title: Case C-383/09: Action brought on 25 September 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

text:
               19.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 312/16

         Action brought on 25 September 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic
   (Case C-383/09)
   2009/C 312/26
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: O. Beynet and D. Recchia, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: French Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by not establishing a programme of measures to ensure strict protection of the species Cricetus cricetus (the European Hamster), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12(1)(d) of Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1);

               —

               order the French Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its action, the Commission of the European Communities claims that the French Republic has failed to establish, as required by Article 12 of Directive 92/43/EEC, a system of strict protection for the species Cricetus cricetus (the European Hamster) in Alsace, which is the area in France where this species is naturally distributed.
   According to the applicant, a survey of the number of the animal’s burrows showed a significant fall in their numbers in recent years, since the number of burrows has gone from 1167 in 2001 to only 161 in 2007. That being the case, threatened both by unfavourable farming practices and by the pressure of urban development, the species is threatened with complete extinction in the very near future.
   In its application, the Commission recognises that the defendant has taken those problems into account by adopting measures relating both to town planning and farming practices, but those measures are entirely inadequate.
   First, the three priority action areas, which are the areas where the bulk of efforts to protect the species are concentrated, cover only a very small part of the territory which is the animal’s natural habitat since two thirds of the existing burrows are located outside those areas, which themselves represent no more than 2 % of the land which is favourable to the European Hamster. However, if the territory to be covered by the measures for the protection of this species is to be sufficient, it is necessary to take as the minimum point of reference the presence of the European Hamster in 1990, not in 2000.
   Secondly, the protection measures are themselves greatly lacking. The Commission is particularly concerned by the lack of clarity in the legislation in relation to areas which can be re-occupied by the hamster. The national authority has much too great a discretion in the granting of derogations for urban development projects in territories which are the habitat of the hamsters and great uncertainty prevails as regards compensatory measures to be taken for the protection of this species.

      (1)  OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7


title: Case F-137/15: Action brought on 30 October 2015 — ZZ v Council

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/77

         Action brought on 30 October 2015 — ZZ v Council
   (Case F-137/15)
   (2016/C 027/99)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the final decisions to transfer the applicant’s pension rights to the European Union pension scheme, which apply the new general implementing provisions of 3 March 2011 for Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decisions of 5 and 7 January 2015 and the decision of 23 February 2015 calculating the bonus on the applicant’s pension rights acquired prior to taking up his position at the Council;

               —

               annul, so far as necessary, the decision of 23 July 2015 rejecting the applicant’s complaint seeking the application of the general implementing provisions and the actuarial reference rate in force at the time of his application for the transfer of his pension rights;

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.


title: Case C-252/13: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 October 2014  — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directives 2002/73/EC and 2006/54/EC — Equal treatment for men and women — Employment and occupation — Access to employment — Return from maternity leave — Formal requirements for the application initiating proceedings — Coherent summary of the pleas — Unambiguous wording of the form of order sought)

text:
               8.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 439/5

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 October 2014 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-252/13) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directives 2002/73/EC and 2006/54/EC - Equal treatment for men and women - Employment and occupation - Access to employment - Return from maternity leave - Formal requirements for the application initiating proceedings - Coherent summary of the pleas - Unambiguous wording of the form of order sought))
   (2014/C 439/06)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Martin and M. van Beek, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. Bulterman and J. Langer, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.


title: Case T-584/14: Action brought on 29 July 2014  — Inditex v OHIM — Ansell (ZARA)

text:
               29.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 339/27

         Action brought on 29 July 2014 — Inditex v OHIM — Ansell (ZARA)
   (Case T-584/14)
   2014/C 339/32
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Industria de Diseño Textil, SA (Inditex) (Arteixo, Spain) (represented by: C. Duch, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Zainab Ansell and Roger Ansell (Moshi, Tanzania)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 May 2014 in Case R 1118/2013-2 in so far as it confirmed the revocation for non-use of the Community trade mark ‘ZARA’ No 1 12  755 in respect of the following services in Class 39: ‘services in relation to the transport and distribution of goods, in particular, articles of clothing, shoes and accessories, perfumery and cosmetics’, inasmuch as the Board of Appeal infringed Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 by making the following errors:

               —

               error of law by the Board of Appeal in regarding the franchisees of Inditex as integral entities of the internal organisation of the company when, in fact, they are legal entities independent of the Inditex Group;

               —

               error in the assessment of the evidence, inasmuch as the Board of Appeal criticises the appellant for failing to adduce evidence of the turnover generated by the supply of transport services for the purposes of proving external use of the mark, and despite the fact that such evidence was adduced in the proceedings;

               —

               order OHIM, and if appropriate, the intervener, to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: Word mark ‘ZARA’ for services in Classes 39 and 42 — Community trade mark No 1 12  755

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Applicant

      Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark: Zainab Ansell and Roger Ansell

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Application for revocation granted

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case C-275/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 4 June 2012 — Samantha Elrick v Bezirksregierung Köln

text:
               18.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 250/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 4 June 2012 — Samantha Elrick v Bezirksregierung Köln
   (Case C-275/12)
   2012/C 250/16
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Hannover

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Samantha Elrick

      Defendant: Bezirksregierung Köln

      Question referred

   Do Articles 20 and 21 TFEU preclude a rule of national law according to which a German national who has her permanent residence in Germany and attends an educational establishment in a Member State of the European Union is refused a study grant under the Bundesausbildungsförderungsgesetz (BAföG) in respect of her attendance at that foreign educational establishment because the educational course attended abroad is of only one year’s duration, whereas she could have received a study grant under the BAföG for comparable studies in Germany, which would also have lasted for one year?


title: Case C-297/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti (Romania) lodged on 25 May 2016 — Colegiul Medicilor Veterinari din România v Autoritatea Națională Sanitară Veterinară și pentru Siguranța Alimentelor

text:
               29.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti (Romania) lodged on 25 May 2016 — Colegiul Medicilor Veterinari din România v Autoritatea Națională Sanitară Veterinară și pentru Siguranța Alimentelor
   (Case C-297/16)
   (2016/C 314/15)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Bucureşti

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Colegiul Medicilor Veterinari din România

      Respondent: Autoritatea Națională Sanitară Veterinară și pentru Siguranța Alimentelor

      Intervener: Asociaţia Naţională a Distribuitorilor de Produse de Uz Veterinar din România

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does EU law preclude national legislation which provides that veterinary surgeons are to have an exclusive right in relation to the retailing and use of organic products, special purpose anti-parasitic products and veterinary medicinal products?

               2.

