - Default interest - Concept of a debt which is certain, of a fixed amount and due - Proportionality - Legal certainty - Principle that penalties must be specific to the individual and to the offence - Lack of legal basis - Article 266 TFEU - Causal link))
   (2016/C 232/15)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Trioplast Industrier AB (Smålandsstenar, Sweden) (represented by: T. Pettersson and A. Johansson, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka, L. Parpala and P. Rossi, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application, first, for annulment of the decision allegedly contained in the letter of the Commission of 3 July 2014 in case COMP/38.354 (Industrial bags — Trioplast Industrier AB) and, secondly, for damages under the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Trioplast Industrier AB to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 409, 17.11.2014.


title: Case T-305/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  27 October 2005  — Eden v OHIM (Community trade mark — Olfactory mark: Smell of ripe strawberries — Absolute ground for refusal — Sign not capable of being represented graphically — Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               24.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 330/22

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 October 2005 — Eden v OHIM
   (Case T-305/04) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Olfactory mark: Smell of ripe strawberries - Absolute ground for refusal - Sign not capable of being represented graphically - Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2005/C 330/54)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Eden SARL (Paris, France) (represented by M. Antoine-Lalance, avocat)

      Defendant(s): Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)
   Application for
   annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 May 2004 (Case R 591/2003-1) concerning registration of the olfactory sign, Smell of ripe strawberries, as a Community trade mark
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 262, 23.10.2004.


No C 131 /24             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                 26 . 4 . 97
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       Partial removal from the register in Joined Cases T-366/94
                                                                                and Others (M
The applicants are all engaged in business as opticians                                              ( 97/C 131/56 )
and are, as required by law, members of the
Hoofdbedrijfsschap Ambachten (Trades and Crafts                           By order of 4 February 1997, the President of the First
Council ). That body, a public corporation, has imposed a                 Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
levy on the applicants pursuant to rules laid down in that                Communities has ordered the removal of Case T-20/95
regard, the proceeds from which are used for collective                   from the list of cases in Joined Cases T-366/94 and
advertising on behalf of the opticians' trade. In their                   Others : Hilde Diekmeier and Others v. Council of the
complaint to the Commission, the applicants maintain                      European Union and Commission of the European
that those ( non-notified ) rules are contrary to Article 92 of           Communities .
the EC Treaty.
                                                                          H OJ No C 74, 25 . 3 . 1995 .
They assert, in opposition to the contested decision, not
only that it infringes procedural requirements but also that
it is not open to the Commission to exempt aid measures
from the obligation to give prior notification, let alone to
do so with retroactive force ('). In addition, the
Commission has failed to take action in respect of an                            Removal from the register of Case T-199/95 (')
infringement of Article 54 ( 3 ) (h ) of the EC Treaty.                                              ( 97/C 131/57)
(') The provision in issue is the de minimis rule contained in the        By order of 22 January 1997 the President of the Third
    Community guidelines on State aid for small and medium               Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First
    sized enterprises ( SMEs ) ( OJ No C 213 , 19 . 8 . 1992 , p. 2 ).
                                                                          Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                          removal from the register of Case T-199/95 : Nouveau
                                                                          Garage SA and Others v. Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities .
                                                                          (') OJ No C 351 , 30 . 12 . 1995 .
Partial removal from the register in Joined Cases T-77/93
                           and Others (')
                           ( 97/C 131/55 )
By order of 4 February 1997, the President of the First
Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First                            Removal from the register of Case T-137/96 (')
Instance of the European Communities has ordered the                                                 ( 97/C 131/58 )
removal of Case T-77/93 from the list of Joined Cases
T-77/93 and Others : Werner Hiilseberg and Others v.                      By order of 23 January 1997 the President of the Fifth
Council of the European Union and Commission of the                       Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
European Communities.                                                     Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                          Case T-137/96 : Valio Oy v. Commission of the European
(') OJ No C 178 , 18 . 7. 1990.                                           Communities .
                                                                          (') OJ No C 318 , 26 . 10 . 1996 .


