title: Case T-408/16: Action brought on 27 July 2016 — HX v Council

text:
               14.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 419/46

         Action brought on 27 July 2016 — HX v Council
   (Case T-408/16)
   (2016/C 419/62)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Parties

      Applicant: HX (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: S. Koev, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               hold the present action to be admissible and well founded, and hold all the pleas it contains to be well founded;

               —

               examine the present action under the accelerated procedure;

               —

               declare that the contested acts may be annulled in part since the part of the acts which should be annulled can be separated from the act as a whole, and accordingly annul the following:

                           —

                           Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, in so far as it concerns the applicant, and

                           —

                           Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/840 of 27 May 2016 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

               —

               order the Council to pay the entirety of the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a manifest infringement of the right not to be tried or punished twice for the same criminal offence (Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union).

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a manifest infringement of the rights of the defence and the right to a fair trial.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to effective judicial protection.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging an error of assessment on the part of the Council.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the right to property, of the principle of proportionality and of the freedom to conduct a business.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to a normal life.

               8.

               Eighth plea in law, alleging a serious infringement of the right to the protection of reputation.


title: Case C-112/15: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 17 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — Kødbranchens Fællesråd, acting on behalf of Århus Slagtehus A/S, Danish Crown A.m.b.A. Oksekødsdivisionen, Hadsund Kreaturslagteri A/S, Hjalmar Nielsens Eksportslagteri A/S, Kjellerup Eksportslagteri A/S, Mogens Nielsen Kreaturslagteri A/S, Vejle Eksportslagteri A/S v Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri, Fødevarestyrelsen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 — Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 — Official controls of feed and food — Fees that may be charged by Member States to cover the costs incurred through official controls — Costs in connection with the training of official auxiliaries)

text:
               2.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/15

         Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 17 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — Kødbranchens Fællesråd, acting on behalf of Århus Slagtehus A/S, Danish Crown A.m.b.A. Oksekødsdivisionen, Hadsund Kreaturslagteri A/S, Hjalmar Nielsens Eksportslagteri A/S, Kjellerup Eksportslagteri A/S, Mogens Nielsen Kreaturslagteri A/S, Vejle Eksportslagteri A/S v Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri, Fødevarestyrelsen
   (Case C-112/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 - Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 - Official controls of feed and food - Fees that may be charged by Member States to cover the costs incurred through official controls - Costs in connection with the training of official auxiliaries))
   (2016/C 156/21)
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Østre Landsret

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Kødbranchens Fællesråd, acting on behalf of Århus Slagtehus A/S, Danish Crown A.m.b.A. Oksekødsdivisionen, Hadsund Kreaturslagteri A/S, Hjalmar Nielsens Eksportslagteri A/S, Kjellerup Eksportslagteri A/S, Mogens Nielsen Kreaturslagteri A/S, Vejle Eksportslagteri A/S

      Defendants: Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri, Fødevarestyrelsen

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 27(4)(a) and Annex VI, points (1) and (2), of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules must be interpreted as precluding Member States, when they prescribe the fees charged to food sector establishments, from including the costs connected to the compulsory basic training of official auxiliaries.

      (1)  OJ C 146, 4.5.2015.


title: Case T-292/13: Action brought on 24 May 2013 — Evangelou v Commission and ECB

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/17

         Action brought on 24 May 2013 — Evangelou v Commission and ECB
   (Case T-292/13)
   (2013/C 226/24)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Christos Evangelou (Derynia, Cyprus); and Yvonne Evangelou (Derynia) (represented by: C. Paschalides, Solicitor, and A. Paschalides, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Central Bank and European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Order compensation in the sum of EUR 1 552 110,64 on the basis that the conditions required under the Memorandum of Understanding of 26 April 2013 between Cyprus and the Defendants at paragraphs 1.23 to 1.27 were pregnant with requirements in flagrant violation of a superior law for the protection of the individual, namely: article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention of Human Rights;

               —

               Declare the relevant conditions void and order an urgent review of the financial assistance instruments under article 14 to 18 of the Treaty establishing the European Stability Mechanism (‘ESM Treaty’) pursuant to Article 19 in light of the court’s judgment with a view to changes in order to comply with the judgment of the court; and

               —

               To the extent that compensation under the first head of claim does not cater for the fact that the relevant conditions would stand annulled, an order for compensation for breach of article 263 TFEU.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the relevant conditions in the Memorandum of Understanding were pregnant with requirements that were ‘in flagrant violation of a superior rule of law for the protection of the individual’ (1) because:

                           —

                           The said rule of law is superior because it is a law contained the Charter and the ECHR;

                           —

                           By Article 51(1) of the Charter and 6.2 TEU the defendants are obliged to respect and uphold fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter and the ECHR; and

                           —

                           Bank deposits are property within the meaning of the said article 17 of the Charter and article 1 of Protocol 1 of the ECHR.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the violations below taken together were so extensive as to amount to a flagrant violation of a superior law, as follows:

                           —

                           At the time the applicants were deprived of their bank deposits there were no ‘conditions provided for by law’ in place in the acquis dealing with deprivation of bank deposits contrary to the Charter and Protocol;

                           —

                           The applicants were deprived of their deposits without ‘fair compensation being paid in good time’ contrary to article 17 of the Charter and article 1 of the Protocol;

                           —

                           Deprivation of deposits is prima facie unlawful unless ‘subject to the principle of proportionality… it is necessary and genuinely meets objectives of general interest recognised by the EU or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others.’ (2);

                           —

                           The competing public interest in preventing panic and a run on the banking system, short and medium term, was not considered in evaluating the public interest under Article 17 of the Charter and Article 1 of the Protocol;

                           —

                           The aim was not to damage or penalise Cyprus but to benefit it and the euro area by providing stability support and thereby alleviating not destabilising its financial institutions and economic viability; and

                           —

                           There was no relationship of proportionality of the interference to a legitimate aim since by Article 3 of the ESM Treaty 2012 the genuine objective was ‘to mobilise funding and provide stability support under strict conditionality… to the benefit of ESM Members which are experiencing or are threatened by severe financial problems, if indispensable to safeguard the euro area as a whole and of its member state’ without paralysing its economy.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that deprivation of the applicants’ deposits was not necessary or proportionate.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that in the result the defendants caused the applicants to be deprived of their bank deposits because, but for the flagrant infringement, the applicants’ bank deposits would have been protected by their rights under the Charter and Protocol with the result that the applicants’ loss was sufficiently direct and foreseeable.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that if the above submissions are well founded the relevant conditions fall to be declared void notwithstanding the relevant conditions were addressed to Cyprus, since they are of direct and individual concern to each of the applicants on the grounds that the relevant conditions and the manner of their implementation infringe the Treaty and/or a rule of law relating to its application and/or, to the extent that it is held that depriving the applicants’ bank deposit undermined the rule of law contrary to Article 6.1 of the TEU, were a misuse of powers.