               If such an exclusive right is compatible with EU law, does the latter preclude such a right from additionally concerning the structures through which the sale of such products takes place, in the sense that such structures must be mainly or exclusively owned by one or more veterinary surgeons?


title: Action brought on 19 February 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain (Case C-71/97)

text:
5 . 4 . 97              fENl                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 108/ 17
2 . What constitutes a zootechnical ground (Article 2 )?                  Action brought on 19 February 1997 by the Commission
                                                                          of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
3 . What constitutes a pedigree ground (Article 2 )?                                                          Spain
                                                                                ( Case C-71/97)
4 . Must Directive 91 /174/EEC be understood as meaning                                                ( 97/C 108/32 )
       that a Member State may, notwithstanding the
       Directive, ban the importation onto an island such as
       that described in Question 1 of Part I and the                     An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought
        existence there of all bees other than bees belonging to          before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
        the species Apis mellifera mellifera }                            on 19 February 1997 by the Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities, represented by Fernando Castillo de la
                                                                          Torre, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an
        If a Member State can do so under certain conditions,             address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
        the Court is requested to set out those conditions .              Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
(') OJ No L 85 , 5.4. 1991 , p . 37.                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          — declare that, by failing to designate zones considered
                                                                               to be vulnerable and by failing to notify such
                                                                               designations to the Commission, as provided for in
                                                                               Article    3   of    Council       Directive 91 /676/EEC    of
Action brought on 18 February 1997 by the Commission                            12 December 1991 concerning the protection of
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                             waters against pollution caused by nitrates from
                                  Belgium                                      agricultural sources ('), and by failing either to
                            ( Case C-68/ 97 )                                  establish or communicate to the Commission the code
                                                                               or codes of good agricultural practice provided for in
                              ( 97/C 108/31 )                                   Article 4 of the Directive, the Kingdom of Spain has
                                                                                failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive,
 An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
 before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                  — order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs .
 on 18 February 1997 by the Commission of the European
 Communities, represented by Dimitrios Gouloussis, acting                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
 the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,                    The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
 Kirchberg.                                                                relied on in Case C-56/97 (2); the time-limit expired on
                                                                           19 December 1993 .
 The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           (') OJ No L 375 , 31 . 12 . 1991 , p. 1 .
                                                                           (2) See page 12 of this Official Journal.
 — declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force,
         within the prescribed period the laws, regulations or
         administrative provisions necessary to comply fully
         with the Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of
         14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the
         Member States relating to insurance against civil
         liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles ( 1 ), and      Action brought on 19 February 1997 by the Commission
         in particular by failing to transpose into Belgian Law            of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
         Article 5 thereof, or, in the alternative, by not                                                     Spain
         notifying the Commission thereof, the Kingdom of                                               ( Case C-72/97)
         Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the                                           ( 97/C 108/33 )
         EC Treaty and the Directive,
  — order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .                         An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought
                                                                            before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                            on 19 February 1997 by the Commission of the European
  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       Communities, represented by Fernando Castillo de la
                                                                            Torre, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an
  The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those                  address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
  relied on in Case C-56197 (2); the time-limit expired on                  Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
  31 December 1992.
                                                                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
   C ) OJ No L 129 , 19 . 5 . 1990, p. 33 .
   (2 ) See page 12 of this Official Journal .                              — declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
                                                                                or notify the laws, regulations or administrative
                                                                                provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive


title: Case C-462/14: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 April 2016 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bari — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Lorenzo Carlucci (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Identical questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Articles 49 and 56 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Betting and gaming — National legislation — Reorganisation of the licensing system through the alignment of licence expiry dates — New call for tenders — Licences for a shorter term than that of the former licences — Transfer, free of charge, of the rights to use tangible and intangible assets owned constituting the network for the management and collection of bets — Restriction — Overriding reasons in the public interest — Proportionality)

text:
               25.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/7

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 April 2016 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bari — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Lorenzo Carlucci
   (Case C-462/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Identical questions referred for a preliminary ruling - Articles 49 and 56 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Freedom to provide services - Betting and gaming - National legislation - Reorganisation of the licensing system through the alignment of licence expiry dates - New call for tenders - Licences for a shorter term than that of the former licences - Transfer, free of charge, of the rights to use tangible and intangible assets owned constituting the network for the management and collection of bets - Restriction - Overriding reasons in the public interest - Proportionality))
   (2016/C 270/09)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Bari

      Criminal proceedings against

   Lorenzo Carlucci

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU and the principles of equal treatment and effectiveness must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation on betting and gaming, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the organisation of a new call for tenders for the award of licences with a shorter period of validity than that of the licences awarded in the past on account of the reorganisation of the system through the alignment of licence expiry dates.

               2.

               Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a restrictive national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which requires a licensee of a betting and gambling service to transfer, free of charge, on the cessation of business as a result of the expiry of the final term of the licence, the rights to use tangible and intangible assets which he owns and which constitute his network for the management and collection of bets, in so far as that restriction goes beyond what is necessary to attain the objective actually pursued by that provision, which is for the referring court to verify..

      (1)  OJ C 448, 15.12.2014.


title: Case C-526/16: Action brought on 12 October 2016 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

text:
               16.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 14/21

         Action brought on 12 October 2016 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-526/16)
   (2017/C 014/27)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Owsiany-Hornung and C. Zadra, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland

      Form of order sought

   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by excluding projects to locate and search for mineral deposits by means of drilling to a depth of 5 000 metres — with the exception of drilling in areas intended for water extraction, areas containing protected inland waters and nature protection areas in the form of national parks, nature reserves, landscape parks and ‘Natura 2000’ protection areas and the contiguous protection zones, in which drilling to a depth of more than 1 000 metres is subject to the procedure for determining whether an environmental impact assessment is necessary — from the procedure for determining whether an environmental impact assessment is necessary, by setting, for drilling outside areas intended for water extraction, areas containing protected inland waters and the various nature protection areas indicated and their contiguous protection zones, a threshold value triggering that procedure which fails to take account of all of the essential selection criteria set out in Annex III to Directive 2011/92 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, (1), the Republic of Poland has failed to comply with its obligations under Articles 2(1) and 4(2) and (3) of that directive, read in conjunction with Annexes II and III thereto;