title: Case F-82/15: Action brought on 26 May 2015 — ZZ v EIB

text:
               24.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/59

         Action brought on 26 May 2015 — ZZ v EIB
   (Case F-82/15)
   (2015/C 279/75)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Isola and G. Isola, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Investment Bank

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment, first, of the decision not to reimburse the expenses incurred by the applicant for laser treatment undergone in 2007 and, secondly, of the consecutive and connected decisions taken by the bank in 2014.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decision notified on 4 December 2014 and all measures connected, consecutive or prior to it, which certainly include the letters of the EIB of 8 January 2014, 31 January 2014, 14 February 2014, 24 February 2014, 30 April 2014 and 3 July 2014, and the opinion of 26 February 2008 of Dr M., the bank’s medical officer and the report he issued in October 2008 and, lastly, the opinion issued by Dr S. on 6 October 2014;

               —

               order the EIB to reimburse the sum of EUR 3  000, corresponding to the sum spent by the applicant to undergo laser treatment performed on 29 and 31 October 2007 and 21 and 23 November 2007, and to pay compensation assessed on equitable grounds for the material and non-material harm incurred, together with interest and an amount to offset inflation on the sums granted;

               —

               in the alternative, order the European Union to pay EUR 3  000 by way of compensation for the damage incurred by the applicant because of its ambiguous provisions, together with interest and an amount to offset inflation;

               —

               order the EIB and the European Union to pay, on the basis of joint and several liability, compensation assessed on equitable grounds in respect of the non-material harm incurred and to pay the costs of the proceedings.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 December 2002 in Case T-63/01: The Procter & Gamble Company v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Soap bar shape — Compliance with a judgment of the Court of First Instance — Rights of defence — Absolute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
22.2.2003               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 44/27
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
                                                                           and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: S. Bonne and G. Schneider):
                      of 12 December 2002                                  Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of
                                                                           Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
                                                                           (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 February 2001 (Case R 538/
in Case T-63/01: The Procter & Gamble Company v Office
                                                                           1999-2) concerning the registration of a figurative mark
for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
                                                                           containing the abbreviation BioID, the Court of First Instance
                     and Designs) (OHIM) ( 1)
                                                                           (Second Chamber), composed of: R. M. Moura Ramos, Presi-
                                                                           dent, J. Pirrung and A. W. H. Meij, Judges; J. Plingers,
(Community trade mark — Soap bar shape — Compliance                        Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
with a judgment of the Court of First Instance — Rights of                 5 December 2002, in which it:
defence — Absolute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) of
                    Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
                                                                           1.     Dismisses the action;
                           (2003/C 44/50)                                  2.     Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           (1 ) OJ C 227 of 11.8.2001.
In Case T-63/01, The Procter & Gamble Company, established
in Cincinnatti, Ohio (United States of America), represented
by T. van Innis, lawyer, with an address for service in
Luxembourg, v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: O. Montalto and                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
E. Joly): Action brought against the decision of the Third Board
of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                                         of 5 December 2002
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 December 2000
(Case R 74/1998-3), which was notified to the applicant on
11 January 2001, the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),             in Case T-130/01: Sykes Enterprises, Incorp. v Office for
composed of: M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi,              Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has                                      Designs) (OHIM) ( 1)
given a judgment on 12 December 2002, in which it:
                                                                           (Community trade mark — REAL PEOPLE, REAL SOL-
1.     Dismisses the action;                                               UTIONS — Absolute ground for refusal — Distinctive
                                                                                character — Article (7)(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94)
2.     Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                                                                                (2003/C 44/52)
( 1) OJ C 134 of 5.5.2001.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                           In Case T-130/01, Sykes Enterprises, Incorp., established in
                                                                           Tampa, Florida (United States), represented by E. Körner,
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               lawyer, v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
                                                                           (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: J. Crespo Carrillo):
                                                                           Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of
                       of 5 December 2002
                                                                           Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
                                                                           (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 March 2001 (Case R 504/
in Case T-91/01: BioID AG v Office for Harmonisation in                    2000-3), relating to registration of REAL PEOPLE, REAL
the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)                   SOLUTIONS, the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),
                                                                           composed of: R. M. Moura Ramos, President, J. Pirrung and
(Community trade mark — Figurative mark containing the                     A. W. H. Meij, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the
abbreviation BioID — Absolute grounds for refusal —                        Registrar, has given a judgment on 5 December 2002, in
          Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)                     which it:
                           (2003/C 44/51)                                  1.     Dismisses the application;
                   (Language of the case: German)                          2.     Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                                                                           (1 ) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.
In Case T-91/01, BioID AG, established in Berlin (Germany),
in judicial liquidation, represented by A. Nordemann, lawyer,