      (1)  See the judgment of 2 December 1971 in Case 5/71 Zuckerfabrik Schoeppenstedt v Council (1971) ECR 975

      (2)  Article 52(1) of the Charter


title: Case T-622/13: Action brought on 25 November 2013 — Ratioparts-Ersatzteile v OHIM — Norwood Promotional Products Europe (NORTHWOOD professional forest equipment)

text:
               8.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/23

         Action brought on 25 November 2013 — Ratioparts-Ersatzteile v OHIM — Norwood Promotional Products Europe (NORTHWOOD professional forest equipment)
   (Case T-622/13)
   2014/C 39/41
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Ratioparts-Ersatzteile-Vertriebs GmbH (Euskirchen, Germany) (represented by: M. Koch, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Norwood Promotional Products Europe, SL (Tarragona, Spain)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               alter the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 11 September 2013 (Case R 1244/2012-2) in such a way that opposition No B 176807 is rejected, and

               —

               order the opponent to pay the costs of the opposition proceedings and the appellant to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark ‘NORTHWOOD’ for goods and services in Classes 8, 9, 20, 25 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 9412776

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Norwood Promotional Products Europe, SL

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community word mark ‘NORWOOD’ for goods in Class 35

      Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

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


title: Case C-243/07: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 February 2008 — Carsten Brinkmann v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Likelihood of confusion — Word sign terranus — Refusal of registration)

text:
               24.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 128/16

         Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 February 2008 — Carsten Brinkmann v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-243/07) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Likelihood of confusion - Word sign ‘terranus’ - Refusal of registration)
   (2008/C 128/27)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Appellant: Carsten Brinkmann (represented by: K. van Bebber, Rechtsanwältin)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, acting as Agent), Terra Networks SA
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 22 March 2007 in Case T 322/05 Brinkmann v OHIM — Terra Networks (Terranus) dismissing the action brought by the applicant for the Community word mark ‘TERRANUS’ (for goods in Class 36) for annulment of Decision R 1145/2004-1 of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 10 June 2005, by which the appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division to refuse registration of the mark was dismissed in opposition proceedings brought by the holder of the Community trade mark and national figurative mark ‘TERRA’ for goods in Class 36 — Likelihood of confusion between the two marks
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Brinkmann is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 199, 25.8.2007.


title: Case T-435/07: Action brought on 29 November 2007 — New Look v OHIM (NEW LOOK)

text:
               9.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/25

         Action brought on 29 November 2007 — New Look v OHIM (NEW LOOK)
   (Case T-435/07)
   (2008/C 37/40)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: New Look Ltd (Weymouth, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, and M. Blair and K. Gilbert, Solicitors)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               The decision of the Second Board of Appeal dated 3 September 2007 in Case R 670/2007-2 shall be annulled.

               —

               The Office shall bear its own costs and pay those of the applicant.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘NEW LOOK’ for goods and services in classes 3, 9, 14, 16, 18, 25, 26 and 35 — application No 2 932 606

      Decision of the examiner: Refusal of the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(3) of Council Regulation No 40/94, as the Board of Appeal i) erred in requiring the applicant to demonstrate acquired distinctive character in a Member State other than the United Kingdom and Ireland; ii) erred in holding that the applicant's evidence of use of ‘NEW LOOK’ in stylised form or together with a distinctive device was incapable of imbuing the mark with distinctive character; and iii) failed to place sufficient overall weight on the applicant's evidence of use in the United Kingdom and Ireland.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht in Bremen by order of that court of 14 February 1995 in the case of Bruna-Alessandra Züchner v. Handelskrankenkasse (Ersatzkasse) Bremen (Case C-77/95)

text:
No C 174/2               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                           8 . 7 . 95
      differences between the work of the two groups with                        or can a claim for breach of official duty arise only from
      regard to paid breaks, freedom to organize one 's own                      paragraph 839 of the German Civil Code , in
      work and work-related inconveniences, the two types of                     conjunction with Article 34 of the Grundgesetz ( Basic
      work are of equal value or whether those circumstances                     Law )?
      may be considered to be objective factors unrelated to
      any discrimination on grounds of sex which are such as              (') OJ No L 6 , 10 . 1 . 1979 , p . 24 .
      to justify any pay differentials.
5 . The principle of equal pay for men and women also
      applies where the elements of the pay are determined by
      collective bargaining or by negotiation at local level.
      However, the national court may take that fact into                 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
      account in its assessment of whether differences                    Tributario de Segunda Instancia by an order of
      beteween the average pay of two groups of workers are               29 November 1994 in the case of Pascoal &c Filhos SA
      due to objective factors unrelated to any discrimination                                  against Fazenda Publica
      on grounds of sex.                                                                              ( Case C-97/95 )
                                                                                ( 95 /C 174/03 )
(') OJ No C 287, 23 . 10 . 1993 , p . 7 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 45 , 19 . 2 . 1975 , p . 19 .
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          European Communities by an order of the Tribunal
                                                                          Tributario de Segunda Instancia ( Customs Court of Second
                                                                          Instance ), Lisbon, of 29 November 1995 , which was
                                                                          received at the Court Registry on 27 March 19 95 , for a
                                                                          preliminary ruling in the case of Pascoal & Filhos SA and
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches                 Fazenda Publica on the following questions :
Oberlandesgericht in Bremen by order of that court of
14 February 1995 in the case of Bruna-Alessandra Ziichner                 ( a ) Does the responsibility of the exporter, referred to in
         v. Handelskrankenkasse ( Ersatzkasse ) Bremen                            Article 10 ( 1 ) of Annex II to Council Decision
                            ( Case C-77/95 )                                      86/283/EEC (') of 30 June 1986 , extend to customs
                              ( 95/C 174/02 )
                                                                                duties resulting from the cancellation of movement
                                                                                certificates  EUR.l        issued  on  the basis    of false
                                                                                information as to the origin of the goods ?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Hanseatisches                     ( b ) ' What is the meaning and scope of the modal adverb
Oberlandesgericht in Bremen — Erster Zivilsenat ( Higher                          ' also ' used in the second subparagraph of
Regional Court, Bremen — First Civil Senate ) of                                  Article 201 ( 3 ) of the Community Customs Code ( 2 ), in
14 February 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry                       particular where the national customs law provides
on 15 March 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of                        that responsibility for payment of the duties due in
Bruna-Alessandra           Ziichner      v.   Handelskrankenkasse
                                                                                respect of the goods involved in the infringement
( Ersatzkasse ) Bremen on the following questions :                               attaches exclusively to the person who committed the
                                                                                customs infringement ?
1 . Does the plaintiff, as the wife of the insured person who
      is in need of care, belong to the working population                (c ) May the rule in the judgment of the Court of Justice of
      within the meaning of Article 2 of Council Directive                        the European Communities of 7 December 1993 in
      79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 f 1 )?                                         Case C-12/92 (') E. Huygen, published at pages 5 and 6
                                                                                of Proceedings of the Court of Justice No 35/93 ,
2 . Although paragraph 37 ( 3 ) of the SGB, Book V, is                            although relating to the Free Trade Agreement between
      formulated in neutral terms with regard to sex, does it                     the EEC and Austria, apply to the circumstances of this
      discriminate, within the meaning of the Directive,                          case, which concerns the interpretation and application
      against the plaintiff as a woman ?                                          of Council Decision 86/283/EEC ?
3 . Does the plaintiff, who is not insured by the defendant,              ( d ) What is the meaning, purport and scope of the results of
      have direct entitlement, or does her husband , as the                       the verification referred to by Article 25 ( 3 ) of Annex II
                                                                                to Decision 86/283/EEC ?
      insured person, alone have direct entitlement ?
                                                                          ( e ) May a procedure for post-clearance recovery in the
4 . Is the defendant itself liable , as an organ of the State
                                                                                Member State of importation be commenced and
      ( substitute sickness insurance fund )? If not, who is liable
      in its stead ?
                                                                                completed before the results of the verification are
                                                                                forwarded by the customs authorities in the exporting
                                                                                country to the customs authorities in the importing
5 . Does a claim for breach of official duty, irrespective of                     country and without the importer being aware of the
      fault, exist under the law of the European Communities,                     results of the verification ?