               —

               order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission claims that the Republic of Poland has infringed Articles 2(1) and 4(2) and (3) of Directive 2011/92, read in conjunction with Annexes II and III to that directive.
   Article 2(1) of Directive 2011/92 requires the Member States to ensure that ‘before development consent is given, projects likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue, inter alia, of their nature, size or location are made subject to a requirement for development consent and an assessment with regard to their effects on the environment’.
   Under Article 4(2) of Directive 2011/92 the Member States are required to determine, by means of a case-by-case examination or by means of thresholds or criteria which they set (that is to say, within the framework of a ‘screening’), whether projects covered by Annex II to that directive must be made subject to an environmental impact assessment.
   Under Article 4(3) of Directive 2011/92, in the determination of the criteria or thresholds for the ‘screening’, ‘the relevant selection criteria set out in Annex III shall be taken into account’.
   Drilling activity designed to locate and search for mineral deposits come under Annex II to Directive 2011/92, as these relate to ‘deep drillings’ within the meaning of point 2(d) of that annex.
   These are projects in respect of which it cannot, on the basis of an overall assessment, be said that they do not have significant effects on the environment.
   The Member States are, in the Commission’s view, under an obligation, through application of the essential criteria set out in Annex III to Directive 2011/92, to subject such projects to a ‘screening’.
   However, the measures of national law by which Directive 2011/92 has been transposed in the Polish legal order exclude from the ‘screening’ procedure projects to locate and search for mineral deposits by means of drilling activity to a depth of 5 000 metres (with the exception of drilling in so-called ‘sensitive areas’, that is to say, in areas intended for water extraction, areas containing protected inland waters and nature protection areas in the form of national parks, nature reserves, landscape parks and ‘Natura 2000’ protection areas and the contiguous protection zones, in which drilling to a depth of more than 1 000 metres is subject to the ‘screening’ procedure).
   This essentially has the result that the vast majority of drilling activities designed to locate and search for mineral deposits situated outside the ‘sensitive areas’ are excluded from the ‘screening’ procedure.
   Such an exclusion in disregard of all of the essential criteria set out in Annex III to Directive 2011/92 is, in the Commission’s view, at variance with Articles 2(1) and 4(2) and (3) of Directive 2011/92, read in conjunction with Annexes II and III to that directive.

      (1)  OJ 2012 L 26, p. 1.


title: Case C-304/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 24 May 2017 — Helga Löber v Barclays Bank PLC

text:
               14.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/6

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 24 May 2017 — Helga Löber v Barclays Bank PLC
   (Case C-304/17)
   (2017/C 269/09)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Helga Löber

      Defendant: Barclays Bank PLC

      Question referred

   Under Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, (1) in non-contractual claims based on prospectus liability where

               —

               the investor took his investment decision caused by the defective prospectus at the place where he is domiciled

               —

               and, on the basis of that decision, he transferred the purchase price for the security acquired on the secondary market from his account held with an Austrian bank to a clearing account held with another Austrian bank, from where the purchase price was subsequently transferred to the seller by order of the applicant,

               (a)

               does jurisdiction lie with the court within whose area of jurisdiction the investor is domiciled,

               (b)

               does jurisdiction lie with the court within whose area of jurisdiction the seat/the account-keeping branch of the bank with which the applicant has his bank account from which he transferred the amount invested to the clearing account is located,

               (c)

               does jurisdiction lie with the court within whose area of jurisdiction the seat/the account-keeping branch of the bank which keeps the clearing account is located,

               (d)

               does jurisdiction lie with one of those courts at the choice of the applicant,

               (e)

               does jurisdiction lie with none of those courts?

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.


title: Case C-267/12: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France)) — Frédéric Hay v Crédit agricole mutuel de Charente-Maritime et des Deux-Sèvres (Directive 2000/78/EC — Equal treatment — Collective agreement which restricts a benefit in respect of pay and working conditions to employees who marry — Exclusion of partners entering into a civil solidarity pact — Discrimination based on sexual orientation)

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/12

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France)) — Frédéric Hay v Crédit agricole mutuel de Charente-Maritime et des Deux-Sèvres
   (Case C-267/12) (1)

   (Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment - Collective agreement which restricts a benefit in respect of pay and working conditions to employees who marry - Exclusion of partners entering into a civil solidarity pact - Discrimination based on sexual orientation)
   2014/C 52/18
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Frédéric Hay

      Defendant: Crédit agricole mutuel de Charente-Maritime et des Deux-Sèvres

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation (France) — Interpretation of Article 2(2)(b) of Council Directive No 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16) — Admissibility of a national collective agreement which reserves an advantage in respect of pay and working conditions to employees who marry and excludes from the benefit of that advantage same-sex partners who have entered into a civil solidarity pact — Discrimination based on sexual orientation — Possibility of justifying indirect discrimination by a legitimate, appropriate and necessary aim.

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 2(2)(a) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as precluding a provision in a collective agreement, such as the one at issue in the main proceedings, under which an employee who concludes a civil solidarity pact with a person of the same sex is not allowed to obtain the same benefits, such as days of special leave and a salary bonus, as those granted to employees on the occasion of their marriage, where the national rules of the Member State concerned do not allow persons of the same sex to marry, in so far as, in the light of the objective of and the conditions relating to the grant of those benefits, that employee is in a comparable situation to an employee who marries.

      (1)  OJ C 250, 18.8.2012.


title: Judgment of the Court of 25 November 2003 in Case C-278/01: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Judgment of the Court establishing such failure — Non-compliance — Article 228 EC — Financial penalties — Penalty payment — Quality of bathing water — Directive 76/160/EEC)