title: Case C-553/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 2 November 2011 — Bernhard Rintisch v Klaus Eder

text:
               17.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/5

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 2 November 2011 — Bernhard Rintisch v Klaus Eder
   (Case C-553/11)
   2012/C 80/06
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Bernhard Rintisch

      Defendant: Klaus Eder

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 10(1) and (2)(a) of Directive 89/104/EEC (1) be interpreted as meaning that in principle this provision generally precludes a national rule pursuant to which the use of a trade mark (Trade Mark 1) must be presumed even if the trade mark (Trade Mark 1) is used in a form differing from the form in which it was registered, without the differences altering the distinctive character of the trade mark (Trade Mark 1), and if the trade mark in the form used is also registered (Trade Mark 2)?

               2.

               If question 1 is answered in the negative:
               Is the national provision described above under 1 compatible with Directive 89/104/EEC if the national provision is interpreted restrictively as meaning that it is not applicable to a trade mark (Trade Mark 1) which is registered only in order to secure or expand the protection of another registered trade mark (Trade Mark 2) that is registered in the form in which it is used?

               3.

               If question 1 is answered in the affirmative or question 2 is answered in the negative:

                           (a)

                           Is there no use of a registered trade mark (Trade Mark 1) within the meaning of Article 10(1) and (2)(a) of Directive 89/104/EEC

                                       (aa)

                                       if the trade mark proprietor uses the form of a sign which differs only in elements from the form in which it (Trade Mark 1) and a further trade mark (Trade Mark 2) of the trade mark proprietor are registered but the differences do not alter the distinctive character of the trade marks (Trade Mark 1 and Trade Mark 2);

                                       (bb)

                                       if the trade mark proprietor uses two forms of sign, neither of which corresponds to the registered trade mark (Trade Mark 1), but one of the forms used (Form 1) is the same as another registered trade mark (Trade Mark 2) of the trade mark proprietor and the second form used by the trade mark proprietor (Form 2) differs in elements from both registered trade marks (Trade Mark 1 and Trade Mark 2), without the differences altering the distinctive character of the trade marks, and if this form of sign (Form 2) displays greater similarity to the other trade mark (Trade Mark 2) of the trade mark proprietor?

                           (b)

                           Is a court of a Member State permitted to apply a national provision (here the second sentence of Paragraph 26(3) of the Law on trade marks (MarkenG)) which conflicts with a provision of a directive (here Article 10(1) and (2)(a) of Directive 89/104/EEC) in cases in which the facts of the case had already occurred prior to a decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union in which indications of the incompatibility of the Member State’s legislation with the provision of the directive became apparent for the first time (the judgment of 13 September 2007 in Case C-234/06 Il Ponte Finanziaria v OHIM (BAINBRIDGE) [2007] ECR I-7333) if the national court values the reliance of a party to the court proceedings on the validity of his position, secured under constitutional law, more highly than the interest in the implementation of a provision of the directive?