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 30 March 1995 in Case C-65/93: European Parliament v. Council of the European Union (Article 43 of the EEC Treaty - Obligation to consult the Parliament)

text:
No C 119/2              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   13 . 5 . 95
 of State for the Home Department, ex-parte Evans Medical                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
 Ltd and Macfarlan Smith Ltd, intervener: Generics (UK ) Ltd                                   of 30 March 1995
— on the interpretation of Articles 30, 36 and 234 of
the EEC Treaty and Council Directive 77/62/EEC of                      in Case C-65/93 : European Parliament v. Council of the
21 December 1976 coordinating procedures for the award                                         European Union (*)
of public supply contracts (2 ), as amended by Council                  (Article 43 of the EEC Treaty — Obligation to consult the
Directive 88/295/EEC of 22 March 1988 ( 3 ) — the Court,                                              Parliament)
composed of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, F. A.                                             ( 95/C 119/03 )
 Schockweiler and P. J. G. Kapteyn (Presidents of
 Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, C. N. Kakouris, J. L. Murray                                (Language ofthe case: French)
 ( Rapporteur ) and D. A. O. Edward, Judges; C. O. Lenz,
Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 March 1 995 , in which                     published in the European Court Reports)
it ruled as follows :
                                                                       In Case C-65/93 : European Parliament (Agents: Christian
                                                                       Pennera, Kieran Bradley and Jorge Campinos ) against the
                                                                       Council of the European Union (Agents: Jean-Claude Piris
1 . Article 30 of the EEC Treaty applies to a national
      practice prohibiting importation of narcotic drugs               and Yves Crétien), supported by the United Kingdom of
      covered by the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic
                                                                       Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agents : John E. Collins
      Drugs and marketable under that Convention;                      of the Treasury Solicitor's Department and Peter Duffy,
                                                                       Barrister) — application for the annulment of Council
                                                                       Regulation ( EEC ) No 3917/92 of 21 December 1992
                                                                       extending into 1993 the application of Regulations ( EEC )
2. Article 30 of the EEC Treaty is to be interpreted as                No 3831/90, ( EEC ) No 3832/90, ( EEC ) No 3833/90, ( EEC )
      requiring a Member State to ensure that this provision           No 3834/90, ( EEC ) No 3835/90 and ( EEC ) No 3900/91
      is fully effective by disapplying a national practice            applying generalized tariff preferences for 1991 in respect of
      contrary to it unless that practice is necessary in order        certain products originating in developing countries, and
      for the Member State concerned to comply with                    adding to the list of beneficiaries of such preferences (2 ) —
      obligations towards non-member States laid down in an            the Court, composed of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President,
      agreement concluded prior to entry into force of the             F. A. Schockweiler, P. J. G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur) and
      Treaty or to accession by that Member State;                     C. Gulmann ( Presidents of Chambers), G. F. Mancini, C. N.
                                                                       Kakouris, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, J. L. Murray, D. A. O.
                                                                       Edward, J.-P. Puissochet and G. Hirsch, Judges; G. Tesauro;
                                                                       Advocate-General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal
3 , a national practice of refusing licences for importation           Administrator, gave a judgment on 30 March 1 995 , the
      of drugs from another Member State is not covered by             operative part of which is as follows :
      the derogation provided for in Article 36 of the EEC
      Treaty if it is based on the need to safeguard an                1 , the application is dismissed;
      undertaking's survival but that derogation may apply to
      it ifprotection ofthe health and life ofhumans requires a        2 . the European Parliament is ordered to pay the costs,
      reliable supply of drugs for essential medical purposes                save for those of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
      to be safeguarded and that objective cannot be                         and Northern Ireland, which is ordered to bear its own
      achieved as effectively by measures less restrictive of                costs .
      intra-Community trade;
                                                                       f 1 ) OJ No C 105 , 16 . 4 . 1993 .
                                                                       (2) OJ No L 396, 31 . 12. 1992, p. 1 .
4. Council Directive 77/62/EEC of 21 December 1976
      coordinating procedures for the award of public
      supply contracts, as amended by Council Directive
      88/295/EEC of 22 March 1988, is to be interpreted as                               ORDER OF THE COURT
      authorizing the bodies covered by that Directive which
                                                                                of 23 March 1995
      wish to obtain diamorphine to award the contract on the
      basis of the tendering undertakings ' ability to provide                in Case C-458/93 : criminal proceedings against
      reliable and continuous supplies to the Member State                                     Mostafa Saddik ( l )
      concerned.
                                                                                (Inadmissibility)
                                                                                ( 95/C 119/04 )
t 1 ) OJ No C 222, 18 . 8 . 1993 .                                                      (Language of the case: Italian)
(2 ) OJ No L 13 , 15 . 1 . 1977, p. 1 .
( 3 ) OJ No L 127, 20 . 5 . 1988 , p . 1 .
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                       In Case C-458/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                       of the EC Treaty from the Pretura Circondariale, Rome for a


title: Case C-541/07: Order of the President of the Seventh Chamber of the Court of 14 November 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/30

         Order of the President of the Seventh Chamber of the Court of 14 November 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-541/07) (1)

   (2009/C 69/60)

      Language of the case: Greek

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

      (1)  OJ C 22, 26.1.2008.


20150731045617012015/C 270/372342015TC27020150817EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20150509303121Case T-234/15: Action brought on 9 May 2015 — Systema Teknolotzis kai Pliroforikis v Commission
 ---documentbreak--- C2702015EN3010120150509EN0037301312Action brought on 9 May 2015 — Systema Teknolotzis kai Pliroforikis v Commission
   (Case T-234/15)2015/C 270/37Language of the case: Greek
      Parties

      Applicant: Systema Teknolotzis AE — Efarmogon Ilektronikis kai Pliroforikis (Athens, Greece) (represented by: E. Georgilas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

            —

            uphold this action;

            —

            declare null and void the Commission Decision of 10 March 2015 [SG-Registry (2015) D/3003/11.3.2015] for the recovery from the applicant of the entire amount of seven hundred and sixteen thousand, three hundred and thirty four euros and five cents (EUR 716334,05), with interest;·and
            order the defendant to pay the applicants legal costs and general legal expenses.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action the applicant relies on three grounds for annulment.

            1.

            The first ground is a claim of an infringement of Article 89 of Regulation No 1268/2012 (
                  1
               ) and of the obligation to state reasons (Article 296 TFEU). The applicant maintains that the contested decision failed to state adequate, specific and detailed reasons for the rejection of the applicant’s request for the reimbursement of the sum owed within the framework of a seven-year arrangement, with regard to the PlayMancer and MOBISERV projects. Correspondingly, with respect to the PowerUp project, the decision tacitly rejects the request for repayment of the sum owed in three years.

            2.