text:
10.1.2004               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                   C 7/7
      the product that it designates is accorded protection in the           ruling in the criminal proceedings before that court against
      importing Member State, whether or not there is any risk of            Piergiorgio Gambelli and Others on the interpretation of
      consumers being misled, and the import of a product lawfully           Articles 43 EC and 49 EC, the Court, composed of: V. Skouris,
      marketed in another Member State may be prevented.                     President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans and J.N. Cunha
                                                                             Rodrigues (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward (Rappor-
3.    The first paragraph of Article 307 EC is to be interpreted as          teur), R. Schintgen, F. Macken, N. Colneric and S. von Bahr,
      permitting a court of a Member State, subject to the findings to       Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal
      be made by that court having regard inter alia to the criteria set     Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
      out in this judgment, to apply the provisions of bilateral             6 November 2003, in which it has ruled:
      agreements such as those at issue in the main proceedings,
      concluded between that State and a non-member country and
      according protection to a name from the non-member country,            National legislation which prohibits on pain of criminal penalties the
      even where those provisions prove to be contrary to the EC             pursuit of the activities of collecting, taking, booking and forwarding
      Treaty rules, on the ground that they concern an obligation            offers of bets, in particular bets on sporting events, without a licence
      resulting from agreements concluded before the date of the             or authorisation from the Member State concerned constitutes a
      accession of the Member State concerned to the European                restriction on the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide
      Union. Pending the success of one of the methods referred to in        services provided for in Articles 43 and 49 EC respectively. It is for
      the second paragraph of Article 307 EC in eliminating any              the national court to determine whether such legislation, taking
      incompatibilities between an agreement predating that accession        account of the detailed rules for its application, actually serves the
      and the Treaty, the first paragraph of that article permits that       aims which might justify it, and whether the restrictions it imposes
      State to continue to apply such an agreement in so far as it           are disproportionate in the light of those objectives.
      contains obligations which remain binding on that State under
      international law.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.
(1) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       of 6 November 2003                                                            of 25 November 2003
in Case C-243/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                    in Case C-278/01: Commission of the European Communi-
the Tribunale di Ascoli Piceno): Piergiorgio Gambelli and                                         ties v Kingdom of Spain (1)
                              Others (1)
                                                                             (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Judgment
(Right of establishment — Freedom to provide services —                      of the Court establishing such failure — Non-compliance —
Collection of bets on sporting events in one Member State                    Article 228 EC — Financial penalties — Penalty payment
and transmission by internet to another Member State —                           — Quality of bathing water — Directive 76/160/EEC)
Prohibition enforced by criminal penalties — Legislation in
a Member State which reserves the right to collect bets to
                           certain bodies)                                                                (2004/C 7/11)
                           (2004/C 7/10)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             In Case C-278/01, Commission of the European Communities
In Case C-243/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC                (Agent: G. Valero Jordana) v Kingdom of Spain (Agent: S. Ortiz
by the Tribunale di Ascoli Piceno (Italy) for a preliminary                  Vaamonde): Application, first, for a declaration that, by not
 ---pagebreak--- C 7/8                    EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                             10.1.2004
taking the necessary measures to ensure that the quality of                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
inshore bathing water in Spanish territory conforms to the
limit values set in accordance with Article 3 of Council
Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975 concerning the                                                  (Fifth Chamber)
quality of bathing water (OJ 1976 L 31, p. 1), notwithstanding
its obligations under Article 4 of that directive, the Kingdom
of Spain has not complied with the judgment of the Court of
Justice in Case C-92/96 Commission v Spain [1998] ECR I-                                             of 6 November 2003
505, and has accordingly failed to fulfil its obligations under
Article 228 EC and, second, for an order that the Kingdom of
Spain be required to pay to the Commission, into the account                  in Case C-293/00: Kingdom of the Netherlands v Com-
‘European Community own resources’, a penalty payment of                                mission of the European Communities (1)
EUR 45 600 per day of delay in adopting the measures
necessary to comply with the said judgment in Commission v
Spain, from the date on which judgment is delivered in this
case until the date on which the said judgment in Commission                  (Annulment of Commission Decision 2000/362/EC of
v Spain is complied with, the Court, composed of: V. Skouris,                 25 May 2000 on the total amount of Community aid for the
President, C.W.A. Timmermans, C. Gulmann and J.N. Cunha                       eradication of classical swine fever in the Netherlands in
Rodrigues (Rapporteur)             (Presidents of Chambers),                                                  1997)
D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen,
F. Macken, N. Colneric and S. von Bahr, Judges; J. Mischo,
Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the                                           (2004/C 7/12)
Registrar, has given a judgment on 25 November 2003, in
which it:
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
1.    Declares that, by not taking the measures necessary to ensure           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
      that the quality of inshore bathing water in Spanish territory                             in the European Court Reports)
      conforms to the limit values set in accordance with Article 3 of
      Council Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975 concern-
      ing the quality of bathing water, notwithstanding its obligations
      under Article 4 of that directive, the Kingdom of Spain has not
      taken all the measures necessary to comply with the Court’s
      judgment of 12 February 1998 in Case C-92/96 Commission                 In Case C-293/00, Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents:
      v Spain and has accordingly failed to fulfil its obligations under      A. Fierstra, C. Wissels and J. G. M. van Bakel) v Commission of
      Article 228 EC.                                                         the European Communities (Agent: T. van Rijn): Application
                                                                              for annulment of Commission Decision 2000/362/EC of
                                                                              25 May 2000 on the total amount of Community aid for the
                                                                              eradication of classical swine fever in the Netherlands in 1997
2.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay to the Commission of the
                                                                              (OJ 2000 L 129, p. 33), in so far as the financial aid granted to
      European Communities, into the account ‘European Community
                                                                              the Netherlands by the Community for the eradication of
      own resources’, a penalty payment of EUR 624 150 per year
                                                                              classical swine fever in 1997 is reduced by 25 % of the
      and per 1 % of bathing areas in Spanish inshore waters which
                                                                              amounts paid to farmers by way of compensation, the Court
      have been found not to conform to the limit values laid down
                                                                              (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President
      under Directive 76/160 for the year in question, as from the
                                                                              of the Fourth Chamber, acting as President of the Fifth
      time when the quality of bathing water achieved in the first
                                                                              Chamber, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr,
      bathing season following delivery of this judgment is ascertained
                                                                              Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal
      until the year in which the judgment in Commission v Spain is
                                                                              Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
      fully complied with.
                                                                              6 November 2003, in which it:
3.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.                           1.    Dismisses the application.
                                                                              2.    Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.
                                                                              (1) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2000.


title: Case T-80/11: Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2013 — Nath Kalsi v OHIM — American Clothing Associates (RIDGE WOOD) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark RIDGE WOOD — Earlier Community figurative mark River Woods North-Eastern Suppliers — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               29.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 189/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2013 — Nath Kalsi v OHIM — American Clothing Associates (RIDGE WOOD)
   (Case T-80/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark RIDGE WOOD - Earlier Community figurative mark River Woods North-Eastern Suppliers - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 189/35
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Dwarka Nath Kalsi and Ajit Nath Kalsi (Agra, India) (represented by: J. Schmidt, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: K. Klüpfel, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: American Clothing Associates (Evergem, Belgium) (represented by: C. De Keersmaeker, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 November 2010 in Case R 599/2010-1, relating to opposition proceedings between, on the one hand, American Clothing Associates and, on the other hand, Dwarka Nath Kalsi and Ajit Nath Kalsi

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 19 November 2010 (Case R 1073/2010-2) in so far as it concerns goods in Class 24 covered by the mark applied for and the services ‘processing and finishing of skins, leather, furs and textiles’ in Class 40 and covered by the earlier mark No 2785459;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders Dwarka Nath Kalsi and Ajit Nath Kalsi, and OHIM to each pay their own costs;

               4.

               Orders American Clothing Associates to pay its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 103, 2.4.2011.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 17 October 1995 in Case C-83/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Darmstadt): Criminal proceedings against Peter Leifer and Others (Common commercial policy - Export of dual-use goods)

