title: Case T-74/03: Action brought on 3 March 2003 by Intech EDM B.V. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
24.5.2003              EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                             C 124/25
The applicants claim that the Court should:                              Action brought on 3 March 2003 by Intech EDM B.V.
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
—     find the defendant liable for the harm suffered by the
      applicants as a result of the attack on 27 March 2002 on                                     (Case T-74/03)
      the Park Hotel in Netanya (Israel);
—     order the defendant, in respect of the harm suffered by                                     (2003/C 124/44)
      the applicants, to pay the following amounts:
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
      —     to Lucien Zaoui, EUR 1 million in compensation for
            non-material damage;
      —     to Bernard Zaoui, EUR 1,5 million, in compensation           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
            for non-material damage;                                     ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 3 March 2003 by Intech EDM B.V.,
      —     to Déborah Stain, née Zaoui:                                 Lomm (Netherlands), represented by M. Karl, Rechtsanwalt.
            —    EUR 1 million in respect of bodily injury;              The applicant claims that the Court should:
            —    EUR 2 millions in respect of non-material               —     annul the Commission’s decision of 17 December 2002
                 damage;                                                       (Case COMP/E-2/37.667 — Special Graphite);
            —    an amount to be settled in the course of                —     in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed by Article 3(h)
                 proceedings for material damage.                              of the decision;
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                              —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         The applicant distributes isostatically pressed special graphite,
The applicants are relatives of Mrs Zaoui, who died on                   but does not itself produce it. Its activity in the European
27 March 2002 when a Palestinian terrorist carried out an                special graphite market is based on a cooperation agreement
attack on a hotel in Israel. The applicants claim that the               between itself and Ibiden Co. Ltd., a Japanese producer
education in the Palestinian territories in the West Bank and in         of isostatic special graphite. The Commission accused the
the Gaza strip is the certain and direct cause of the attack             applicant, a former subsidiary of the latter and various
which cost Mrs Zaoui her life, since that education incites              producers of isostatic special graphite (including Ibiden) of
individuals to hatred and terrorism. They claim that the                 taking part in a continuing agreement and/or concerted
defendant participated financially in that form of education,            practice on the market for special graphite in the European
the content of which it was presumably aware of and on which             Community and the European Economic Area. According to
it could have an influence. According to the applicants, the             the Commission’s finding, the applicant participated from
defendant also infringed the provisions applicable to the                February 1994 to May 1997 at European and regional level.
financial support programmes (Articles 6 and 177(2) of the
EC Treaty), the principles of sound financial management, the
agreements entered into between the Communities and the
                                                                         The applicant argues that the Commission has wrongly
United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian
refugees (UNRWA), Article 3 of Regulation No 1488/96/EC                  classified it as an offender. In reality, at least for the period up
and Amendment No 177 to the 2002 EC General Budget. In                   to 26 September 1995, the applicant could only be classified
                                                                         as a helper of Ibiden. According to Article 15(2) of Regulation
that context, they claim that the liability of the Communities
has been incurred by virtue of the second paragraph of                   No 17, a helper cannot be punished with a fine. The applicant
                                                                         further maintains that the Commission ignored several mitigat-
Article 288 of the EC Treaty.
                                                                         ing circumstances, particularly the subsidiary role of the
                                                                         applicant, and the fact that it voluntarily ended its participation
                                                                         long before the other participants and long before the Com-
                                                                         mission first intervened.
 ---pagebreak--- C 124/26              EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                      24.5.2003
The applicant further argues that the fine is flagrantly dispro-           The pleas in law and main arguments are identical with those
portionate to its economic strength and is therefore a breach              in the abovementioned case. The applicant claims that there is
of the principle of proportionality and the Commission’s                   no such single undertaking as Siderpotenza-Lucchini and,
guidelines on fines. The Commission also breached the                      therefore, that the applicant is substantially unconnected to
principle of equal treatment by not fining any of the other                the infringement which is the subject of the decision. In point
marketing companies involved in the cartel and, furthermore,               of fact, the Commission has not take into account of the fact
by imposing fines on the participating manufacturers which,                that Lucchini SpA has never produced concrete reinforcing
measured in relation to turnover, were far lower than that                 bars.
determined in relation to the applicant. Since the Commission
gave no reason for that worse treatment, there was also an
infringement of the duty to state reasons under Article 253
EC.
                                                                           Action brought on 5 March 2003 by the Government
                                                                           of the Cayman Islands against the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
Action brought on 3 March 2003 by Lucchini S.p.A.                                                   (Case T-85/03)
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (2003/C 124/46)
                         (Case T-80/03)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                        (2003/C 124/45)
                   (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 5 March 2003 by the Government
                                                                           of the Cayman Islands, Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands,
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  represented by Ms Eleanor Sharpston, QC.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 3 March 2003 by Lucchini S.p.A.,
represented by Alberto Santa Maria and Claudio Biscaretti di               The applicant claims that the Court should:
Ruffia, lawyers.
                                                                           —     annul the Commission’s decision not to respond to the
                                                                                urgent request of the Cayman Islands Government to
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                      establish a Partnership Working Party under the Overseas
                                                                                Association Decision,
—     annul the decision of 17 December 2002 C(2002)5087
      final in Case COMP/37.956 — concrete reinforcing bars,               —     order the Commission to pay the Cayman Islands Govern-
      imposing on Lucchini SpA, jointly and severally with S.P.                  ment’s costs.
      SpA, previously known as Siderpotenza SpA, a fine of
      EUR 16,14 million;
—     in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the                   Pleas in law and main arguments
      applicant by the Commission;
—     in any event, order the Commission to pay the costs.                 The Decision challenged in the current case is the Com-
                                                                           mission’s Decision not to respond to the urgent request of the
                                                                           applicant for the establishment of a Partnership Working Party
                                                                           (‘PWP’), in accordance with Article 7 of Council Decision
                                                                           2001/822/EC of 27 November 2001 on the association of the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            overseas countries and territories (OCTs) within the European
                                                                           Community ( 1). The request was made in order to consider
                                                                           OCT representations in relation to the proposal for a Council
The present action has been brought against the decision                   Directive on taxation of savings income in the form of interest
contested in Case T-27/03 S.P. v Commission.                               payments and/or the automatic exchange of information.


title: Case C-372/04: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of  16 May 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — United Kingdom) — The Queen, on the application of Yvonne Watts v Bedford Primary Care Trust, Secretary of State for Health (Social security — National health system funded by the State — Medical expenses incurred in another Member State — Articles 48 EC to 50 EC and 152(5) EC — Article 22 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71)

text:
               15.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/6

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 May 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — United Kingdom) — The Queen, on the application of Yvonne Watts v Bedford Primary Care Trust, Secretary of State for Health
   (Case C-372/04) (1)

   (Social security - National health system funded by the State - Medical expenses incurred in another Member State - Articles 48 EC to 50 EC and 152(5) EC - Article 22 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71)
   (2006/C 165/11)
   Language of the case: English
   Referring court
   Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: The Queen, on the application of Yvonne Watts

      Defendants: Bedford Primary Care Trust, Secretary of State for Health
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — Interpretation of Articles 48, 49, 50, 55 and 152(5) EC and Article 22 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, and of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97 — Conditions for reimbursement of the costs of hospital treatment incurred without prior authorisation in a Member State other than that of the competent authority
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The second subparagraph of Article 22(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to be entitled to refuse to grant the authorisation referred to in Article 22(1)(c)(i) of that regulation on the ground that there is a waiting time for hospital treatment, the competent institution is required to establish that that time does not exceed the period which is acceptable on the basis of an objective medical assessment of the clinical needs of the person concerned in the light of all of the factors characterising his medical condition at the time when the request for authorisation is made or renewed, as the case may be.