      (1)  First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1).


title: Case C-419/07: Action brought on 12 September 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden

text:
               24.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/18

         Action brought on 12 September 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden
   (Case C-419/07)
   (2007/C 283/33)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: K. Mojzesowicz and V. Bottka, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing correctly to implement Article 2 of Directive 2002/77/EC of 16 September 2002 on competition in the markets for electronic communications networks and services (1) (the Competition Directive), the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations thereunder;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The digital broadcasting licences issued by the Swedish Government are State measures which, inter alia, regulate the use of digital broadcasting services and thus indirectly the supply of such services in the Kingdom of Sweden. The requirement in the currently valid licences that the licence holder is to comply with section 2 of the cooperation agreement indirectly gives the State company Boxer a monopoly for access control services (including encryption), contrary to Article 2(1) of the Competition Directive. The retention of the obligation to comply with that section of the cooperation agreement thus prevents undertakings interested in offering a complete range of digital broadcasting services from enjoying the rights which Article 2(2) and (3) is intended to guarantee to them. The Commission therefore notes that Sweden has failed correctly to implement the Competition Directive in its national legal order with regard to digital transfer and broadcasting services over the terrestrial network.

      (1)  OJ 2002 L 249, p. 21.


title: Case C-244/08: Action brought on 4 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/28

         Action brought on 4 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-244/08)
   (2008/C 209/42)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Aresu and M. Afonso, Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, with regard to the refund of VAT to a taxable person established in another Member State or in a non-member country, even where that person has a fixed establishment, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 1 of Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC (1) of 6 December 1979 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country, and Article 1 of Thirteenth Council Directive 86/560/EEC (2) of 17 November 1986 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in Community territory, in so far as it obliges a taxable person whose registered office is in a Member State or in a non-member country but who has a fixed establishment which, during the period concerned, supplied goods or services in Italy, to obtain a refund of input VAT by means of the mechanisms provided for in those directives, rather than by means of deduction, where goods or services are purchased not through the fixed establishment in Italy but directly from the place in which that person is principally established;

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the present action, the Commission requests the Court of Justice to declare that it is incompatible with Community law for an Italian measure to oblige a person who is subject to VAT whose registered office is in a Member State or in a non-member country but who also has a fixed establishment in Italy which, during the period concerned, has supplied goods or services in Italy, to obtain a refund of input VAT by means of the mechanisms provided for in Directive 79/1072/EEC (the Eighth VAT Directive) and Directive 86/560/EEC (the Thirteenth VAT Directive) rather than by means of the normal deduction mechanism provided for as a general rule in Directive 77/388/EEC (3) (the Sixth VAT Directive), where goods or services are purchased not through the fixed establishment in Italy but directly from the place in which that person is principally established abroad.
   Such a measure, which makes it excessively cumbersome for the taxpayers concerned to comply with their tax obligations, is, in the Commission's view, contrary to the provisions and fundamental principles of the above-mentioned VAT directives, which provide that a foreign taxpayer who has a fixed establishment in Italy and who engages in commercial transactions in Italy from that establishment, must be able to use the normal deduction mechanism provided for in the Sixth Directive, even if some commercial transactions are effected directly from the place in which that person is principally established.

      (1)  OJ 1979 L 331, p. 11.

      (2)  OJ 1986 L 326, p. 40.

      (3)  OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1 — Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment.


title: Case C-492/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Mercato San Severino (Italy) lodged on 26 September 2011 — Ciro Di Donna v Società imballaggi metallici Salerno Srl (SIMSA)

text:
               26.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/16

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Mercato San Severino (Italy) lodged on 26 September 2011 — Ciro Di Donna v Società imballaggi metallici Salerno Srl (SIMSA)
   (Case C-492/11)
   2011/C 347/25
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Giudice di Pace di Mercato San Severino

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ciro Di Donna

      Defendant: Società Imballaggi Metallici Salerno Srl (SIMSA)

      Questions referred

   Do Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, proclaimed at Nice on 7 December 2000, as adopted at Strasbourg on 12 December 2007, Directive 2008/52/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters, the general European Union law principle of effective judicial protection and, in general, European Union law as a whole prevent the introduction in a Member State of the European Union of a set of rules such as that established in Italy by Legislative Decree No 28/2010 and Ministerial Decree No 180/2010, as amended by Ministerial Decree No 145/2011, under which:

               —

               a court hearing subsequent legal proceedings may infer evidence against a party who, without valid reason, has failed to participate in compulsory mediation;