text:
25 . 11 . 95           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 315/5
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                   Darmstadt ( Germany ) for a preliminary ruling in the
                      of 17 October 1995                               criminal proceedings pending before that court against Peter
                                                                       Leifer, Reinhold Otto Krauskopf and Otto Holzer — on the
in Case C-70/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from the          interpretation of Articles 113 , 223 ( 1 ) ( b ) and 224 of the EC
Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main ): Fritz Werner                   Treaty, and Articles 1 and 11 of Council Regulation ( EEC )
Industrie-Ausrüstungen GmbH v. Federal Republic of                     No 2603/69 of 20 December 1969 establishing common
                              Germany ( J )                            rules for exports ( OJ English Special Edition 1969 ( II ),
(Common commercial policy — Export of dual-use                         p. 590 ), as amended by Council Regulation ( EEC )
                                goods)                                 No 3918/91 of 19 December 1991 ( OJ 1991 L372,p . 31 ) —
                           ( 95/C 315/08 )                             the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President,
                                                                       C. N. Kakouris, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet and G.
                (Language of the case: German)                         Hirsch ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, F. A.
                                                                       Schockweiler, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida , P. J. G. Kapteyn
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be           ( Rapporteur ), C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, P. Jann and H.
          published in the European Court Reports)                     Ragnemalm, Judges ; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; D.
                                                                       Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the
In Case C-70/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177 of          Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 October 1995 in
the EC Treaty from the Verwaltungsgericht ( Administrative             which it rules that :
Court ) Frankfurt am Main for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings pending before that court between Fritz Werner
                                                                       1 . Article 113 of the EC Treaty is to be interpreted as
Industrie-Ausrüstungen GmbH and the Federal Republic of
Germany — on the interpretation of Article 113 of the EC                    meaning that rules restricted exports of dual-use goods
                                                                            to non-member countries fall within the scope of that
Treaty — the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias,
President, C. N. Kakouris, D. A. O. Edward , J. -P. Puissochet
                                                                            Article and that in this matter the Community has
and G. Hirsch ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini ,
                                                                            exclusive competence, which therefore excludes the
                                                                            competence of the Member States save where the
F. A. Schockweiler, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G.
                                                                            Community grants them specific authorization;
Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ), C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, P. Jann
and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; F. G. Jacobs,
Advocate-General; D. Louterman-Hubeau , Principal                      2 . Under Article 11 of Council Regulation (EEC)
Adminstrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                    No 2603/69 of20 December 1 969 establishing common
17 October 1995 , in which it rules that:                                   rules for exports, at last amended by Council Regulation
                                                                            (EEC) No 3918/91 of 19 December 1991 , a Member
Article 113 of the EC Treaty, and in particular Article 11 of               State may, exceptionally, adopt national measures
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2603/69 of 20 December                          restricting the export of dual-use goods to non-member
1969 establishing common rules for exports, do not                          countries on the ground that this is necessary in order to
preclude national provisions applicable to trade with                       prevent the risk of a serious disturbance to its foreign
non-member countries under which the export of a product                    relations or to the peaceful coexistence of nations which
capable of being used for military purposes is subject to the               may affect the public security of a Member State within
issue ofa licence on the ground that this is necessary in order             the meaning of that article;
to avoid the risk of a serious disturbance to its foreign
relations which may affect the public security of a Member
State within the meaning of Article 11 of the Regulation.              3 . If there is a threat to public security, which is a matter
                                                                            for the national court to consider, an obligation on the
(') O J No C 90 , 26 . 3 . 1994 .
                                                                            applicant to prove that the goods will be used
                                                                            exclusively for civil purposes or a refusal to issue a
                                                                            licence if the goods can objectively be used for military
                                                                            purposes can be consistent with the principle of
                                                                            proportionality;
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       of 17 October 1995                              4 . Community law does not preclude national authorities
in Case C-83/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from the               from making breaches of the licensing procedure subject
Landgericht Darmstadt ): Criminal proceedings against                       to criminal penalties, provided that the penalties
                   Peter Leifer and Others ( l )                            applicable do not exceed what appears to be
                                                                            proportionate in relation to the public security aim
 (Common commercial policy — Export of dual-use                             pursued;
                                goods)
                            ( 95/C 315/09 )
                                                                        5 . Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 2603/69 confers on
                (Language of the case: German)                              individuals rights which they may assert before the
                                                                            courts .
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                      (') OJ No C 120 , 30 . 4 . 1994 .
 In Case C-83/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177 of
 the EEC Treaty from the Landgericht ( Regional Court )


title: Case C-135/10: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d’appello di Torino — Italy) — Società Consortile Fonografici (SCF) v Marco Del Corso (Copyright and related rights in the information society — Direct applicability of the Rome Convention, the TRIPS Agreement and the WPPT in the European Union legal order — Directive 92/100/EC — Article 8(2) — Directive 2001/29/EC — Concept of ‘communication to the public’ — Communication to the public of phonograms broadcast by radio in a dental practice)

text:
               5.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 133/3

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d’appello di Torino — Italy) — Società Consortile Fonografici (SCF) v Marco Del Corso
   (Case C-135/10) (1)

   (Copyright and related rights in the information society - Direct applicability of the Rome Convention, the TRIPS Agreement and the WPPT in the European Union legal order - Directive 92/100/EC - Article 8(2) - Directive 2001/29/EC - Concept of ‘communication to the public’ - Communication to the public of phonograms broadcast by radio in a dental practice)
   2012/C 133/04
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte d’appello di Torino

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Società Consortile Fonografici (SCF)

      Defendant: Marco Del Corso

      Intervening party: Procuratore generale della Repubblica

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Corte di Appello di Torino — Direct applicability within the Community legal order of the International Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organisations, done at Rome on 26 October 1961, the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) and the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) Treaty on Performances and Phonograms (WPPT) — Interpretation of Article 3(2) Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10) — Concept of ‘communication to the public’ — Broadcasting and communication to the public of radio phonograms in a dental practice

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The provisions of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, which constitutes Annex 1C to the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation (WTO) signed at Marrrakesh on 15 April 1994 and approved by Council Decision 94/800/EC of 22 December 1994 concerning the conclusion on behalf of the European Community, as regards matters within its competence, of the agreements reached in the Uruguay Round multilateral negotiations (1986-1994) and of the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) Performances and Phonograms Treaty of 20 December 1996 are applicable in the legal order of the European Union.
               As the International Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organisations, adopted at Rome on 26 October 1961, does not form part of the legal order of the European Union it is not applicable there; however, it has indirect effects within the European Union.
               Individuals may not rely directly either on that convention or on the agreement or the treaty mentioned above.
               The concept of ‘communication to the public’ which appears in Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property and Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted in the light of the equivalent concepts contained in the convention, the agreement and the treaty mentioned above and in such a way that it is compatible with those agreements, taking account of the context in which those concepts are found and the purpose of the relevant provisions of the agreements as regards intellectual property.

               2.

               The concept of ‘communication to the public’ for the purposes of Article 8(2) of Directive 92/100 must be interpreted as meaning that it does not cover the broadcasting, free of charge, of phonograms within private dental practices engaged in professional economic activity, such as the one at issue in the main proceedings, for the benefit of patients of those practices and enjoyed by them without any active choice on their part. Therefore such an act of transmission does not entitle the phonogram producers to the payment of remuneration.