               2.

               Article 49 EC applies where a person whose state of health necessitates hospital treatment goes to another Member State and there receives such treatment for consideration, there being no need to determine whether the provision of hospital treatment within the national health service with which that person is registered is in itself a service within the meaning of the Treaty provisions on the freedom to provide services.
               Article 49 EC must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude reimbursement of the cost of hospital treatment to be provided in another Member State from being made subject to the grant of prior authorisation by the competent institution.
               A refusal to grant prior authorisation cannot be based merely on the existence of waiting lists intended to enable the supply of hospital care to be planned and managed on the basis of predetermined general clinical priorities, without carrying out an objective medical assessment of the patient's medical condition, the history and probable course of his illness, the degree of pain he is in and/or the nature of his disability at the time when the request for authorisation was made or renewed.
               Where the delay arising from such waiting lists appears to exceed an acceptable time having regard to an objective medical assessment of the abovementioned circumstances, the competent institution may not refuse the authorisation sought on the grounds of the existence of those waiting lists, an alleged distortion of the normal order of priorities linked to the relative urgency of the cases to be treated, the fact that the hospital treatment provided under the national system in question is free of charge, the obligation to make available specific funds to reimburse the cost of treatment to be provided in another Member State and/or a comparison between the cost of that treatment and that of equivalent treatment in the competent Member State.

               3.

               Article 49 EC must be interpreted as meaning that where the legislation of the competent Member State provides that hospital treatment provided under the national health service is to be free of charge, and where the legislation of the Member State in which a patient registered with that service was or should have been authorised to receive hospital treatment at the expense of that service does not provide for the reimbursement in full of the cost of that treatment, the competent institution must reimburse that patient the difference (if any) between the cost, objectively quantified, of equivalent treatment in a hospital covered by the service in question up to the total amount invoiced for the treatment provided in the host Member State and the amount which the institution of the latter Member State is required to reimburse under Article 22(1)(c)(i) of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, on behalf of the competent institution pursuant to the legislation of that Member State.
               Article 22(1)(c)(i) of Regulation No 1408/71 must be interpreted as meaning that the right which it confers on the patient concerned relates exclusively to the expenditure connected with the healthcare received by that patient in the host Member State, namely, in the case of hospital treatment, the cost of medical services strictly defined and the inextricably linked costs relating to his stay in the hospital.
               Article 49 EC must be interpreted as meaning that a patient who was authorised to go to another Member State to receive there hospital treatment or who received a refusal to authorise subsequently held to be unfounded is entitled to seek from the competent institution reimbursement of the ancillary costs associated with that cross-border movement for medical purposes provided that the legislation of the competent Member State imposes a corresponding obligation on the national system to reimburse in respect of treatment provided in a local hospital covered by that system.

               4.

               The obligation of the competent institution under both Article 22 of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, and Article 49 EC to authorise a patient registered with a national health service to obtain, at that institution's expense, hospital treatment in another Member State where the waiting time exceeds an acceptable period having regard to an objective medical assessment of the condition and clinical requirements of the patient concerned does not contravene Article 152(5) EC.

      (1)  OJ C 273, 6.11.2004.


               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/44

         Removal from the Register of Case T-142/04 (1)

   (2005/C 143/82)

      (Language of the case: Dutch)

   By order of 11 March 2005, the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-142/04, Cargill B.V. v Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 168 of 26.6.2004.


C 122/16               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    29.4.2000
Action brought on 29 February 2000 by the Commission                           Removal from the register of Case C-373/98 (1)
         of the European Communities against Ireland
                                                                                (2000/C 122/30)
                         (Case C-70/00)
                        (2000/C 122/28)                                 By order of 13 January 2000 the President of the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of               from the register of Case C-373/98: Commission of the
Justice of the European Communities on 29 February 2000 by              European Communities v French Republic.
the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by Mr Michael Shotter, a member of its Legal Service, acting as
agent, with an address for service at the office of Mr Carlos
Gómez de la Cruz, a member of its Legal Service, at the                (1) OJ C 378 of 5.12.1998.
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.
The Applicant claims that the Court should:
— declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
     or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     Commission Directive 98/36/EC (1) of 2 June 1998
     amending Directive 96/5/EC on processed cereal-based
     foods and baby foods and baby foods for infants and
     young children (2) or, an any event, by failing to inform the             Removal from the register of Case C-161/99 (1)
     Commission of those measures, Ireland has failed to fulfil
     its obligations under that Directive; and,
                                                                                (2000/C 122/31)
— order Ireland to pay the costs.
                                                                        By order of 13 January 2000 the President of the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        from the register of Case C-161/99: Commission of the
                                                                        European Communities v Italian Republic.
Article 249 EC (ex Article 189 of the EC Treaty) under which
a directive shall be binding as to the result to be achieved,
upon each Member State, carries by implication an obligation
on the Member States to observe the period for compliance               (1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.
laid down in the directive. That period expired on 31 December
1998 without Ireland having enacted the provisions necessary
to comply with the directive referred to in the conclusions of
the Commission.
(1) OJ L 167, 12.06.1998, p. 23.
(2) Commission Directive 96/5/EC, Euratom of 16 February 1996,
    OJ L 049, 28.02.1996, p. 17.
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case C-149/99 (1)
                                                                                (2000/C 122/32)
        Removal from the register of Case C-360/98 (1)                  By order of 14 January 2000 the President of the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                        (2000/C 122/29)                                 from the register of Case C-149/99 (reference for a preliminary
                                                                        ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Johannes Blachnitzky
By order of 13 January 2000 the President of the Court of               v Landes-Grundverkehrskommission beim Amt der Tiroler
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal             Landesregierung.
from the register of Case C-360/98 (reference for a preliminary
ruling from the Conseil de Prud’hommes de Bobigny): Bernard
Bauduin and Laurent Blondeau v SA Renault.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.
(1) OJ C 358 of 21.11.1998.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 May 2005 in Case C-301/02 P Carmine Salvatore Tralli v European Central Bank (Appeal — Staff of the European Central Bank — Recruitment — Extension of the probationary period — Dismissal during the probationary period)

text:
               23.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/1

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 26 May 2005
   in Case C-301/02 P Carmine Salvatore Tralli v European Central Bank (1)