            The second ground is a claim that the Commission erred in the exercise of its discretion, or exceeded the limits of that discretion, and infringed the principle of sound administration. The applicant maintains that the Commission failed to take into account the factors relevant to the issuing of the contested decision, ignored material facts which had been submitted to it, and adopted solutions which lead inevitably to the applicant’s financial ruin.

            3.

            The third ground is a claim of a breach of the principle of proportionality. The applicant maintains that the contested decision is not a measure which is necessary in order to achieve the pursued budgetary objective. The decision places disproportionate pressure on the applicant’s vital interests and threatens its very survival and its ability to continue to operate as a business — production unit.

      (
         1
      )	Commission Delegated Regulation (ΕU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ 2012 L 362, p. 1).


title: Case C-517/06: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 July 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2003/98/EC — Re-use of public sector information — Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/9

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 July 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-517/06) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2003/98/EC - Re-use of public sector information - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)
   (2007/C 211/16)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Braun and E. Montaguti, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: E. Riedl, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2003/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the re-use of public sector information (OJ 2003 L 345, p. 90)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt in the legislation of the Länder of Styria and Salzburg, within the period prescribed, all the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to comply with Directive 2003/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the re-use of public sector information, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.


title: Case T-82/09: Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2011 — Dennekamp v Parliament (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to the affiliation of certain Members of the European Parliament to the additional pension scheme — Refusal to grant access — Exception relating to the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual — Article 8(b) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 — Transfer of personal data)

text:
               14.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/11

         Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2011 — Dennekamp v Parliament
   (Case T-82/09) (1)

   (Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to the affiliation of certain Members of the European Parliament to the additional pension scheme - Refusal to grant access - Exception relating to the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual - Article 8(b) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 - Transfer of personal data)
   2012/C 13/20
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Gert-Jan Dennekamp (Giethoorn, Netherlands) (represented by: O. Brouwer, A. Stoffer and T. Oeyen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented initially by N. Lorenz, H. Krück and D. Moore, and subsequently by N. Lorenz and D. Moore, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: B. Weis Fogh, J. Bering Liisberg and S. Juul Jørgensen, Agents); Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski and H. Leppo, Agents); and European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) (represented initially by H. Hijmans and H. Kranenborg, and subsequently by H. Kranenborg and I. Chatelier, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Decision A(2008) 22050 of the European Parliament of 17 December 2008 refusing to grant the applicant access to certain documents relating to the affiliation of certain Members of the European Parliament to the additional pension scheme.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Gert-Jan Dennekamp to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Denmark, the Republic of Finland and the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 102, 1.5.2009.


title: Case C-109/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 25 February 2016 — Indėlių ir investicijų draudimas

text:
               2.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/30

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 25 February 2016 — Indėlių ir investicijų draudimas
   (Case C-109/16)
   (2016/C 156/40)
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Referring court

   Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant in cassation: VĮ Indėlių ir investicijų draudimas

      Other party to the proceedings in cassation: Alvydas Raišelis

      Questions referred

               1.

               In cases where a credit institution operates as an investment firm to which funds have been transferred for the acquisition of debt securities issued by the same credit institution, but the securities issue does not become effective and the securities are not transferred to the ownership of the person who has paid the funds, while the funds have already been debited from that person’s bank account and transferred to an account opened in the name of the credit institution and are not repayable, and the national legislative intent in such a case is not clear with regard to the application of a specific protection scheme, can Article 1.1 of the Deposit Directive (1) and Article 1(4) of the Investor Directive (2) be applied directly in order to determine the applicable coverage scheme, and is the intended use of the funds the decisive criterion for that purpose? Do those provisions of the directives display the necessary clarity, detail and unconditionality and confer rights on individuals, with the result that they may be relied on by individuals before national courts to found their claims for payment of compensation brought against the State body providing insurance cover?

               2.

               Should Article 2(2) of the Investor Directive, which specifies the types of claims that are covered by the investor compensation scheme, be understood and interpreted as also covering claims for repayment of funds that an investment firm owes to investors and that are not held in the name of the investors?

               3.

               If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative, does Article 2(2) of the Investor Directive, which specifies the types of claims that are covered by the compensation scheme, display the necessary clarity, detail and unconditionality and confer rights on individuals, with the result that that provision may be relied on by individuals before national courts to found their claims for payment of compensation brought against the State body providing insurance cover?

               4.

               Should Article 1.1 of the Deposit Directive be understood and interpreted as meaning that the definition of ‘deposit’ under that directive also includes funds transferred from a personal account, with the person’s consent, to an account opened in the name of a credit institution which is held at the same credit institution and is intended to pay for the future debt securities issue of that institution?

               5.

               Are Articles 7(1) and 8(3) of the Deposit Directive, taken together, to be understood as meaning that a deposit insurance payment up to the amount specified in Article 7(1) must be made to every person whose claim can be established before the date on which the determination or ruling referred to in Article 1.3(i) and (ii) of the Deposit Directive has been made?

      (1)  Directive 94/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on deposit-guarantee schemes (OJ 1994 L 135, p. 5).

      (2)  Directive 97/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 March 1997 on investor-compensation schemes (OJ 1997 L 84, p. 22).


title: Case T-690/16: Action brought on 28 September 2016 — Enrico Colombo and Giacomo Corinti v Commission

text:
               23.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/37

         Action brought on 28 September 2016 — Enrico Colombo and Giacomo Corinti v Commission
   (Case T-690/16)
   (2017/C 022/52)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicants: Enrico Colombo SpA (Sesto Calende, Italy) and Giacomo Corinti (Ispra, Italy) (represented by: R. Colombo and G. Turri, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the award decision (details and content unknown) communicated by note of 20 July 2016, Ref. Ares (2016) 371182, in which the European Commission (JRC — Ispra site management) awarded the contract in procedure JRC/IPR/2016/C.4/0002/OC concerning a framework agreement for works to construct and maintain water pipes and district heating/cooling substations at the Joint Research Centre in Ispra to the tender submitted by the concession holder;

               —

               annul the note of 20 July 2016 Ref. Ares (2016) 371182, in which the European Commission (JRC — Ispra site management) communicated the result of the tendering procedure;

               —

               annul the minutes of the award committee of 13 May 2016 and 28 June 2016;

               —

               order, primarily, that compensation be awarded for the harm suffered, in kind, including by means of a declaration of invalidity, annulment or ineffectiveness of the contract, whose content and details are unknown, signed on 19 August 2016 by the Commission and the concession holder, the latter being subsequently replaced;

               —

               order, in the alternative, that commensurate compensation be paid for the harm suffered, equivalent to EUR 500 000,00or whatever greater or lesser amount the Court considers fair, together with interest and monetary indexation to the date of actual payment.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its action, the applicant relies on the following pleas in law: (i) infringement of Articles 105 and 107 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ 2012 L 298, p. 1), (ii) infringement of the Lex specialis concerning the tender in question, (iii) infringement of the principle of equal treatment and the right to due process, and (iv) misuse of power in the present case.
   The applicants claim in that regard that the tender submitted by the concession holder should have been excluded on the ground that it does not meet the requirements of legal capacity and technical requirements imposed by the Lex specialis.


title: Case F-43/15: Action brought on 13 March 2015 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               1.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/29