      (1)  OJ C 134, 22.5.2010.


title: Case T-343/00: Action brought on 13 November 2000 by Leandro Mercade Llordachs against European Parliament

text:
C 45/18                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      10.2.2001
                                                         COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Action brought on 7 November 2000 by Anthony Gold-                        Action brought on 13 November 2000 by Leandro Merca-
stein against the Council of the European Union and the                             de Llordachs against European Parliament
         Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-343/00)
                         (Case T-336/00)
                                                                                (2001/C 45/41)
                          (2001/C 45/40)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                   (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Council of the European Union and the               An action against the European Parliament was brought before
Commission of the European Communities was brought                        the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities            13 November 2000 by Leandro Mercade Llordachs, residing
on 7 November 2000 by Anthony Goldstein, represented by                   in Woluwé-Saint-Pierre (Belgium), represented by Jean-Noël
Raymond St John Murphy, Solicitor of Merriman White,                      Louis and Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar.
London (UK).
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          —     annul the decision of the President of the European
—     declare Directive 93/16 is in breach of Article 218 EC;                   Parliament of 15 March 2000 to transfer the applicant
                                                                                from the European Parliament to the European Com-
—     order the defendant to pay damages in the amount of                       mission;
      EUR 1 000 000 to the applicant;
                                                                          —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
—     order the amount of damages to bear default interest at
      the annual rate of 4,5 % from the date of the judgment
      until the actual payment;                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
—     order the defendant to pay the costs of the applicant.
                                                                          The applicant in the present case objects to the decision of the
                                                                          defendant annulling the decision of 12 February 1998, where-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           by he was transferred from the Commission to the European
                                                                          Parliament. It is precisely on the basis of that transfer decision
                                                                          that he was appointed in the latter institution to the post of
The applicant in the present case claims for damages in respect           Head of Division at Grade A 3. The decision at issue was taken
of the Commission decision allegdly contained in the letter of            in compliance with the judgment delivered by the Court of
30 July 1998, inasmuch as it has considered that the grant to             First Instance on 15 December 1999 in T-144/98 Cantoreggi
him by the British Authorities of a certificate of specialist             v European Parliament (1), which annulled the abovementioned
training, as forseen in Articles 4 and 5 of Regulation 75/363             transfer decision.
(now Articles 26 and 27 of Directive 93/16/EEC, of 5 April
1993 to facilitate the free movement of doctors and the mutual
recognition of their diplomas, certificates and other evidence            In support of his arguments the applicant alleges:
of formal qualifications (1)), was illegal, because contrary to the
Directive.                                                                —     breach of the duty to provide reasons, inasmuch as the
                                                                                contested decision was not notified to him.
The applicant submits as well, on the basis of Article 241 of
the EC Treaty, the illegality of the above mentioned directive.           —     infringement of Article 233 of the Treaty, inasmuch as
It is stated on this point tat the English text of this Directive               the Court of First Instance did not annul the decision of
does not correspond to the French text and that the discrep-                    12 February 1998 in so far as it transferred the applicant
ancies constitute a manifest error and grave attempt by the                     from the Commission to the Parliament. In fact, the
Council to alter the sense of a provision of Community Law                      question of the legality of the transfer decision at issue
and compromise its objectives.                                                  was not raised before the Court in Case T-144/98.
(1) OJ EEC L 165, of 7.7.1993, p. 1.                                      (1) ECR 1999, p. FP-IA-271, II-1325.


title: Case C-620/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kammarrätten I Stockholm — Migrationsöverdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 27 December 2010 — Migrationsverket v Nurije Kastrati, Valdrina Kastrati, Valdrin Kastrati

text:
               5.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/15

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kammarrätten I Stockholm — Migrationsöverdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 27 December 2010 — Migrationsverket v Nurije Kastrati, Valdrina Kastrati, Valdrin Kastrati
   (Case C-620/10)
   2011/C 72/26
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Kammarrätten I Stockholm — Migrationsöverdomstolen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Migrationsverket

      Defendants: Nurije Kastrati, Valdrina Kastrati, Valdrin Kastrati

      Questions referred

               1.

               In the light inter alia of the stipulations of Article 5(2) of Regulation No 343/2003 (1) and/or the absence of provisions in the regulation on the cessation of a Member State’s responsibility to examine an asylum application other than those contained in the second subparagraph of Article 4(5) and Article 16(3) and (4), is Regulation No 343/2003 to be interpreted as meaning that the withdrawal of an asylum application does not affect the possibility of applying the regulation?

               2.

               Is the stage in the process at which the asylum application is withdrawn relevant in answering the question set out above?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national, OJ 2003 L 50, p. 1


title: Case T-762/16: Action brought on 31 October 2016 — ArcelorMittal Belval & Differdange and ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe v ECHA

text:
               16.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 14/41

         Action brought on 31 October 2016 — ArcelorMittal Belval & Differdange and ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe v ECHA
   (Case T-762/16)
   (2017/C 014/50)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: ArcelorMittal Belval & Differdange SA (Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg) and ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe AG (Duisburg, Germany) (represented by: H. Scheidmann and M. Kottmann, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the ECHA’s decision of 26 September 2016 (reference ATD/52/2016);

               —

               alternatively, annul the ECHA's decision of 19 August 2016 (reference ATD/52/2016) to the extent that it rejects the applicants’ request for access to their file;

               —

               order the ECHA to bear the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 4(2), first indent, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001

                           —

                           The applicants claim that the contested decision misapplies the abovementioned provision by erroneously finding that commercial interests would be undermined by disclosure and they further argue that the decision disregards overriding public interests.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41(2), second indent, of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

                           —

                           The applicants assert that the contested decision violates the abovementioned provision and that, contrary to that decision, the documents to which access is requested do pertain to the applicants’ file and are not, therefore, excluded from the scope of that provision.


title: Case C-120/10: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — European Air Transport SA v Collège d’environnement de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale, Région de Bruxelles-Capitale (Air transport — Directive 2002/30/EC — Noise-related operating restrictions at Community airports — Noise level limits that must be observed when overflying built-up areas near an airport)

text:
               22.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/10

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — European Air Transport SA v Collège d’environnement de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale, Région de Bruxelles-Capitale
   (Case C-120/10) (1)

   (Air transport - Directive 2002/30/EC - Noise-related operating restrictions at Community airports - Noise level limits that must be observed when overflying built-up areas near an airport)
   2011/C 311/13
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: European Air Transport SA

      Defendants: Collège d’environnement de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale, Région de Bruxelles-Capitale

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d’État — Interpretation of Articles 2(e), 4(4) and 6(2) of Directive 2002/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 March 2002 on the establishment of rules and procedures with regard to the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions at Community airports (OJ 2002 L 85, p. 40) — Limits on noise levels to be complied with by aircraft over-flying urban territories located near an airport — Concept of ‘operating restrictions’ — Restrictions adopted in connection with aircraft which are marginally compliant — Whether it is possible to impose such restrictions on the basis of the noise level as measured on the ground — Effect of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention)

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 2(e) of Directive 2002/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 March 2002 on the establishment of rules and procedures with regard to the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions at Community airports must be interpreted as meaning that an ‘operating restriction’ is a prohibition, absolute or temporary, that prevents the access of a civil subsonic jet aeroplane to a European Union airport. Consequently, national environmental legislation imposing limits on maximum noise levels, as measured on the ground, to be complied with by aircraft overflying areas located near the airport, does not itself constitute an ‘operating restriction’ within the meaning of that provision, unless, in view of the relevant economic, technical and legal contexts, it can have the same effect as prohibitions of access to the airport in question.