   (Appeal - Staff of the European Central Bank - Recruitment - Extension of the probationary period - Dismissal during the probationary period)
   (2005/C 182/01)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-301/02 P: appeal under Article 49 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice, brought on 26 August 2002, Carmine Salvatore Tralli (represented by N. Pflüger, Rechtsanwalt), the other party to the proceedings being the European Central Bank (Agents: V. Saintot and M. Benisch, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, Rechtsanwalt) — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, A. Rosas, R. Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur), S. von Bahr and K. Schiemann, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 26 May 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Mr Tralli to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 289 of 23.11.2002.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 19 September 2001 in Case T-332/99: Paul Jestädt v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Action for damages — Non-contractual liability — Milk — Additional levy — Reference quantity — Regulation (EC) No 2330/98 — Compensation for producers — Limitation — Action manifestly inadmissible)

text:
2.2.2002                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 31/9
1.    Annuls the ‘Operational Rules on the consultation levels, the               ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      consultation body and related procedures’ agreed between
      the Commission and the majority of the trade unions/staff
      associations on 19 January 2000, in so far as they exclude the
      trade union ‘Action & Défense’ from the consultation body;                                  of 19 September 2001
2.    Orders the Commission to pay all the costs.
                                                                            in Case T-332/99: Paul Jestädt v Council of the European
                                                                             Union and Commission of the European Communities (1)
(1) OJ C 61 of 24.2.2001.
                                                                            (Action for damages — Non-contractual liability — Milk —
                                                                            Additional levy — Reference quantity — Regulation (EC)
                                                                            No 2330/98 — Compensation for producers — Limitation
                                                                                — Action manifestly inadmissible)
                                                                                (2002/C 31/18)
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                       of 15 November 2001                                                     (Language of the case: German)
in Joined Cases T-83/99 and T-84/99 DEP: Carlo Ripa di
    Meana and Leoluca Orlando v European Parliament (1)
                         (Taxation of costs)
                                                                            In Case T-332/99: Paul Jestädt, residing in Großenlüder
                                                                            (Germany), represented by R.J. Seimetz, lawyer, with an address
                            (2002/C 31/17)                                  for service Luxembourg, against Council of the European
                                                                            Union (Agent: A.-M. Colaert) and Commission of the European
                                                                            Communities (Agent: M. Niejahr) — application for compen-
                     (Language of the case: Italian)                        sation under Article 235 and the second paragraph of
                                                                            Article 288 EC, for damage allegedly suffered by the applicant
                                                                            by reason of being prevented from marketing milk pursuant
                                                                            Council Regulation (EC) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984
In Joined Cases T-83/99 and T-84/99 DEP: Carlo Ripa di                      adopting general rules for the application of the levy referred
Meana, former Italian Member of the European Parliament,                    to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the
residing in Montecastello di Vibio (Italy), Leoluca Orlando,                milk and milk products sector (OJ 1984 L 90, p. 13), as
former Italian Member of the European Parliament, residing in               supplemented by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1371/84
Palermo (Italy), represented by W. Viscardini Donà, assisted by             of 16 May 1984 laying down detailed rules for the application
G. Donà, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg,                of the additional levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation
against European Parliament (Agents: A. Caiola and G. Ricci)                (EEC) No 804/68 (OJ L 132, p. 11) — the Court of
—application for taxation of costs to be paid by the defendant              First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of P. Mengozzi,
to the applicants in compliance with the judgment of the                    President, V. Tiili and R.M. Moura Ramos, Judges; H. Jung,
Court of 26 October 2000 in Joined Cases T-83/99 to T-85/99                 Registrar, made an order on 19 September 2001, the operative
Ripa di Meana and Others v Parliament [2000] ECR II-3493                    part of which is as follows:
— the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of
M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili and P. Lindh, Judges; H. Jung,
Registrar, made an order on 15 November 2001, the operative
                                                                            1.    The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
part of which is as follows:
The total amount of costs to be paid by the European Parliament to          2.    The applicant shall bear the costs.
the applicants is fixed at ITL 40 000 000.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 63, 4.3.2000.
( 1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.


title: Case T-118/11: Action brought on 2 March 2011 — Attey v Council

text:
               30.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 130/17

         Action brought on 2 March 2011 — Attey v Council
   (Case T-118/11)
   2011/C 130/30
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Philipp Attey (Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire) (represented by: J. –C. Tchikaya, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011 amending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire, and Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d'Ivoire, to the extent that they concern the applicant;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant puts forward four pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law alleging a manifest error of assessment, in so far as the restrictive measures taken against the applicant on the ground that he is obstructing the process of peace and reconciliation in Côte d’Ivoire and refuses to accept the result of the presidential election are based on the fact that the defendant wrongly considered that A. Ouattara had been elected president of the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire, whereas L. Gbagbo was declared elected president by the Constitutional Council.

               2.

               Second plea in law alleging a misuse of powers, in so far as the contested acts (i) pursue an aim other than that defined in Article 21 TEU, namely the advancement in the wider world of democracy and of the rule of law, L. Gbagbo having been proclaimed president of the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire in a democratic manner and (ii) infringe the Charter of the United Nations, of which the European Union promotes the observance, the defendant having disregarded the principle of non-interference in a State's internal affairs.

               3.

               Third plea in law alleging an infringement of Article 215(3) TFEU, the contested acts not containing any legal safeguard.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law alleging an infringement of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

                           —

                           in that the rights of the defence of the applicant have been infringed, in so far as the defendant has not notified him of the evidence held against him, thereby not allowing the applicant duly to present his point of view in that regard, and

                           —

                           in that there has been an infringement of the right to property of the applicant to a disproportionate extent.


title: Case F-116/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 9 October 2013 — Wahlström v Frontex (Civil service — Temporary agent — Appraisal report — Duty to state reasons — Annual dialogue with the reporting officer — Setting objectives)

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/69

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 9 October 2013 — Wahlström v Frontex
   (Case F-116/12) (1)

   (Civil service - Temporary agent - Appraisal report - Duty to state reasons - Annual dialogue with the reporting officer - Setting objectives)
   2013/C 344/126
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Kari Wahlström (Espoo, Finland) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex) (represented by: H. Caniard and S.Vuorensola, Agents, and A. Duron and D. Waelbroeck, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application to annul the applicant’s staff report and claim for compensation

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Rejects the application.

               2.

               Orders Mr Wahlström to bear his own costs and to pay the costs of European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union.

      (1)  OJ C 379, 08.12.2012, p. 39.


title: Case T-308/09: Action brought on 30 July 2009 — Italy v Commission

text:
               26.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 233/19

         Action brought on 30 July 2009 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-308/09)
   2009/C 233/36
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: P. Gentili, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul letter No 4263 of 20 May 2009 of the European Commission — Directorate General for Regional Policy — concerning ‘Regional Operational Programme “Campania” 2000-2006. Request for payment No Sysfin 2009/0154 Adonis A/723 of 12 January 2009’, containing the following decision: ‘The sum of EUR 18 544 968,79 relating to expenditure incurred after 17 May 2006 in relation to measure 1.7 concerning the regional waste management and disposal system is non-eligible’.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-99/09 Italy v Commission. (1)

   The applicant submits, in particular:

               —

               Infringement of Articles 32 and 39 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, (2) in so far as the defendant reduced payment of the expenditure certified in respect of measure 1.7 ‘pending the outcome of Case T-99/09’ and that the fact that there are proceedings pending against previous payment procedure measures is not one of the circumstances in which payment from Structural Funds may be reduced in accordance with the provisions referred to above.