         Action brought on 13 March 2015 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-43/15)
   (2015/C 178/33)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S.A. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of the Commission recognising only a partial rate of permanent invalidity of 2 % following the accident at work suffered by the applicant

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested decision;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-348/16 OP-R: Order of the President of the General Court of 13 July 2017 — Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis v ERCEA (Interim measures — Arbitration clause — Judgment by default — Application for a stay of execution of the judgment — Lack of jurisdiction)

text:
               11.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/30

         Order of the President of the General Court of 13 July 2017 — Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis v ERCEA
   (Case T-348/16 OP-R)
   ((Interim measures - Arbitration clause - Judgment by default - Application for a stay of execution of the judgment - Lack of jurisdiction))
   (2017/C 300/37)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant in the main proceedings: Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis (Thessalonica, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

      Defendant in the main proceedings: European Research Council Executive Agency (ERCEA) (represented by: M. Pesquera Alonso and F. Sgritta, acting as Agents, and by E. Kourakis, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application under Article 123(4) and Article 156 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court seeking a stay of execution of the judgment of 6 April 2017, Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis v ERCEA (T-348/16, not published, EU:T:2017:268).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-480/15: Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2017 — Agria Polska and Others v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Abuse of dominant position — Distribution of plant protection products market — Decision to reject a complaint — Alleged anticompetitive behaviour of producers and distributors — Concerted or coordinated action of lodging complaints, by producers and distributors, before administrative and criminal authorities — Reporting alleged infringements of the applicable rules by parallel importers — Administrative inspections subsequently carried out by the administrative authorities — Imposition of administrative and criminal penalties by national authorities on parallel importers — Assimilation of complaints by producers and distributors to vexatious actions or abuses of administrative procedures — Lack of European Union interest — Right to effective judicial protection)

text:
               10.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2017 — Agria Polska and Others v Commission
   (Case T-480/15) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Abuse of dominant position - Distribution of plant protection products market - Decision to reject a complaint - Alleged anticompetitive behaviour of producers and distributors - Concerted or coordinated action of lodging complaints, by producers and distributors, before administrative and criminal authorities - Reporting alleged infringements of the applicable rules by parallel importers - Administrative inspections subsequently carried out by the administrative authorities - Imposition of administrative and criminal penalties by national authorities on parallel importers - Assimilation of complaints by producers and distributors to vexatious actions or abuses of administrative procedures - Lack of European Union interest - Right to effective judicial protection))
   (2017/C 221/24)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicants: Agria Polska sp. z o.o., (Sosnowiec, Poland), Agria Chemicals Poland sp. z o.o., (Sosnowiec), Star Agro Analyse und Handels GmbH (Allerheiligen bei Wildon, Austria) and Agria Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH (Allerheiligen bei Wildon) (represented initially by S. Dudzik and J. Budzik, and subsequently by P. Graczyk and W. Rocławski, lawyers,)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Szczodrowski, A. Dawes and J. Norris Usher, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2015) 4284 final of 19 June 2015 (Case AT.39864 — BASF (formerly AGRIA and Others v BASF and Others)), rejecting the applicants’ complaint concerning infringements of Article 101 and/or Article 102 TFEU allegedly committed, essentially, by 13 producers and distributors of plant protection products, with the assistance or through four professional organisations and a law firm.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Agria Polska sp. z o.o., Agria Chemicals Poland sp. z o.o., Star Agro Analyse und Handels GmbH and Agria Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.


title: Case C-448/09 P: Appeal brought on 18 November 2009 by Royal Appliance International GmbH against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) delivered on 15 September 2009 in Case T-446/07 Royal Appliance International GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs); the other party to the proceedings being BSH Bosch and Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/30

         Appeal brought on 18 November 2009 by Royal Appliance International GmbH against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) delivered on 15 September 2009 in Case T-446/07 Royal Appliance International GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs); the other party to the proceedings being BSH Bosch and Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH
   (Case C-448/09 P)
   2010/C 24/56
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Royal Appliance International GmbH (represented by: K.-J. Michaeli, Rechtsanwalt, M. Schork, Rechtsanwältin)

      Other parties to the proceedings:

               —

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

               —

               BSH Bosch and Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 September 2009 in Case T-446/07;

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 3 October 2007 in Case R 572/2006-4;

               —

               Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market and BSH Bosch and Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH to bear their own costs and to pay the appellant’s costs both at first instance and in the appeal proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appeal is brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance by which the decision of the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 3 October 2007 was confirmed. The Court of First Instance and the Board of Appeal are of the opinion that there is a likelihood of confusion between the German mark cited in opposition ‘sensixx’ (‘the opposing mark’) and the mark applied for ‘Centrixx’ in relation to the product ‘vacuum cleaner’. The day after the Board of Appeal’s decision and before the Court hearing began, the opposing mark was revoked with final and binding effect with regard to the product ‘vacuum cleaner’. The Court of First Instance rejected the request which was initially submitted to stay proceedings and treated the revocation of the opposing mark as legally irrelevant, since it is not part of the factual or legal context of the dispute which was before the Board of Appeal, and was therefore also not to be taken into account by the Court of First Instance.
   The appellant is of the opinion that the Court of First Instance disregarded the legal conditions applicable to the stay of proceedings under Article 77 of its Rules of Procedure, by not taking the revocation of the opposing mark into account. The change in the factual basis which is decisive for the dispute in this case concerns the validity of the opposing mark, over which the appellant has no influence. That change defeats the ground of opposition to the trade mark registration and there was an obligation to take it into account. That is clear from the appellant’s right to property, which comprises the registration of the trade mark. As a result of its refusal to take into account the pending decision of the Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court) Munich with regard to the opposing mark, the Court of First Instance assessed the similarity of the lists of goods in relation to two marks, one of which had been almost completely revoked at the time of the decision. The Court thereby infringed Article 45 of the Community trade mark Regulation because there were no longer any third party rights in existence at the time of the decision of the Court of First Instance, since the revocation of the opposing mark was already largely established. The Courts of the European Communities have themselves allowed exceptions to the prohibition on the taking into account of new facts, by deciding that decisions of national courts can also be taken into account where they are brought to the attention of the court first in the proceedings before it. That must in particular be the case where the appellant has no influence on the timing of the decision of the Board of Appeal which, as in this case, was taken shortly before the expiry of the period during which there is no obligation to put the mark to use, since the timing of that decision falls within the discretion of the Board of Appeal alone. A decision on the registration of the mark taken on such an arbitrary basis is counter to the objective of Community trade mark law.
   The appellant complains in addition about the erroneous application of Article 8(1)(b) of the Community trade mark Regulation. The assessment and reasoning of the Court of First Instance did not sufficiently comply with the required standard. It failed namely to take into account facts relevant to the goods at issue in the present case and their consequences for the consumer and thus used incorrect criteria of assessment regarding the degree of attention and the similarity of the goods. The Court of First Instance did not give equal weight to common features of and differences between the marks when assessing the similarities between them, and in particular, when assessing visual similarity, relied on irrelevant common features. It did not take into account the pronunciation by the relevant German public of the mark applied for and only reinforced the contradictory nature — complained of in the application — of the assessment of phonetic and conceptual similarity, by affirming reliance on ‘center’ while rejecting an association with that concept. It disregarded basic principles of phonetic recognition by accepting that the word ending ‘xx’ had a particularly sonorous pronunciation and distorted the facts as set out in the appellant’s application by imputing to the appellant a denial that either mark had a clear meaning. Finally, the Court of First Instance incorrectly assessed the conditions for a finding of the likelihood of confusion, by not examining the degree of attention of the public at the time of purchase, and therefore erred in law by agreeing that phonetic and visual perceptions of the mark should be given equal weight.