      (1)  OJ C 148, 5.6.2010.


title: Case F-19/08: Action brought on 26 February 2008 — Bennet and Others v OHIM

text:
               26.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/44

         Action brought on 26 February 2008 — Bennet and Others v OHIM
   (Case F-19/08)
   (2008/C 107/78)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Kelly-Marie Bennet (Mutxamel, Spain) and Others (represented by: G. Vandersanden, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM)
   Subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   First, annulment of the notices of open competitions OHIM/AD/02/07 and OHIM/AST/02/07, in so far as those notices have the effect of taking away from the applicants any possibility of their names appearing on the reserve list, the applicants being obliged to participate as a result of the termination clause unlawfully inserted to that end in their contracts for an indefinite period. Second, damages for the non-material loss suffered by the applicants.
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the notices of open competitions OHIM/AD/02/07 and OHIM/AST/02/07;

               —

               Order the defendant to make good the non-material loss suffered by the applicants, assessed on a equitable basis and subject to a minimum of EUR 25 000 per applicant;

               —

               Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs.


title: Case C-524/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte dei Conti (Italy) lodged on 12 October 2016 — Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale v Francesco Faggiano

text:
               16.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 14/19

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte dei Conti (Italy) lodged on 12 October 2016 — Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale v Francesco Faggiano
   (Case C-524/16)
   (2017/C 014/25)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte dei Conti

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale

      Defendant: Francesco Faggiano

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the rules of EU law laid down in Regulation (EEC) No 1408/1971 of the Council of 14 June 1971 (1) and Council Regulation (EC) No 1606/1998 of 29 June 1998 (2) be interpreted to the effect that a request for aggregation of social security contributions made to several pension funds, in particular in the home Member State and in another Member State of the European Union, may not be made by a person already in receipt of a pension?

               2.

               Does Article 49(1)(b)(ii) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/1971 of the Council of 14 June 1971 preclude a national rule such as the Italian rule laid down in Article 71 of Law No 388 of 23 December 2000, according to which a request for aggregation of social security contributions made to several pension funds, in particular in the home Member State and in another Member State of the European Union, is confined to those who have not yet acquired the right to a pension from any social security fund?

      (1)  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1606/98 of 29 June 1998 amending 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 and Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 with a view to extending them to cover special schemes for civil servants (OJ 1998 L 209, p. 1).


title: Case T-494/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 September 2008 — Italy v Commission

text:
               20.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 327/42

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 September 2008 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-494/07) (1)

   (2008/C 327/79)

      Language of the case: Italian

   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.


title: Case T-170/06: Action brought on 29 June 2006 — Alrosa v Commission

text:
               2.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/31

         Action brought on 29 June 2006 — Alrosa v Commission
   (Case T-170/06)
   (2006/C 212/57)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Alrosa Company Ltd. (Mirny, Russia) (represented by: R. Subiotto, S. Mobley, K. Jones, Solicitors)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision in its entirety;

               —

               order the Commission to pay Alrosa's legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant contests the Commission's decision of 22 February 2006, by which the Commission made binding upon De Beers a commitment to phase out between 2006 and 2008 and to cease as from 1 January 2009 all direct and indirect purchases of rough diamonds from the applicant.
   In support of its application, the applicant invokes, first, a violation of its right to be heard in the procedure leading to the decision. The applicant submits that the Commission was required to explain which third party observations and what aspects of the Commission's analysis justified the rejection of the commitments originally proposed jointly by De Beers and the applicant and the adoption of the final commitments proposed by De Beers.
   Second, the applicant invokes a violation of Article 9 of Regulation 1/2003 in that the commitments made binding by the contested decision were offered only by De Beers, rather than by the undertakings concerned, namely De Beers and the applicant. The applicant adds that the contested decision has not been adopted for a specified period.
   Finally, the applicant submits that the contested decision's absolute and potentially indefinite prohibition on De Beers' purchasing rough diamonds directly or indirectly from the applicant violates Article 82 EC and Article 9 of Regulation 1/2003, as well as the fundamental principles of freedom of contract and proportionality.


title: Opinion 1/14: Request for an opinion submitted by the Republic of Malta pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/25

         Request for an opinion submitted by the Republic of Malta pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU
   (Opinion 1/14)
   2014/C 315/37
   Language of the case: all the official languages

      Applicant

   Republic of Malta (represented by: A. Buhagiar, P. Grech, Agents)

      Question submitted to the Court

   Is the Council of Europe Draft Convention against the Manipulation of Sports Competitions, insofar as it regulates sports betting and defines ‘illegal sports betting’ in Article 3(5)(a) as ‘all sports betting activity whose type or operator is not allowed under the applicable law of the jurisdiction where the consumer is located’, in conjunction with Articles 9 and 11 thereof which target ‘illegal sports betting’ so defined, compatible with the Treaties, particularly Articles 18, 49 and 56 TFEU?


title: Case T-293/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of 12 September 2008 — Tachelet v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Interlocutory judgment — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/35

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 12 September 2008 — Tachelet v Commission
   (Case T-293/04) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Interlocutory judgment - No need to adjudicate)
   (2008/C 301/59)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Guy Tachelet (Rijmenam, Belgium) (represented by: N. Lhoëst, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and H. Krämer, Agents)
   Re:
   First, application for annulment of the Commission's decision of 2 September 2003 altering the applicant's classification in grade, in so far as it fixes his classification in step on recruitment in step 2 of Grade B4 and did not re-establish the applicant's career grade, and an application for annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant's complaint and, second, an application for compensation for the damage allegedly caused by that decision.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on this action.

               2.

               The Commission shall pay all the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 262, 23.10.2004.


title: Case C-526/17: Action brought on 4 September 2017 — European Commission v Italian Republic

text:
               16.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/24

         Action brought on 4 September 2017 — European Commission v Italian Republic
   (Case C-526/17)
   (2017/C 347/32)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara, P. Ondrůšek and A. Tokár, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, in deferring expiry of the works contract relating to the A12 Civitavecchia-Livorno motorway until 31 December 2046 without publishing any contract notice, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 and 58 of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114), as subsequently amended;

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission considers that the extending until 31 December 2046 of the works contract relating to the A12 Civitavecchia-Livorno motorway constitutes an amendment to an essential term of that contract; being a substantial amendment to that contract, that extension is tantamount to concluding a new works contract and, as such, should have been made public through the publication of a contract notice. Since, however, no such publication has taken place, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 and 58 of Directive 2004/18/EC.


title: Case T-498/15: Action brought on 31 August 2015 — LG Electronics v OHIM — Cyrus Wellness Consulting (Viewty)

text:
               12.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 337/45

         Action brought on 31 August 2015 — LG Electronics v OHIM — Cyrus Wellness Consulting (Viewty)
   (Case T-498/15)
   (2015/C 337/51)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cyrus Wellness Consulting GmbH (Berlin, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Viewty’ — Application for registration No 6 266 531

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 June 2015 in Joined Cases R 1935/2014-2 and R 1563/2014-2

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


title: Case C-402/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Diikitiko Efetio Athinon (Greece) lodged on 22 August 2014  — VIAMAR — Elliniki Aftokiniton kai Genikon Epikhiriseon A.E. v Elliniko Dimosio

text:
               27.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 380/4

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Diikitiko Efetio Athinon (Greece) lodged on 22 August 2014 — VIAMAR — Elliniki Aftokiniton kai Genikon Epikhiriseon A.E. v Elliniko Dimosio
   (Case C-402/14)
   2014/C 380/04
   Language of the case: Greek

      Referring court

   Diikitiko Efetio Athinon

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: VIAMAR — Elliniki Aftokiniton kai Genikon Epikhiriseon A.E.