               —

               Infringement of Article 230 EC. It is submitted in this connection that if, as a result of bringing legal proceedings, Member States should fear that subsequent intermediate payments will be reduced, they will no longer have the freedom to exercise the fundamental right to judicial protection.

      (1)  OJ C 102, 1.5.2009, p. 34.

      (2)  OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, p. 1.


title: Case T-335/14: Action brought on 13 May 2014  — Davó Lledó v OHIM — Administradora y Franquicias América and Inversiones Ged (DoggiS)

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/35

         Action brought on 13 May 2014 — Davó Lledó v OHIM — Administradora y Franquicias América and Inversiones Ged (DoggiS)
   (Case T-335/14)
   2014/C 253/50
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: José-Manuel Davó Lledó (Cartagena, Spain) (represented by: J.V. Gil Martí, lawyer)

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

      Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Administradora y Franquicias América, SA and Inversiones Ged Ltda (Santiago de Chile, Chile)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General 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 13 March 2014 in Case R 1824/2013-1 and, accordingly, confirm the original decision of the Cancellation Division of 18 July 2013 rejecting the application for a declaration of invalidity submitted by Administradora y Franquicias América, SA and Inversiones Ged Ltda in respect of Community trade mark No 8 8 94  826‘DoggiS’; order those undertakings to abide by that decision and all its effects; and make an express order for costs against the defendant and other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Figurative mark including the word element ‘DoggiS’ for goods and services in Classes 29, 30 and 43 — Community trade mark No 8 8 94  826

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Applicant

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Administradora y Franquicias América, SA and Inversiones Ged Ltda

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The application for the trade mark was made in bad faith

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Allowed the appeal and annulled in their entirety both the decision of the Cancellation Division and the registration of the contested Community trade mark

      Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

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


title: Case T-346/10: Action brought on 18 August 2010 — Borax Europe v ECHA

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/51

      Action brought on 18 August 2010 — Borax Europe v ECHA
      (Case T-346/10)
      ()
      (2010/C 288/95)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Borax Europe Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: K. Nordlander, lawyer and H. Pearson, Solicitor)

         Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  declare the application for annulment admissible;

                  —

                  annul the decision by ECHA to identify certain borate substances as ‘substances of very high concern’ meeting the criteria set out in Article 57(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (‘REACH’) (1) and to add them to the Candidate List of Substances of Very High Concern for Authorisation (‘candidate list’) on 18 June 2010 (the ‘contested act’);

                  —

                  order ECHA to pay the Applicant’s costs for these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The Applicant seeks the annulment of the decision by ECHA to identify certain borate substances as ‘substances of very high concern’ meeting the criteria set out in Article 57(c) REACH and to add them to the candidate list on 18 June 2010. The contested act was brought to the applicant’s attention by means of an ECHA press release of 18 June 2010.
      The borate substances whose inclusion in the candidate list via the contested act the applicant challenges are: boric acid, CAS No 10043-35-3, EC No 233-139-2; disodium tetraborate, anhydrous; disodium tetraborate decahydrate; disodium tetraborate pentahydrate (CAS Nos 1330-43-4, 1303-96-4, 12179-04-3, EC No 215-540-4) (‘borates’).
      In support of the application, the applicant puts forward three pleas in law.

         First ground: the contested act should be annulled as it was based on Annex XV dossiers which contain manifest errors, leading to a breach of an essential procedural requirement in Article 59 of REACH. Those dossiers indicate, as the justification for ECHA action, that borates are currently classified in Part 3 of Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008, which is factually incorrect.

         Second ground: ECHA adopted the contested act without discharging its function of performing an ‘on the merits’ assessment of whether borates meet the criteria referred to in Article 57(c) of REACH. Thus, in adopting the contested act, ECHA committed manifest errors of assessment, exceeded its powers and infringed the principle of good administration.

         Third ground: finally, borates do not meet the criteria, referred to in Article 57(c) of REACH, for classification as toxic to reproduction category 1 or 2 under Directive 67/548. Accordingly, they are not ‘substances of very high concern’ and their inclusion in the candidate list via the contested act infringes Article 59(8) of REACH.

         (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1)


title: Case T-516/13: Action brought on 16 July 2014  — CW v Council

text:
               6.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 351/9

         Action brought on 16 July 2014 — CW v Council
   (Case T-516/13)
   2014/C 351/10
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: CW (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Tekari, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Council Implementing Decision 2013/409/CFSP of 30 July 2013 applying Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia in so far as it concerns the applicant;

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to pay damages in the amount of EUR 1 00  000 as compensation for the non-pecuniary and material harm suffered by the applicant;

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to bear, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging an absence of legal basis for Decision 2013/409/CFSP (1), inasmuch as that decision is based on a ground other than that set out in Article 1 of Decision 2011/72/CFSP (2), which constitutes the legal basis for the former decision.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to property, in so far as the restrictive measures imposed on the applicant amount to an unjustified restriction of his right to property.

      (1)  Council Implementing Decision 2013/409/CFSP of 30 July 2013 implementing Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ 2013 L 204, p. 52).

      (2)  Council Decision 2011/72/CFSP of 31 January 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ 2011 L 28, p. 62).


title: Case T-353/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 November 2009  Esber v OHIM  Coloris Global Coloring Concept (COLORIS) (Community trade mark  Opposition proceedings  Application for Community figurative mark COLORIS  Earlier national word mark COLORIS  Relative ground for refusal  Genuine use of the earlier trade mark  Article 15(2)(a) and Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 15(1)(a) and Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/47

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 November 2009 — Esber v OHIM — Coloris Global Coloring Concept (COLORIS)
   (Case T-353/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark COLORIS - Earlier national word mark COLORIS - Relative ground for refusal - Genuine use of the earlier trade mark - Article 15(2)(a) and Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 15(1)(a) and Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2010/C 24/81
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Esber, SA (Burceña-Baracaldo, Spain) (represented by: T. Villate Consonni, J. Calderón Chavero and M. Yañez Manglano, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Coloris Global Coloring Concept (Villeneuve Loubet, France) (represented by: K. Manhaeve, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 June 2007 (Case R 1060/2006-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Coloris Global Coloring Concept and Esber, SA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Esber, SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.


title: Case T-736/14: Action brought on 27 October 2014 — Monster Energy v OHIM — Home Focus (MoMo Monsters)

text:
               15.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 448/36

         Action brought on 27 October 2014 — Monster Energy v OHIM — Home Focus (MoMo Monsters)
   (Case T-736/14)
   (2014/C 448/45)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Monster Energy Company (Corona, United States) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Home Focus Development Ltd (Tortola, British Virgin Islands)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: The word mark ‘MoMo Monsters’ — Community trade mark application No 1 0 5 13  372

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 August 2014 in Case R 1167/2013-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-381/13: Action brought on 24 July 2013 — Perfetti Van Melle v OHIM (DAISY)

text:
               21.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/20

         Action brought on 24 July 2013 — Perfetti Van Melle v OHIM (DAISY)
   (Case T-381/13)
   2013/C 274/33
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Perfetti Van Melle SpA (Lainate, Italy) (represented by P. Testa, 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 10 April 2013 in Case R 427/2012-1, in so far as it rejected the application for registration of the trade mark ‘DAISY’ for the following products: confectionery, pastry, sweets, caramels, wine gums, caramel, chewing-gum, gelatine (confectionery), liquorice, lollipops, toffee, pastilles, sugar, chocolate, cocoa.