title: Case F-52/11: Action brought on 24 April 2011 — ZZ v EIB

text:
               25.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 186/37

         Action brought on 24 April 2011 — ZZ v EIB
   (Case F-52/11)
   2011/C 186/70
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Isola, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Investment Bank

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   First, annulment of a letter in which the President of the EIB stated that, following the decision of the Committee of Inquiry to reject the complaint alleging mobbing made by the applicant, no action was necessary, and annulment of other decisions relating to the inquiry into mobbing. Second, a declaration that the applicant is a victim of mobbing

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the letter of 1 September 2010, in so far as the President of the EIB, in addition to not adopting any provision on the mobbing to which the applicant has been subjected for years, claimed that he could review the substance of the reasoning of the Committee of Inquiry;

               —

               annul the report and the conclusions adopted on 30 June 2010 by the Committee of Inquiry, in so far as it did not undertake any investigation into the conduct of the Appeals Committee and its members, in so far as it defined mobbing and, finally, in so far as it dismissed the appeal, limited its activity to investigating the conduct of only a few people and arbitrarily ruled out investigation of some the circumstances surrounding the complaint;

               —

               annul the letters of 17 November 2010 and 30 November 2010 in which, in connection with the procedure under Article 41 of the Staff Regulations, the President of the EIB did not allow the applicant to represent himself, while the Bank was then represented by one of its own employees;

               —

               annul the message of 14 April 2011 in which the HR Director refused to pay any compensation;

               —

               annul all related, consequent and prior measures, including those used by the Committee for mobbing;

               —

               declare that the applicant was the victim of mobbing;

               —

               order the EIB to desist from the mobbing of which the applicant was a victim and to pay compensation for the consequent personal, material and non-material damage, and to pay the costs of the proceedings together with interest and monetary revaluation of the sums awarded.


No C 87/8            ΓΕΝ                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       8 . 4 . 95
 Article 1 of Regulation (EEC ) No 2241/87, not only to                     Removal from the register of Case C-146/94 ( )
 diligently to take all control measures necessary in order to                                    ( 95/C 87/16 )
ensure compliance with the rules in force but also to take
penal or administrative action against those responsible for
infringement of those rules. At no time have the French                By order of 8 February 1995 the President of the Fifth
authorities claimed that France has discharged its                     Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European
obligations in the matter.                                             Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                       C-146/94: Commission of the European Communities v.
 (!) OJ No L 207, 29 . 7. 1987, p. 1 .                                 Hellenic Republic.
 (2 ) OJ No L 378 , 31 . 12 . 1990, p. 1 .
 (3 ) OJ No L 367, 31 . 12 . 1991 , p. 1 .                             (!) OJ No C 202 , 23 . 7. 1994 .
       Removal from the register of Case C-115/94 ( )
                             ( 95/C 87/15 )
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-203/94 ( )
By order of 1 February 1995 the President of the Court of                                         ( 95/C 87/17)
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-115/94: Commission of the                  By order of 3 February 1995 the President of the Court of
European Communities v. Hellenic Republic.                            Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                       from the register of Case C-203/94: French Republic v.
(M OJ No C 161 , 11 . 6. 1994 .                                        Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                       (!) OJ No C 254 , 10 . 9 . 1994 .
                                                     COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              Haarlem-Bollenstreek,           established    in    Heemstede,
                          (First Chamber)                             Netherlands, Aannemersvereniging Veluwe en Zuidelijke
                                                                      Ijsselmeerpolders, established in Apeldoorn, Netherlands,
                      of 21 February 1995                             Combinatie van Aannemers in het Noorden, established in
in Case T-29/92: Vereniging van Samenwerkende                         Leeuwarden,        Netherlands,          Vereniging     Centrale
Prijsregelende Organisaties in de Bouwnijverheid and                  Prijsregeling Kabelwerken, established in Leeuwarden,
  Others v. Commission of the European Communities (*)                Netherlands, Delftse Aannemers Vereniging, established in
(Competition — Non-existent measure — Decisions of                    Rotterdam, Netherlands, Economisch Nationaal Verbond
associations of undertakings — Complex rules and                      van Aannemers van Sloopwerken, established in Utrecht,
regulations — Infringement — Effect on trade between                  Netherlands, Aannemersvereniging 'Gouda en Omstreken',
           Member States — Exemption — Fines)                         established in Rotterdam, Netherlands, Gelderse
                                                                      Aannemers Vereniging inzake Aanbestedingen, established
                            ( 95/C 87/18 )                            in Arnhem, Netherlands, Gooise Aannemers Vereniging,
                (Language of the case: Dutch)                         established in Huizen, Netherlands, 's-Gravenhaagse
                                                                      Aannemers Vereniging, established in The Hague,
In Case T-29/92 : Vereniging van Samenwerkende                        Netherlands, Leidse Aannemersvereniging, established in
Prijsregelende Organisaties in de Bouwnijverheid,                     Leiden, Netherlands, Vereniging Markeer Aannemers
established in Amersfoort, Netherlands, Amsterdamse                   Combinatie, established in Tilburg, Netherlands,
Aannemers Vereniging, established in Amsterdam,                       Nederlandse    Aannemers-          en  Patroonsbond    voor      de
Netherlands, Algemene Aannemersvereniging voor                        Bouwbedrijven, established in Dordrecht, Netherlands,
Waterbouwkundige Werken, established in Utrecht,                      Noordhollandse           Aannemers          Vereniging       voor
Netherlands, Aannemersvereniging van Boorondernemers                  Waterbouwkundige Werken, established in Amsterdam,
en Buizenleggers, established in Soest, Netherlands,                  Netherlands, Oostnederlandse-Vereniging-Aanbestedings
Aannemersvereniging Velsen, Beverwijk en Omstreken,                   Regeling, established in Delden, Netherlands, Provinciale
established in Velsen, Netherlands, Aannemers Vereniging              Vereniging van Bouwbedrijven in Groningen en Drenthe,


title: Case C-207/08: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 July 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Panevėžio apygardos teismas — Republic of Lithuania) — Criminal proceedings against Edgar Babanov (First paragraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Agriculture — Free movement of goods — National legislation prohibiting the cultivation of any type of hemp)

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/15

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 July 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Panevėžio apygardos teismas — Republic of Lithuania) — Criminal proceedings against Edgar Babanov
   (Case C-207/08) (1)

   (First paragraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Agriculture - Free movement of goods - National legislation prohibiting the cultivation of any type of hemp)
   (2008/C 285/24)
   Language of the case: Lithuanian
   Referring court
   Panevėžio apygardos teismas
   Criminal proceedings against
   Edgar Babanov
   Action
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Panevėžio apygardos teismas — Compatibility with the law of the European Union of national legislation providing for criminal liability for cultivating any type of hemp — Power of a court to apply national legislation when the hemp content of active substances does not exceed a certain threshold
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes national legislation which has the effect of prohibiting the cultivation and possession of hemp grown for fibre covered by that regulation.