               —

               where legal proceedings brought after the rejection of a settlement proposal are concluded by a judgment in precisely the same terms as those of the rejected proposal, the court must disallow recovery of the costs sustained by a successful party who rejected the settlement proposal in respect of the period following the making of the proposal and must order that party to pay the costs of the unsuccessful party in respect of the same period and to make a further payment to the state treasury in the same amount as that already paid in respect of fees (contributo unificato) (lump sum payment in respect of court fees relating to the case payable on instituting proceedings);

               —

               where there are serious and exceptional reasons, a court may disallow recovery of the costs incurred by the successful party in respect of the remuneration paid to the mediator and the fees of any expert, even where the judgment concluding legal proceedings is not in exactly the same terms as those of the settlement proposal;

               —

               the court must order any party who has failed without valid reason to participate in mediation to pay to the state treasury a sum equal to the contributo unificato payable in respect of the proceedings;

               —

               the mediator may, or must, make a proposal for conciliation even in the absence of any agreement between the parties and even where the parties fail to participate in mediation;

               —

               the period within which the attempt at mediation must be completed may be up to four months;

               —

               an action may be proceeded with, even after expiry of the period of four months from the commencement of the mediation procedure, only after a report confirming that no agreement has been reached has been obtained from the secretariat of the mediation body concerned, drafted by the mediator and setting out the proposal that has been rejected;

               —

               there may be more than one attempt at mediation — and the period allowed for resolving the dispute will be multiplied accordingly — whenever a new application is legitimately made in the course of legal proceedings that have, in the meantime, been instituted;

               —

               the costs of compulsory mediation are at least twice those of the legal proceedings that mediation is designed to avoid, a disparity which increases exponentially as the amount involved in the case increases (to such an extent that the costs of mediation may reach more than six times those of legal proceedings) and the complexity of the case increases (such as to require the appointment of an expert, paid by the parties to the mediation, to assist the mediator in disputes that call for specific technical knowledge, even though any technical report prepared by the expert and the information he has obtained may not be used in any subsequent legal proceedings)?’

      (1)  OJ L 136, p. 3.