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Community word mark ‘DAISY’, for goods in Class 30 — Community trade mark application No 10 267 037

      Decision of the Examiner: Application rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law:

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009, since the word ‘DAISY’ is not descriptive;

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009, since the word ‘DAISY’ does not describe an essential characteristic of the product;

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, since the term ‘DAISY’ has distinctive character with regard to confectionery products.


title: Case C-333/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 6 July 2015 — María Pilar Planes Bresco v Comunidad Autónoma de Aragón

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/21

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 6 July 2015 — María Pilar Planes Bresco v Comunidad Autónoma de Aragón
   (Case C-333/15)
   (2015/C 302/26)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: María Pilar Planes Bresco

      Respondent: Comunidad Autónoma de Aragón

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Articles 43 and 44 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (1) of 29 September 2003 be interpreted as precluding national legislation which excludes from treatment as eligible hectares all areas of permanent pasture declared by a farmer in excess of those taken into account at the relevant time for the purpose of determining the normal entitlements due to that farmer, making the inclusion of those areas, and therefore the replacement of arable land with pasture, conditional on the pasture being genuinely given over to the rearing of livestock in the specific financial year in respect of which the farmer seeks to activate the payment entitlements?
               And, should that question be answered in the negative,

               2.

               Must Article 29 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003, in excluding payments under support schemes for beneficiaries of such schemes ‘for whom it is established that they artificially created the conditions required for obtaining such payments with a view to obtaining an advantage contrary to the objectives of that support scheme’, be interpreted as not permitting States to adopt general measures which reduce the number of ‘eligible hectares’ (of permanent pasture) in which the beneficiary will be presumed to have artificially created the conditions required for obtaining payment by laying down general situations in which the beneficiary will be presumed to have artificially created the conditions required for obtaining payment, without establishing, specifically and in relation to a particular farmer, the activity carried on by that farmer and his conduct?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001 OJ 2003 L 270, p. 1.


title: Case F-76/13: Action brought on 9 August 2013 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               5.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 291/7

         Action brought on 9 August 2013 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-76/13)
   2013/C 291/08
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the decision considering the applicant ineligible for the call for expressions of interest CAST/02/2010 and rejecting the PMO’s request for a member of the contract staff to be recruited.

      Form of order sought

               —

               annulment of the decision of the AECE of 8 November 2012 considering the applicant ineligible for the call for expressions of interest CAST2010 and refusing to offer him a contract for an indefinite period as a member of the contract staff for function group III (FGIII);

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-55/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of 25 January 2007 — Rijn Schelde Mondia France v Commission (Action for annulment — Common Customs Tariff — Application for remission of import duties — Measure adversely affecting a person — Inadmissibility)

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/37

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 25 January 2007 — Rijn Schelde Mondia France v Commission
   (Case T-55/05) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Common Customs Tariff - Application for remission of import duties - Measure adversely affecting a person - Inadmissibility)
   (2007/C 82/82)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Rijn Schelde Mondia France SA (Rouen, France) (represented by: F. Citron, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: X. Lewis and J. Hottiaux, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Action for annulment of the Commission decision allegedly contained in the letter of 7 October 2004 concerning the application for remission of import duties (File REM 22/01).
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               The applicant shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 93 of 16.4.2005.


title: Removal from the register of T-187/96

text:
14 . 6 . 97             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                             No C 181 /23
          Removal from the register of T- 187/96 (')                           Removal from the register of T-139/95 (')
                          ( 97/C 181 /50 )                                                       ( 97/C 181 /53 )
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
By order of 19 March 1997 the President of the First
Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First                  By order of 15 April 1997 the President of the Second
Instance of the European Communities has ordered the                  Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
removal from the register of Case T-l 87/96 : Salini                  Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Costruttori SpA v. Commission of the European                         Case T-139/95 : Georges Cantone v. Commission of the
Communities .                                                         European Communities .
(') OJ No C 27, 25 . 1 . 1997.                                        O OJ No C 229 , 2 . 9 . 1995 .
          Removal from the register of T-l 8 8/96 (')                          Removal from the register of T-2 13/96 ( ! )
                            97/C 181 /51 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 181 /54 )
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
By order of 19 March 1997 the President of the First
Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First                  By order of 18 April 1997 the President of the First
Instance of the European Communities has ordered the                  Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
removal from the register of Case T-l 88/96 : Salini                  Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Costruttori SpA v. Commission of the European                         Case T-213/96 : Giorgio Lebedef v. Commission of the
Communities .
                                                                      European Communities .
(>) OJ No C 40, 8 . 2 . 1997 .
                                                                      (') OJ No C 54, 22 . 2 . 1997 .
          Removal from the register of T-196/96 (')
                          ( 97/C 181 /52 )                                     Removal from the register of T-133/96 H
                                                                                ( 97/C 181 /55 )
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
By order of 10 April 1997 the President of the First
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of              By order of 23 April 1997 the President of the First
Case T-196/96 : Giorgio Lebedef v. 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-133/96 : Michael Boessen v. Economic and Social
 1 OJ No C 54 , 22 . 2 . 1997.                                        Committee .
                                                                      (') OJ No C 318 , 26 . 10 . 1996 .


title: Case T-412/12: Action brought on 17 September 2012 — bpost v Commission

text:
               10.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/20

         Action brought on 17 September 2012 — bpost v Commission
   (Case T-412/12)
   2012/C 343/34
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: bpost (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: D. Geradin, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Articles 2, 5, 6 and 7 of the Commission Decision of 25 January 2012 on the measure SA.14588 (C 20/2009) implemented by Belgium in favour of De Post-La Poste (now bpost), which was published in the Official Journal of the EU on 29 June 2012 (OJ 2012 L 170, p. 1);

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging breach of Articles 106(2), 107(1) and (3) TFEU, manifest error of assessment and violation of the principle of equal treatment, by reason of incorrectly concluding that the retail network maintained by bpost was not a distinct Service of General Economic Interest (‘SGEI’), and hence, finding that the compensation received from the Belgian State for the retail network constituted overcompensation.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging breach of Articles 106(2), 107(1) and 107(3) TFEU and manifest error of assessment, by reason of erroneously concluding that retail network costs, which are induced by the universal service obligation, should not be taken into account when calculating the amount of profits from the reserved area of the universal service that exceed the level of a reasonable profit.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging breach of Articles 107 and 106(2) and violation of the principles of proportionality and equal treatment, by reason of mistakenly concluding that net costs of non-mail SGEI’s must be offset with all the profits from the reserved area of the universal service, inasmuch as these profits exceed a reasonable profit.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of Articles 107 and 106(2) TFEU and infringement of the principle of non-retroactivity, by reason of the complete failure to carry forward bpost’s undercompensation accumulated over the years 1992-2005 to offset the amounts of bpost’s alleged overcompensation over the period 2006-2010.


title: Case T-194/10: Action brought on 28 April 2010 — Hungary v Commission

text:
               17.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/19

         Action brought on 28 April 2010 — Hungary v Commission
   (Case T-194/10)
   2010/C 195/32
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Parties

      Applicant: Hungarian Republic (represented by: J. Fazekas, M. Fehér and K. Szijjártó, Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of the registration by the Commission in the E-Bacchus database of the protected designation of origin ‘Vinohradnícka oblasť Tokaj’ in place of the previous Slovak protected designation of origin ‘Tokajská vinohradnícka oblast’.