               2.

               Community law precludes the court of a Member State from applying national legislation which, contrary to Regulation No 1782/2003, has the effect of prohibiting the cultivation and possession of hemp grown for fibre covered by that regulation.

      (1)  OJ C 209 of 15.8.2008.


title: Case F-101/08: Action brought on 8 December 2008 — Pappas v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/77

         Action brought on 8 December 2008 — Pappas v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case F-101/08)
   (2009/C 44/138)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Spyros A. Pappas (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Barattini, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Annulment of the decision of the Office for administration and payment of individual rights determining the applicant's retirement pension rights and of the calculation of the number of years of pensionable service to be taken into account to determine those rights.
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the Office for administration and payment of individual rights of 6 February 2008 determining the applicant's retirement pension rights and the decisions of 22 February 2003 and 27 February 2003 determining the number of years of pensionable service to be taken into account to determine the pension rights;

               —

               order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs


title: Case C-49/06: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 September 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 1999/37/EC — Registration documents for vehicles — Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/18

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 September 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-49/06) (1)

   (Failure of member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 1999/37/EC - Registration documents for vehicles - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)
   (2006/C 294/30)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: N. Yerrell, Agent)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: S. Schreiner, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 1999/37/EC of 29 April 1999 on the registration documents for vehicles (OJ 1999 L 138, p. 57)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, all of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 1999/37/EC of 29 April 1999 on the registration documents for vehicles, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 60, 11. 03. 2006.


title: Case C-32/07: Action brought on 29 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/17

         Action brought on 29 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-32/07)
   (2007/C 82/30)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: R. Vidal Puig and W. Wils, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt all of the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to comply with Directive 2001/84/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 on the resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive.

               —

               Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for the transposition into national law of Directive 2001/84/EC expired on 31 December 2005.

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 272, p 32.


title: Case C-89/09: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 December 2010 — European Commission v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Freedom of establishment — Article 43 EC — Public health — Operation of bio-medical analysis laboratories — National legislation under which no more than 25 % of own capital may be held by shareholders who are not professional biologists — Prohibition on holding shares in more than two companies operating jointly one or more biomedical analysis laboratories — Objective of ensuring the professional independence of biologists — Objective of maintaining diversity of supply in the biomedical field — Consistency — Proportionality)

text:
               19.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/5

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 December 2010 — European Commission v French Republic
   (Case C-89/09) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Freedom of establishment - Article 43 EC - Public health - Operation of bio-medical analysis laboratories - National legislation under which no more than 25 % of own capital may be held by shareholders who are not professional biologists - Prohibition on holding shares in more than two companies operating jointly one or more biomedical analysis laboratories - Objective of ensuring the professional independence of biologists - Objective of maintaining diversity of supply in the biomedical field - Consistency - Proportionality)
   2011/C 55/07
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Rozet and E. Traversa, Agents)

      Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and B. Messmer, Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 43 EC — Rules concerning the operation of bio-medical analysis laboratories — National legislation under which no more than 25 % of a company’s capital may be held by shareholders not engaged in the relevant professional activity — Prohibition on holding shares in more than two companies operating jointly one or more biomedical analysis laboratories — Restrictions on freedom of establishment which may be justified by the objective of protection of public health and are proportionate

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by prohibiting biologists from holding shares in more than two companies formed in order to operate jointly one or more biomedical analysis laboratories, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 43 EC;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder.

               3.

               Orders the French Republic and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 16.05.2009.


title: Case T-217/06: Action brought on 10 August 2006 — Arkema and Others v Commission

text:
               14.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/13

         Action brought on 10 August 2006 — Arkema and Others v Commission
   (Case T-217/06)
   (2006/C 249/32)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Arkema France SA (Puteaux, France), Altuglass International SA (Puteaux, France) and Altumax Europe SAS (Puteaux, France) (represented by: A. Winckler, S. Sorinas and P. Geffriaud, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               on the basis of Article 230 EC, annul the decision adopted by the Commission of the European Communities on 31 May 2006 in Case COMP/F/38.645 in so far as it concerns Arkema;

               —

               in the alternative, annul or reduce, on the basis of Article 229 EC, the amount of the fine imposed on it by that decision;

               —

               order the Commission of the European Communities to pay all the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the present action, the applicant seeks the annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2006) 2098 final of 31 May 2006 (Case COMP/F/38.645 — Methacrylates) in so far as it held the applicant's parent companies liable for the infringement which the applicant committed in breach of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement by participating in a complex of agreements and concerted practices in the methacrylates sector consisting of discussions on prices, of the agreement, implementation and monitoring of price agreements, of the exchange of commercially important and confidential market and/or company relevant information, and also of participation in regular meetings and other contacts to facilitate the infringement. In the alternative, the applicant seeks a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on it by the contested decision.
   In support of its principal claims, the applicant argues that, by holding its parent companies liable for the infringement it committed, on the basis of a mere presumption linked to the fact that almost all its capital was held by those companies at the material time, the Commission made errors of law and fact in the application of the rules relating to holding a parent company liable for infringements committed by its subsidiary and also infringed the principle of non-discrimination. The applicant also takes the view that, by failing to respond to the arguments it advanced in the course of the administrative procedure which sought to show that it enjoyed complete autonomy in determining its commercial policy, and this despite the parent companies' holding almost all its share capital at the material time, the Commission acted in breach of its duty to state reasons under Article 253 EC and the principle of good administration.
   In the alternative, the applicant seeks the annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on it by the contested decision. In support of its claims in this regard, it puts forward several pleas alleging inter alia errors of law and fact committed by the Commission when fixing the starting amount of the fine. The applicant argues that this amount is excessive since the infringement, it maintains, had only a very limited impact on the product markets at issue. The applicant argues further that the Commission acted in breach of the duty to state reasons and the principle of good administration in taking the view that the actual impact of the infringement on the market should not be taken into account when determining the starting amount of the fine.
   Furthermore, the applicant submits that the Commission erred in fact and in law by increasing by 200 % the starting amount of the fine by way of a deterrent by taking as a basis the turnover of its parent company at the material time, since that company could not, according to the applicant, be held liable for the infringement in the light of the commercial autonomy the applicant enjoyed at the material time and of the fact that the directors of the parent companies were not involved in the practices at issue.
   The applicant also claims that in order to increase the level of the fine imposed on it, the Commission took into account decisions against it from 1984, 1986 and 1994 and that, in so doing, its application of the notion of repeated infringement was manifestly excessive and contrary to the principles of lawful punishment and legal certainty. Moreover, the applicant argues that by applying the principle of repeated infringement, the Commission acted in breach of the principle of 'non bis in idem' and the principle of proportionality, since the existence of earlier decisions against it had already been taken into account on several occasions by the Commission in recent decisions.
   The applicant further submits that the Commission made an error of fact in that it did not grant a reduction in the fine on account of the fact that certain offending practices were not actually implemented.
   By its final plea, the applicant asserts that the Commission should also have taken into account, when fixing the amount of the fine, by way of other factors, the fact that the applicant was recently ordered to pay significant fines.


               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/34

         Removal from the register of Case C-56/05 (1)

   (2005/C 217/77)

      (Language of the case: Greek)

   By order of 25 May 2005 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-56/05: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic.