title: Case C-448/02: Action brought on 11 December 2002 by the Hellenic Republic against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
8.2.2003                EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 31/13
The Appellant claims that the Court should:                              findings that the relevant consumer is not used to regarding
                                                                         designs applied to the surface of glass sheets as an indication
                                                                         of the trade origin of the goods, and that the design is not
1.    annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance of               immediately recognisable as an indication of the trade origin
      9 October 2002 in Case T-36/01 Glaverbel v. Office for             of the goods but as a functional component.
      Harmonization (glass pattern) in so far as it found that
      the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization
      in the Internal Market (Trademarks and Designs) did not
                                                                         (1 ) OJ C 118, 21.04.2001, p. 41.
      infringe Article 7 (1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC)
                                                                         (2 ) OJ L 011, 14.01.1994, p. 1.
      No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community
      trademark ( 2) in adopting its decision of 30 November
      2000 (Case R 137/2000-1).
2.    annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of
      the Office of Harmonization in the Internal Market
      (Trademarks and Designs) of 30 November 2000 (Case R
      137/2000-1) in so far as it refused the application
      No. 811 281 for registration of a design applied to a
      surface of the goods (glass pattern) as a trademark on the
      basis of Article 7 (1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94;                  Action brought on 11 December 2002 by the Hellenic
                                                                         Republic against the Commission of the European Com-
                                                                                munities
3.    orders the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
      Market (Trademarks and Designs) to pay the costs both
      at first instance and on appeal.                                                           (Case C-448/02)
                                                                                (2003/C 31/19)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
By annulling the contested decision for the infringement of a            Communities on 11 December 2002 by the Hellenic Republic,
right to a hearing with respect to the arguments based on                represented by Ioannis Khalkias and Georgios Kanellopoulos,
Article 7 (3) of Regulation No 40/94 and in doing so on that             Members of the State Legal Service, with an address for service
ground alone, the contested judgment allowed that part of the            in Luxembourg at the Greek Embassy, 117 Val Sainte-Croix.
decision relating to the registrability of the Community
trademark application in respect of Article 7 (1)(b) of the
Regulation to stand.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         —     annul or, in the alternative, amend Commission Decision
The Appellant maintains that in order for the OHIM to                          C(2002) 3771 of 14 October 2002 amending Decision
take the necessary measures to comply with the contested                       1999/187/EC ( 1), relating to the exclusion from Com-
judgment, the OHIM could therefore simply confine itself to                    munity funding of certain expenditure incurred by the
considering the arguments submitted by the Appellant in                        Member States within the framework of the Guarantee
respect of Article 7 (3) without altering its interpretation of                Section of the EAGGF (2), so far as concerns financial
Article 7 (1)(b) of the Regulation. Accordingly the Appellant                  corrections to the detriment of the Hellenic Republic in
submits that it has an interest in appealing the contested                     the arable crops sector for the financial year 1995.
judgment.
The Appellant submits that the CFI was wrong in finding that             Grounds for annulment and main arguments
the sign in question is devoid of any distinctive character for
the purposes of Article 7 (1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 and
that that finding is based on a wrong assessment and                     —     The differences are not actual; incorrect interpretation
interpretation of the aforementioned article. The Appellant                    and application of Article 5(2)(c) of Regulation (EEC)
also maintains that the Board of Appeal was not correct in its                 No 729/70.
 ---pagebreak--- C 31/14                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                         8.2.2003
—     Lump-sum financial corrections have already been                   Pleas in law and main arguments
      imposed in respect of the crop years 1994, 1995 and
      1996 for the same reason; lack of a statement of reasons,
      or otherwise an insufficient statement of reasons, because
      of an error as to the facts, of misappraisal of the facts and      The time-limit for transposition expired on 31 July 2001.
      of a failure to take account of relevant matters.
—     In the alternative: the Commission lacked competence
      ratione temporis; incorrect interpretation and application         (1 ) OJ 1999 L 201, p. 77.
      of Article 5(2)(c) of Regulation No 729/70 and
      Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1663/95.
( 1) OJ No L 61, 10.3.1999, p. 37.
( 2) OJ No L 280, 18.10.2002, p. 88.
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Penale
                                                                         di Terni (Italy) by order of that court of 20 November
                                                                             2002 in criminal proceedings against Antonio Niselli
Action brought on 11 December 2002 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                               Spain                                                              (Case C-457/02)
                         (Case C-449/02)
                                                                                (2003/C 31/21)
                          (2003/C 31/20)
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by order of the Tribunale Penale di
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before the
                                                                         Terni (Italy) of 20 November 2002, which was received at the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 11 December
                                                                         Court Registry on 18 December 2002, for a preliminary
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,                      ruling in criminal proceedings against Antonio Niselli on the
represented by Maria Patakia, Legal Adviser, and Isabel Martí-
                                                                         following questions to determine whether the definition of
nez del Peral, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents.
                                                                         ‘waste’ introduced by Directive 75/442/EEC (1), as amended by
                                                                         Directive 91/156/EEC (2), must continue to be understood and
                                                                         interpreted for the time being in Italy in the light of the case-
The applicant claims that the Court should :                             law of the Court of Justice cited above or in the light of
                                                                         Article 14 of Legislative Decree No 138 of 8 July 2002,
                                                                         converted into Law No 178 of 8 August 2002:
—     Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
      within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      Directive 1999/42/EC ( 1) of the European Parliament and
      of the Council of 7 June 1999 establishing a mechanism             Must the concept of waste be strictly subject to the following
                                                                         conditions: that the words ‘discards’, ‘intends to discard’ or ‘is
      for the recognition of qualifications in respect of the
      professional activities covered by the Directives on liberal-      required to discard’, introduced into Italian law by
                                                                         Article 6(1)(a) of Legislative Decree No 22 of 5 February 1997,
      isation and transitional measures and supplementing the
      general systems for the recognition of qualifications or,          are to be interpreted as follows:
      in any event, by failing to communicate them, the
      Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      that directive;                                                    (a)   ‘discards’: any conduct whereby, directly or indirectly,
                                                                               substances, materials or goods are disposed of or subject-
                                                                               ed to disposal or recycling, in accordance with Annexes B
—     Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.                             and C to Legislative Decree No 22;