               —

               An order that the Commission pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant takes issue with the registration of the Slovak protected designation of origin ‘Vinohradnícka oblasť Tokaj’ in the electronic register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications for wine (‘E-Bacchus register’) made by the Commission pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007. (1)

   By its first plea in law the applicant alleges that, by changing the registration the Commission has breached the relevant provisions of Regulation No 1234/2007 and of Regulation (EC) No 607/2009, (2) since the disputed amendment of the original entry in the E-Bacchus register grants automatic protection, pursuant to the new legislation, to a designation which cannot be considered to be an ‘existing protected name’ within the meaning of Article 118s of Regulation No 1234/2007.
   In that connection, the applicant takes the view that on 1 August 2009, the date of the entry into force of the new legislation of the Union on the market in the wine sector, it was the name ‘Tokajská/Tokajské/Tokajský vinohradnícka oblast’ which enjoyed Community protection, as is clear, in particular, from the list of table wines designated by a geographical indication (3) and from the list of quality wines. (4)

   In addition, the applicant alleges that examination of the Slovak legislation yields the same conclusion, given that the new Slovak law on wine, which includes the designation ‘Tokajská vinohradnícka oblast’, was adopted on 30 June 2009. Furthermore, although the applicable regulations have to be interpreted in such a way that the date of the entry into force of the national legislation (1 September 2009) is also relevant for the assessment of the existing protected name, in this case Article 73(2) of Regulation No 607/2009 must be applied by analogy, that is to say, in this case, too, it is the designation included in the new law which must be considered to be an existing protected name within the meaning of Article 118s of Regulation No 1234/2007.
   By its second plea, the applicant alleges that the Commission, in its maintenance and management of the E-Bacchus register and, specifically, by making the disputed registration in this case, has breached the fundamental principles of sound administration, cooperation in good faith and legal certainty recognised by Union law.
   In that connection, the applicant takes the view that, having regard to the principle of sound administration and, in particular, the significance of the register in question, the Commission is required to guarantee that the register contains authentic, reliable and accurate data. The Commission must determine in particular, at the time of the entry into force of the new legislation on the market in the wine sector, which national rules are applicable and which names must be considered to be ‘existing protected names’ under those rules. Further, the applicant considers that the Commission has also breached the principle of cooperation in good faith in that it did not notify the Hungarian Republic in any way, either before or after the event, of the amendment of the entries in the E-Bacchus register relating to Slovakia, although it must have known that the interests of Hungary could be affected. Finally, the applicant alleges that the Commission has also infringed the principle of legal certainty by organising and keeping the register in such a way that, at any time, the entries in it may be changed with retrospective effect without it being possible to determine the actual date of the change.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (OJ 2007 L 229, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 607/2009 of 14 July 2009 laying down certain detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 as regards protected designations of origin and geographical indications, traditional terms, labelling and presentation of certain wine sector products (OJ 2009 L 193, p. 60).

      (3)  List of names of geographical units smaller than the Member State as referred to in Article 51(1) of [Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine (OJ 1999 L 179, p. 1)] (table wines with geographical indication) (published in OJ 2009 C 187, p. 67).

      (4)  List of quality wines produced in specified regions (published in OJ 2009 C 187, p. 1).


title: Judgment of the Court of 20 March 2002 in Case T-9/99, HFB Holding für Fernwärmetechnik Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Cartel — District heating pipes — Article 85 of the Treaty (now Article 81 EC) — Boycott — Fine — Guidelines on setting fines — Objection of illegality — Non-retroactivity — Rights of defence — Leniency notice)