      (1)  OJ C 93 of 16.04.2005.


title: Case C-115/08: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 27 October 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Linz — Austria) — Land Oberösterreich v ČEZ as (Action for cessation of actual or potential nuisance caused to land by the activities of a nuclear power plant situated on the territory of another Member State — Obligation to tolerate actual or potential nuisance caused by installations which have been officially authorised in the Member State where the action is brought — Authorisations issued in other Member States not taken into account — Equal treatment — Principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality under the EAEC Treaty)

text:
               19.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 312/5

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 27 October 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Linz — Austria) — Land Oberösterreich v ČEZ as
   (Case C-115/08) (1)

   (Action for cessation of actual or potential nuisance caused to land by the activities of a nuclear power plant situated on the territory of another Member State - Obligation to tolerate actual or potential nuisance caused by installations which have been officially authorised in the Member State where the action is brought - Authorisations issued in other Member States not taken into account - Equal treatment - Principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality under the EAEC Treaty)
   2009/C 312/06
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landesgericht Linz

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Land Oberösterreich

      Defendant: ČEZ as

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landesgericht Linz (Austria) — Interpretation of the principles of free movement of goods, freedom of establishment, non-discrimination on grounds of nationality and fairness — National provision stipulating that only an action for damages may be brought for a nuisance emanating from an officially authorised installation — Restricting application of that provision to authorisations granted by domestic authorities only, with the result that an action for an injunction can be brought for a nuisance emanating from an installation situated in the territory of another Member State — Temelín nuclear power plant

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The principle of prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality within the scope of application of the EAEC Treaty precludes the application of the legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which an undertaking in possession of the necessary official authorisations for operating a nuclear power plant situated in the territory of another Member State, may be the subject of an action for an injunction to prevent an actual or potential nuisance to neighbouring property emanating from that installation, whereas undertakings having an industrial installation situated in the Member State where the action is brought and in possession of an official authorisation may not be the subject of such an action and may only be the subject of a claim for damages for harm caused to a neighbouring property.

               2.

               It is for the national court to give, in so far as possible, to the domestic legislation which it must apply an interpretation which complies with the requirements of Community law. If such an application in accordance with Community law is not possible, the national court is bound to apply Community law in full and protect the rights it confers on individuals, and to disapply, if necessary, any provision in so far as application thereof, in the circumstances of the case, would lead to a result which is contrary to Community law.

      (1)  OJ C 142, 7.6.2008.


title: Case T-524/08: Order of the Court of First Instance of 2 June 2009 — AVLUX v Parliament (Action for annulment — Public service contracts — Call for tenders for the refurbishment and extension of the Konrad Adenauer Building, Luxembourg — Rejection of a tenderer’s offer — Annulment of the public procurement procedure — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               15.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/22

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 2 June 2009 — AVLUX v Parliament
   (Case T-524/08) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Public service contracts — Call for tenders for the refurbishment and extension of the Konrad Adenauer Building, Luxembourg - Rejection of a tenderer’s offer - Annulment of the public procurement procedure — No need to adjudicate)
   2009/C 193/34
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: AIB-Vinçotte, Luxembourg (AVLUX ASBL) (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: R. Adam, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Ecker and D. Petersheim, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the European Parliament’s decision of 2 October 2008 rejecting the offer made by the applicant in connection with a call for tenders for the refurbishment and extension of the Konrad Adenauer Building, Luxembourg (OJ 2008 S 193-254240)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present proceedings.

               2.

               The European Parliament is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 44, of 21.2.2009.


title: Case C-101/15 P: Appeal brought on 27 February 2015 by Pilkington Group Ltd, Pilkington Automotive Ltd, Pilkington Automotive Deutschland GmbH, Pilkington Holding GmbH, Pilkington Italia SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 17 December 2014 in Case T-72/09: Pilkington Group Limited and Others v Commission

text:
               27.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/45

         Appeal brought on 27 February 2015 by Pilkington Group Ltd, Pilkington Automotive Ltd, Pilkington Automotive Deutschland GmbH, Pilkington Holding GmbH, Pilkington Italia SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 17 December 2014 in Case T-72/09: Pilkington Group Limited and Others v Commission
   (Case C-101/15 P)
   (2015/C 138/58)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Pilkington Group Ltd, Pilkington Automotive Ltd, Pilkington Automotive Deutschland GmbH, Pilkington Holding GmbH, Pilkington Italia SpA (represented by: S. Wisking and K. Fountoukakos-Kyriakakos, solicitors)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               set aside in part the Judgment in Case T-72/09 to the extent to which it dismisses the action brought against Article 2(c) of the Decision;

               —

               reduce the fine imposed on the Appellants in Article 2(c) of the Decision;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the Appellants' costs in these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Appellants submit that the Judgment should be set aside on the following grounds:

               First, the General Court erred in law in its interpretation of point 13 of the Commission's 2006 Fining Guidelines (1) in considering that the Commission was entitled to take into account, when determining the relevant value of sales, sales made pursuant to contracts that pre-dated the infringement period and that were not re-negotiated during the infringement period. As such sales cannot have been affected by the infringement, it was not legally correct to take them into account when determining the basic amount of the fine.

               Second, the General Court erred in law in its interpretation of Article 23(2) of Regulation 1/2003 (2) in considering that the final amount of the fine did not exceed the statutory 10 % cap. The appropriate exchange rate to calculate the 10 % cap is not the ECB average exchange rate for the financial year preceding the year of adoption of the Decision, but the ECB exchange rate applicable on the day the Decision was adopted.

               Third, the General Court erred in law by misapplying the rules on equal treatment and proportionality and by failing to exercise its unlimited jurisdiction with the intensity required by the case law of the Court of Justice.

      (1)  Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003 OJ C 210, p. 2

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (now Articles 101 and 102 TFEU), OJ L 1, p. 1


title: Case T-807/16: Action brought on 17 November 2016 — MIP Metro v EUIPO — Afnor (N & NF TRADING)

text:
               23.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/48

         Action brought on 17 November 2016 — MIP Metro v EUIPO — Afnor (N & NF TRADING)
   (Case T-807/16)
   (2017/C 022/65)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: J.-C. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Association française de normalisation (Afnor) (La Plaine Saint-Denis, France)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the mark ‘N & NF TRADING’ — International registration No 1 086 884 designating the European Union

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 July 2016 in Case R 1109/2015-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case C-227/10: Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 10 March 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia

text:
               16.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/21

         Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 10 March 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia
   (Case C-227/10) (1)

   2011/C 211/40
   Language of the case: Estonian
   The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 31.7.2010.


title: Case T-375/08 P: Appeal brought on 10 September 2008 by Bart Nijs against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 26 June 2008 in Case F-108/07 Nijs v Court of Auditors

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/46

         Appeal brought on 10 September 2008 by Bart Nijs against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 26 June 2008 in Case F-108/07 Nijs v Court of Auditors
   (Case T-375/08 P)
   (2008/C 301/78)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Bart Nijs (Bereldange, Luxembourg) (represented by F. Rollinger and A. Hertzog, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: Court of Auditors of the European Communities
   Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               Declare the appeal admissible;

               —

               Declare the appeal well-founded;

               —

               Consequently, annul the order of 26 June 2008 in Case F-108/07 Bart Nijs v Court of Auditors of the European Communities.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those raised in Case T-371/08 P.