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 27 June 2000 in Case T-608/97: Onno Plug v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Act adversely affecting an official — Confirmatory act — Inadmissibility)

text:
9.9.2000                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 259/21
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                at Poperinge (Belgium), Noël Boone SPRL, established at
                                                                           Herseaux (Belgium), J. Grayet et G. Heidner SPRL, established
                           of 27 June 2000                                 at Welkenraedt (Belgium), Straps SA, established at Chaudfon-
                                                                           taine (Belgium), Ziegler SA, established in Brussels, Maison
                                                                           Parent SCRL, established at Hertain (Belgium), Magemon
in Case T-608/97: Onno Plug v Commission of the                            SA, established at Liège (Belgium), Garsou-Augenot SPRL,
                    European Communities (1)                               established at Verviers (Belgium), and Somimpex SPRL, estab-
                                                                           lished at Mouscron (Belgium), represented by P. Cavenaile and
(Officials — Act adversely affecting an official — Confirma-               K. Tanghe, of the Liège Bar, with an address for service in
                     tory act — Inadmissibility)                           Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. Schmitt, 62 Avenue
                                                                           Guillaume, v Council of the European Union (Agents:
                                                                           M.C. Giorgi and G. Houttuin) and Commission of the Euro-
                           (2000/C 259/36)
                                                                           pean Communities (Agent: H. van Lier) — applications for
                                                                           compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the appli-
                                                                           cants as a result of the establishment, with effect from
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           1 January 1993, of the internal market in accordance with the
                                                                           Single European Act, and of the consequent discontinuance of
In Case T-608/97: Onno Plug, a former member of the                        the activities which they had hitherto carried on as customs
temporary staff of the Commission of the European Communi-                 agents in the field of intra-Community trade — the Court of
ties, residing at Thônex (Switzerland), represented by G. Van-             First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts,
dersanden and L. Lévi, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for            President, and J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Société de Gestion                 made an order on 16 June 2000, the operative part of which
Fiduciaire SARL, 2-4 Rue Beck, v Commission of the European                is as follows:
Communities (Agents: G. Valsesia and J. Currall) — application
for annulment of the decision contained in the Commission’s                1.    Cases T-611/97 and T-619/97 to T-627/97 are joined for
letter of 14 January 1997 and, in so far may be necessary, of                    the purposes of the further steps to be taken in the proceedings.
the decision of 12 September 1997 rejecting the complaint of
16 April 1997 — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber),               2.    The actions are dismissed as manifestly unfounded in law.
composed of: R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas, President, and P. Lindh
and J.D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on               3.    The applicants are to bear her own costs and to pay the costs of
27 June 2000, the operative part of which is as follows:                         the Council.
1.     The action is dismissed as inadmissible.                            4.    The Commission is to bear its own costs.
2.     The parties are to bear their own costs.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 55 of 20.2.1998 and OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.
(1) OJ C 55 of 20.2.1998.
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                          of 15 June 2000
                           of 16 June 2000                                 in Case T-614/97: Aduanas Pujol Rubio SA and Others v
                                                                           Council of the European Union and Commission of the
in Joined Cases T-611/97 and T-619/97 to T-627/97:                                            European Communities (1)
Transfluvia NV and Others v Council of the European
 Union and Commission of the European Communities (1)                      (Non-contractual liability — Single European Act — Cus-
                                                                                toms agent — Action manifestly unfounded in law)
(Non-contractual liability — Single European Act — Cus-
      toms agent — Action manifestly unfounded in law)                                               (2000/C 259/38)
                           (2000/C 259/37)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
              (Languages of the case: French and Dutch)                    In Case T-614/97: Aduanas Pujol Rubio SA, established in
                                                                           Barcelona (Spain), and 115 others, represented by S. Muñoz
In Joined Cases T-611/97 and T-619/97 to T-627/97: Transflu-               Machado, of the Madrid Bar, with an address for service in
via NV, established at Menen (Belgium), Wybo NV, established               Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. May, 398 Route d’Esch, v