text:
29.6.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 156/13
                                                        COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 20 March 2002
                        of 24 April 2002
                                                                         in Case T-9/99, HFB Holding für Fernwärmetechnik Betei-
                                                                         ligungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG and Others v Com-
in Case T-220/96: Elliniki Viomichania Oplon AE (EVO) v                             mission of the European Communities (1)
Council of the European Union and Commission of the
                   European Communities (1)
                                                                         (Competition — Cartel — District heating pipes —
                                                                         Article 85 of the Treaty (now Article 81 EC) — Boycott —
                                                                         Fine — Guidelines on setting fines — Objection of illegality
(Non-contractual liability for an unlawful act — Regulation              — Non-retroactivity — Rights of defence — Leniency notice)
(EEC) No 2340/90 — Embargo on trade with Iraq —
Impairment of rights equivalent to expropriation — Causal
                                                                                (2002/C 156/24)
                                link)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                         (2002/C 156/23)
                                                                         In Case T-9/99: HFB Holding für Fernwärmetechnik Beteili-
                    (Language of the case: Greek)                        gungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, established in Rosenheim
                                                                         (Germany), HFB Holding für Fernwärmetechnik Beteiligungs-
                                                                         gesellschaft mbH, Verwaltungsgesellschaft, established in
                                                                         Rosenheim, Isoplus Fernwärmetechnik Vertriebsgesellschaft
                                                                         mbH, established in Rosenheim, Isoplus Fernwärmetechnik
                                                                         Gesellschaft mbH, established in Hohenberg Austria, Isoplus
In Case T-220/96, Elliniki Viomichania Oplon AE (EVO),                   Fernwärmetechnik GmbH, established in Sondershausen (Ger-
established in Athens (Greece), represented by T. Fortsakis,             many), represented by P. Krömer and F. Nusterer, lawyers, with
lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Council             an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of
of the European Union (Agent: S. Kyriakopoulou) and Com-                 the European Communities (Agents: W. Mölls and É. Gippini
mission of the European Communities (Agent: M. Condou-                   Fournier) — application for, primarily, annulment of Com-
Durande): Application for compensation for the damage                    mission Decision 1999/60/EC of 21 October 1998 relating to
allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the adoption          a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty (Case No IV/
of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2340/90 of 8 August 1990                  35.691/E-4: — Pre-Insulated Pipe Cartel) (OJ 1999 L 24, p. 1)
preventing trade by the Community as regards Iraq and Kuwait             or, in the alternative, reduction of the fine imposed on the
(OJ 1990 L 213, p. 1), the Court of First Instance (Fourth               applicants by that decision — the Court of First Instance
Chamber), composed of: P. Mengozzi, President, V. Tiili and              (Fourth Chamber), composed of P. Mengozzi, President, V. Tiili
R.M. Moura Ramos, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator,           and R.M. Moura Ramos, Judges; J. Palacio González, Adminis-
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 24 April 2002, in             trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 March
which it:                                                                2002, in which it:
                                                                         1.    Annuls Articles 3(d) and 5(d) of Commission Decision 1999/
1.    Dismisses the application;                                               60/EC of 21 October 1999 relating to a proceeding under
                                                                               Article 85 of the EC Treaty (Case No IV/35.691.E-4: — Pre-
                                                                               Insulated Pipe Cartel) in so far as it relates to HFB Holding für
2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.                                   Fernwärmetechnik Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG and
                                                                               HFB Holding für Fernwärmetechnik Beteiligungsgesellschaft
                                                                               mbH, Verwaltungsgesellschaft;
                                                                         2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;
(1) OJ C 54 of 22.2.1997.
                                                                         3.    Orders the applicants jointly and severally to bear their own
                                                                               costs, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings,
                                                                               and to pay 80 % of the costs incurred by the Commission,
                                                                               including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings;
 ---pagebreak--- C 156/14                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     29.6.2002
4.    Orders the Commission to bear 20 % of its own costs, including                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      those relating to the interlocutory proceedings.
                                                                                of 20 March 2002
(1) OJ C 86 of 27.3.1999.
                                                                            in Case T-16/99, Lögstör Rör (Deutschland) GmbH v
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                            (Competition — Cartel — District heating pipes —
                                                                            Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC) — Boycott
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     — Access to the file — Fine — Guidelines on the method of
                                                                            setting fines — Non-retroactivity — Legitimate expec-
                                                                                tations)
                          of 20 March 2002
in Case T-15/99, Brugg Rohrsysteme GmbH v Com-
          mission of the European Communities (1)                                                     (2002/C 156/26)
(Competition — Cartel — District heating pipes —
Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC) — Boycott                                      (Language of the case: German)
— fine — Guidelines on setting fines — Non-retroactivity
                    — Legitimate expectation)
                           (2002/C 156/25)
                   (Language of the case: German)                           In Case T-16/99, Lögstör Rör (Deutschland) GmbH, established
                                                                            in Fulda (Germany), represented by H.-J. Hellmann and T. Näg-
                                                                            ele, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
                                                                            Commission of the European Communities (Agents: W. Mölls
In Case T-15/99, Brugg Rohrsysteme GmbH, established in                     and E. Gippini Fournier) — application for, primarily, annul-
Wunstorf (Germany), represented by T. Jestaedt, H.-C. Salger                ment of Commission Decision 1999/60/EC of 21 October
and M. Sura, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxem-                 1998 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC
bourg, against Commission of the European Communities                       Treaty (Case No IV/35.691/E-4: — Pre-Insulated Pipe Cartel)
(Agents: W. Mölls and É. Gippini Fournier) — application for               (OJ 1999 L 24, p. 1) or, in the alternative, reduction of the fine
annulment of Commission Decision 1999/60/EC of 21 Octo-                     imposed on the applicant by that decision — the Court of
ber 1998 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC                First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of P. Mengozzi,
Treaty (Case No IV/35.691/E-4: — Pre-Insulated Pipe Cartel)                 President, V. Tiili, and R.M. Moura Ramos, Judges; B. Pastor,
(OJ 1999 L 24, p. 1) or, in the alternative, for reduction of the           Principle Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
fine imposed on the applicant by that decision — the Court of               on 20 March 2002, in which it:
First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of P. Mengozzi,
President, V. Tiili and R.M. Moura Ramos, Judges; G. Herzig,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
20 March 2002, in which it:                                                 1.     Dismisses the application;
1.    Dismisses the application;
                                                                            2.     Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 86 of 27.3.1999.
(1) OJ C 86 of 27.3.1999.


title: Case C-283/08: Action brought on 27 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/32

         Action brought on 27 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-283/08)
   (2008/C 223/49)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: W. Roels and W. Wils, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/29/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’), or in any event by failing to notify the Commission thereof, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period within which the directive had to be transposed into national law expired on 12 June 2007.

      (1)  OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22.


title: Case C-208/10: Action brought on 30 April 2010 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/24

         Action brought on 30 April 2010 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-208/10)
   2010/C 179/39
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Nijenhuis and M. Teles Romão, Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2007/44/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 amending Council Directive 92/49/EEC and Directives 2002/83/EC, 2004/39/EC, 2005/68/EC and 2006/48/EC as regards procedural rules and evaluation criteria for the prudential assessment of acquisitions and increase of holdings in the financial sector and, in any event, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2007/44/EC.

               —

               Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period prescribed for transposing the directive expired on 20 March 2009.

      (1)  OJ 2007 L 247, p. 1.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 May 2005 in Case C-415/03: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (State aid — Obligation to recover — Absolute impossibility of implementation — Absence)

text:
               23.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/10

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 12 May 2005
   in Case C-415/03: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (1)

   (State aid - Obligation to recover - Absolute impossibility of implementation - Absence)
   (2005/C 182/19)
   Language of the case: Greek
   In Case C-415/03 Commission of the European Communities (Agents: D. Triantafyllou and J. Buendía Sierra) v Hellenic Republic (Agents: A. Samoni-Rantou, P. Mylonopoulos, F. Spathopoulos and P. Anestis) — action under Article 88(2) EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 25 September 2003 — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen, G. Arestis and J. Klučka, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; M. Ferreira, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 May 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to take within the prescribed period all the measures necessary for repayment of the aid found to be unlawful and incompatible with the common market — except that relating to the contributions to the national social security institution —, in accordance with Article 3 of Commission Decision 2003/372/EC of 11 December 2002 on aid granted by Greece to Olympic Airways, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that article;

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 289 of 29.11.2003.


title: Case T-165/10: Action brought on 12 April 2010 — Grupo Osborne v OHIM — Confecciones Sanfertús (TORO)

text:
               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/48

         Action brought on 12 April 2010 — Grupo Osborne v OHIM — Confecciones Sanfertús (TORO)
   (Case T-165/10)
   2010/C 148/78
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Grupo Osborne (El Puerto de Santa María, Spain) (represented by: J. Iglesias Monravá, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Confecciones Sanfertús, SL (Graus, Spain)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) in Case R 0638/2009-2;

               —

               Uphold the registration of the Community trade mark No 2 844 264 in Class 25, and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Grupo Osborne.

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘TORO’ (registration application No 2 844 264) for goods and services in Classes 18, 25 and 39.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Confecciones Sanfertús, S.L.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish word mark ‘LETORO’ (No 465 635) for goods in Classes 24 and 25 and Spanish figurative marks containing the word ‘TORO’ (No 802 043 and No 1 513 622) for goods in Class 25.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld and application for registration refused.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

      Pleas in law: Incorrect interpretation of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark; the fact that there is a previous ruling by the Opposition Division which decides on the compatibility of the marks ‘TORO’ and ‘LETORO’; and the fact that the evidence of use presented does not prove the use of the Spanish marks ‘LETORO’ (word) and ‘TORO’ (figurative).