      Defendant: Elliniko Dimosio

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 1(3) of Directive 2008/118/EC (1) of 16 December 2008 legally sufficient in itself and complete/unconditional and sufficiently clear so that, although that particular provision of the directive has not been transposed into the national law of the Member State/the Greek State, it has direct effect and can be relied on by an individual who derives rights from it before the national courts, and the latter are required to take that provision into account?

               2.

               In any event, is Article 130(5) of the National Customs Code, in conjunction with Article 128(1) thereof — which provide that the customs clearance certificate for Community vehicles imported into the country is issued after collection of the registration tax, the obligation to pay which arises upon their entry into the country — compatible with Article 3(c) of the EEC Treaty, providing for the abolition of obstacles to the free movement of goods between Member States?

      (1)  Council Directive 2008/118/EC concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC (OJ 2009 L 9, p. 12).


title: Assignment of Judges to the Chambers

text:
               20.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 317/2

         Assignment of Judges to the Chambers
   2010/C 317/04
   At its meeting on 12 October 2010, the Court of Justice decided to assign Mr Jarašiūnas to the Fourth and Eighth Chambers.
   Further to the election of the Presidents of Chambers of three Judges and the assignment of Mr Jarašiūnas to the Fourth and Eighth Chambers, the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Chambers are thus composed as follows:

                  Fourth Chamber

                           Mr Bonichot, President,

                           Sir Konrad Schiemann, Mr Bay Larsen, Ms Toader, Ms Prechal and Mr Jarašiūnas, Judges

                  Fifth Chamber

                           Mr Kasel, President,

                           Mr Borg Barthet, Mr Ilešič, Mr Levits, Mr Safjan and Ms Berger, Judges

                  Sixth Chamber

                           Mr Arabadjiev, President,

                           Mr Rosas, Mr Lõhmus, Mr Ó Caoimh and Ms Lindh, Judges

                  Seventh Chamber

                           Mr Šváby, President,

                           Ms Silva de Lapuerta, Mr Juhász, Mr Arestis, Mr Malenovský and Mr von Danwitz, Judges

                  Eighth Chamber

                           Sir Konrad Schiemann, President,

                           Mr Bay Larsen, Ms Toader, Ms Prechal and Mr Jarašiūnas, Judges


title: Case C-37/09: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 June 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Portugal (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Environment — Management of illegally disposed of waste — Directive 2006/12/EC — Directive 80/68/EEC)

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/9

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 June 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Portugal
   (Case C-37/09) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Environment - Management of illegally disposed of waste - Directive 2006/12/EC - Directive 80/68/EEC)
   2010/C 221/14
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: B. Laignelot, S. Pardo Quintillán and P. Guerra e Andrade, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Portugal (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, M. J. Lois and P. Lopes, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Articles 4 and 5 of Directive 2006/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2006 on waste (OJ 2006 L 114, p. 9), which codified Directive 75/442/EEC on waste and Articles 3 and 5 of Council Directive 80/68/EEC of 17 December 1979 on the protection of groundwater against pollution caused by certain dangerous substances (OJ 1980 L 20, p. 43) — Landfill of waste in disused quarries — ‘dos Limas, dos Linos e dos Barreiras’ quarries (Lourosa) — Lack of scrutiny

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, all the measures necessary, within the framework of the management of waste illegally placed in the old quarries of Limas and Linos, situated in the commune of Lourosa, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the terms of Articles 4 and 8 respectively of Directive 2006/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2006 on waste, which codified Directive 75/442/EEC on waste and Articles 3 and 5 of Council Directive 80/68/EEC of 17 December 1979 on the protection of groundwater against pollution caused by certain dangerous substances;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the Republic of Portugal to bear its own costs and to pay two-thirds of the costs incurred by the Commission. Orders the Commission to bear one-third of its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 4.4.2009


title: Case T-232/13: Action brought on 23 April 2013 — SCA Hygiène Products v Commission

text:
               15.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/37

         Action brought on 23 April 2013 — SCA Hygiène Products v Commission
   (Case T-232/13)
   2013/C 171/72
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: SCA Hygiène Products (Tremblay en France, France) (represented by: J.-M. Leprêtre and N. Chahid-Nouraï, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul, with immediate effect, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, Commission Directive 2013/2/EU of 7 February 2013 amending Annex I to Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste, in so far as it adds rolls, tubes and cylinders, with the exception of those for industrial use, to the list of examples of packaging;

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-202/13 Group’Hygiène v Commission.


title: Case C-28/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 18 January 2011 — Eurogate Distribution GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt

text:
               30.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 130/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 18 January 2011 — Eurogate Distribution GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt
   (Case C-28/11)
   2011/C 130/15
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Hamburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Eurogate Distribution GmbH

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt

      Question referred

   On a proper interpretation of Article 204(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (1) (‘the Customs Code’) does infringement of the obligation, in the case of non-Community goods which were in the customs warehousing procedure and acquired a new customs destination at the termination of that procedure, to record the removal of the goods from the customs warehouse in the apposite computer programme forthwith upon termination of the customs warehousing procedure — rather than considerably later — cause a customs debt to arise in respect of the goods?

      (1)  OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1


title: Case T-342/10: Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2012 — Paul Hartmann AG v OHIM — Mölnlycke Health Care (MESILETTE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark MESILETTE — Earlier national and international word marks MEDINETTE — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               21.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2012 — Paul Hartmann AG v OHIM — Mölnlycke Health Care (MESILETTE)
   (Case T-342/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark MESILETTE - Earlier national and international word marks MEDINETTE - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2012/C 217/39
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Paul Hartmann AG (Heidenheim an der Brenz, Germany) (represented by: N. Aicher, lawyer)

      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: Mölnlycke Health Care AB (Göteborg, Sweden)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 May 2010 (Case R 1222/2009-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Paul Hartmann AG and Mölnlycke Health Care AB.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), of 20 May 2010 (Case R 1222/2009-2);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.2010.