               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/36

         Removal from the register of Case C-93/03 (1)

   (2004/C 94/99)
   By order of 4 December 2003 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case C-93/03: Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic.

      (1)  OJ C 44 of 22.02.2003.


title: Case C-40/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from VAT and Duties Tribunal, Manchester (United Kingdom) made on 29 January 2009 — Astra Zeneca UK Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

text:
               18.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from VAT and Duties Tribunal, Manchester (United Kingdom) made on 29 January 2009 — Astra Zeneca UK Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
   (Case C-40/09)
   2009/C 90/17
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   VAT and Duties Tribunal, Manchester

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Astra Zeneca UK Limited

      Defendant: Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

      Questions referred

               1)

               In the circumstances of this case, where an employee is entitled under the terms of his or her contract of employment to opt to take part of his or her remuneration as a face value voucher, is Article 2(1) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1) [now Article 2(1)(c) of the Principal VAT Directive] to be interpreted such that the provision of that voucher by the employer to the employee constitutes a supply of services for consideration?

               2)

               If the answer to question 1 is no, is Article 6(2)(b) [now Article 26(1)(b)] to be interpreted as requiring the provision of the voucher by the employer to the employee in accordance with the contract of employment to be treated as a supply of services, in circumstances where the voucher is to be used by the employee for his or her private purposes?

               3)

               If the provision of the voucher is neither a supply of services for consideration within the meaning of Article 2(1) nor is to be treated as a supply of services under Article 6(2)(b), is Article 17(2) [now Article 168] to be interpreted so as to permit the employer to recover the value added tax it has incurred in purchasing and providing the voucher to the employee in accordance with the contract of employment in circumstances where the voucher is to be used by the employee for his or her private purposes?

      (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 OJ L 145, p. 1


title: Case T-157/17: Action brought on 10 March 2017 — Cristalfarma v EUIPO — Novartis (ILLUMINA)

text:
               24.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/37

         Action brought on 10 March 2017 — Cristalfarma v EUIPO — Novartis (ILLUMINA)
   (Case T-157/17)
   (2017/C 129/57)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Cristalfarma Srl (Milan, Italy) (represented by: R. Almaraz Palmero, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Novartis AG (Basel, Switzerland)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘ILLUMINA’ — Application for registration No 11 934 239

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 January 2017 in Case R 1187/2016-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO and the other party, should it intervene, to pay the costs of proceedings, including those incurred before the Board of Appeal.

      Pleas in law

               —

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

               —

               Infringement of Articles 75, 42(2) and 64(1) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-286/13 P: Appeal brought on 24 May 2013 by Dole Food Company, Inc., Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd & Co. against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 14 March 2013 in Case T-588/08: Dole Food Company, Inc., Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd & Co. v European Commission

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/14

         Appeal brought on 24 May 2013 by Dole Food Company, Inc., Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd & Co. against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 14 March 2013 in Case T-588/08: Dole Food Company, Inc., Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd & Co. v European Commission
   (Case C-286/13 P)
   2013/C 252/22
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Dole Food Company, Inc., Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd & Co. (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, avocat)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               set aside in whole or in part the judgment under appeal, in so far as the Appellants’ action was dismissed;

               —

               annul in whole or in part the Decision of the Commission of 15 October 2008 in so far as it is related to the Appellants;

               —

               cancel or reduce the fine imposed on the Appellants, also on the basis of the unlimited jurisdiction provided for by Article 261 TFEU;

               —

               in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for determination in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings and of the proceedings before the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the first ground of appeal, which is subdivided into five parts, the Appellants claim that the General Court committed a number of procedural errors in carrying out its review:

               The General Court erred by allowing the Commission to address in the judicial proceedings, for the first time, evidence in its file that contradicted the findings made in the Decision;

               The General Court wrongly rejected the admissibility of the Appellants' submission of evidence from the Commission's file to rebut a claim newly raised by the Commission in its Rejoinder;

               The General Court wrongly rejected the admissibility of an annex introduced by the Appellants to support their argument that the Commission took statements made by the Appellants during the administrative proceedings out of context;

               The General Court breached the equality of arms principle by failing to consider evidence submitted by the Appellants during the judicial proceedings; and

               The General Court failed to properly establish the facts.

         By the second ground of appeal, the Appellants claim that the General Court distorted facts that are crucial to a proper assessment of the impugned conduct in its legal and economic context.
   By the third ground of appeal, which is subdivided in five parts, the Appellants claim that the General Court inadequately assessed the evidence:

               The General Court failed to provide adequate reasons to uphold the market share calculations relied upon by the Commission for purposes of establishing the relevant market structure;

               The General Court erred by concluding that the Commission is not required to specify the content of those discussions the Appellants had with other undertakings which constitute a restriction of competition by object;

               The General Court erred by concluding that the Commission clearly described the content of those discussions the Appellants had with other undertakings which constitute a restriction of competition by object;

               The General Court failed to address the Appellants' argument that certain employees could not exchange credible information; and

               The General Court erred by applying the wrong legal characterization of the facts when concluding that the discussions constitute a restriction of competition by object.

         By the fourth ground of appeal, which is subdivided in two parts, the Appellants claim that the General Court committed various errors in calculating the fine imposed:

               The General Court erred by calculating the fine based on sales of companies in relation to which no finding of an infringement was made; and

               The General Court erred by counting sales of the same products twice for purposes of calculating the fine.


title: Case T -134/06: Action brought on  11 May 2006  — Xentral v OHIM — Pages Jaunes (Word mark  PAGESJAUNES.COM )

text:
               15.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/29

         Action brought on 11 May 2006 — Xentral v OHIM — Pages Jaunes (Word mark ‘PAGESJAUNES.COM’)
   (Case T -134/06)
   (2006/C 165/57)
   Language in which the application was lodged: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Xentral LLC (Miami, United States of America) (represented by: A. Bertrand, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pages Jaunes SA (Sèvres, France)
   Form of order sought
   The applicant asks the Court to:

               —

               set aside Decision R 708/2005-1 dated 15 February 2006;

               —

               uphold the Community trade mark ‘PAGESJAUNES.COM’

               —

               declare that all costs are the responsibility of the Board of Appeal of OHIM.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Xentral LLC

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘PAGESJAUNES.COM’ for goods in Class 16 (application no 1 880 871)

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Pages Jaunes SA

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: National word mark ‘LESPAGESJAUNES’ for goods in Class 16, the business name and the commercial name ‘PAGES JAUNES’

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld for all the goods disputed

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal rejected

      Pleas in law: The applicant relies on its previous right to the domain name ‘PAGESJAUNES.COM’ which, in its view, is enforceable against the opposing party's trade mark and business name.
   It also relies on an infringement of Article 7(1)(c) and (d) of Council Regulation 40/94, in that the opposing party's trade mark is customary and has very little distinctive character.
   It claims that its trade mark, in respect of which registration was sought, does not compromise the business name or commercial name of the opposing party.
   The applicant also disputes the renown of the opposing party's trade mark.


title: Case C-532/12: Order of the President of the Court of 8 March 2013 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               4.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/13

         Order of the President of the Court of 8 March 2013 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-532/12) (1)

   2013/C 129/24
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.