title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht, by order of that court of 20 June 1995, in the case of Pascual Merino Garcia against Bundesanstalt für Arbeit, Kindergeldkasse (Case C-266/95)

text:
23 . 9 . 95            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 248/ 11
Fer and the Commission of the European Communities was               Bundessozialgericht ( Federal Social Court) of 20 June 1995 ,
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                  which was received at the Court Registry on 8 August 1995 ,
Communities on 4 August 1995 by the Commission of the                for a preliminary ruling in the case of Pascual Merino Garcia
European Communities, represented by Bernd Langeheine,               v. Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit, Kindergeldkasse, on the
of the Legal Service, and Gerard de Bergues, a national              following questions :
official on secondment to the Commission, acting as agents,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of           1 . is subsection I C of Annex I to Regulation ( EEC ) No
Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                        1408/71 (^ compatible with the EC Treaty, in particular
                                                                          Article 48 ( 2 ) thereof, in so far as it leads to a situation
The appellant claims that the Court should :                              where workers with children resident outside Germany
                                                                          have no right to child allowance in respect of full
— set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                          calendar months included within a lengthy period of
     6 June 1995 ,
                                                                          unpaid leave but such workers with children resident in
— dismiss the action brought before the Court of First                    Germany do have that right ?
     Instance by the Union Internationale des Chemins de
     Fer, or alternatively refer it back to the Court of First       2 . if subsection I C of Annex I to Regulation ( EEC ) No
     Instance ,                                                           1408/71 is invalid , is the consequence thereof that an
                                                                          'employed person' within the meaning of Article 73 of
— order the respondent to pay the costs incurred by the                   Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 is any person who has
     Commission both in the proceedings before the Court                  been given unpaid leave of absence by his employer on
     of First Instance and in those before the Court of                   the basis of a voluntary agreement, or are there
     Justice .                                                            restrictions in that respect ( e.g. as regards the duration
                                                                          of the leave of absence )?
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The Commission considers that the Court of First Instance            (>) OJ No L 149 , 5 . 7 . 1971 , p . 2 .
committed a threefold error of law in ruling:
— first, that Regulation (EEC ) No 1017/68 also applies
     to agreements, decisions and concerted practices
     concerning activities which are 'related to', and               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
     ' indispensable for', the provision of transport services,      Justice, Chancery Division, Patents Court, by orders of that
     when that Regulation covers, apart from specific                court of 13 July 1995 , in the case of Merck & Co. Inc. and
     agreements which are restrictively listed and irrelevant                    others against Primecrown Ltd and others
     to the present case , only agreements, decisions and                                      Case C-267/95
     concerted practices which directly concern the provision
     of transport,                                                                              ( 95/C 248/24 )
— second , that leaflet No 130 of the Union Internationale           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     des Chemins de Fer covers both the supply of transport          European Communities by orders of the High Court of
     and transport rates within the meaning of Regulation            Justice, Chancery Division, Patents Court, of 13 July 1995 ,
      ( EEC ) No 1017/68 , when the contested provisions             which were received at the Court Registry on 8 August
     thereof restrict competition not on the transport market         1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Merck & Co .
     but on the market for the distribution of tickets,              Inc . and others against Primecrown Ltd and others, on the
— lastly, that by offering railway tickets for sale on behalf        following questions :
     of railway companies, travel agencies perform
      ' operations of providers of services ancillary to              1.    that the provisions and effect of Article 47 of the
     transport' within the meaning of Article 1 of Regulation               Spanish Treaty of Accession to the European
      ( EEC ) No 1017/68 , when travel agents do not fall within            Communities will continue to apply to
      the professional category of providers of services                    pharmaceutical products
      ancillary to transport and the Regulation applies in any
                                                                      1.1   imported from Spain; or
      event only to the operations of such providers of
      ancillary services which are directly related to the            1.2   first marketed in Spain
      provision of transport.
                                                                            until
                                                                             ( a ) 7 October 1995 ; or
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundes                          ( b ) 31 December 1995 , or
 sozialgericht, by order of that court of 20 June 1995 , in the              ( c ) 7 October 1996 , or
 case of Pascual Merino Garcia against Bundesanstalt fur
                     Arbeit, Kindergeldkasse                                 ( d ) 31 December 1996 , or
                        ( Case C-266/95 )                                    ( e ) the end of the third year after the particular
                          ( 95/C 248/23 )                                           pharmaceutical , protected by a product patent in
                                                                                one or more Member State(s ) of the European
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice                                    Union and which was previously unpatentable in
 of the European Communities by an order of the                                     Spain, has become patentable in Spain


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof, Austria, by order of that court of 7 October 1997 in the case of (1) The Polo/Lauren Company LP and (2) Poloco SA v. Jürgen Denz, trading as Jeans & More (Case C-370/97)

text:
20 . 12 . 97            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 387/9
     — it has not adopted the necessary measures to                    to ensure that the waste is disposed of without
          ensure that waste is disposed of without                     endangering human health and without harming the
          endangering human health and without harming                 environment, and in particular without risk to water, air,
          the environment, and in particular without risk to           soil and plants and animals, without causing a nuisance
          water, air, soil and plants and animals, without             through noise or odours, and without adversely affecting
          causing a nuisance through noise or odours, and              the countryside or places of special interest.
          without adversely affecting the countryside or
          places of special interest, in breach of Article 4 of
          Directive 75/442/EEC (') ( or Article 4 of Directive         The Commission also considers that the competent
          75/442/EEC as amended by Directive 91 / 156/                 authorities designated in accordance with Article 5 of the
          EC (2 ), which substantially reproduces the                  directive as originally worded (Article 6 of the amended
          provisions thereof),                                         directive ) have not fulfilled their obligations concerning
                                                                       the organization, authorization and supervision of waste
                                                                        disposal operations in the area in question, as is apparent
     — the competent authorities designated in accordance               from the continuing poor state of the S. Rocco valley.
          with Article       5 of Directive 75/442/EEC        (or
          Article 6 of Directive 75/442/EEC as amended
           by Directive 91 /156/EC, which substantially
           reproduces the provisions thereof) have not                  The Commission also concludes that, in so far as waste
           fulfilled their obligations concerning the                   continues to be tipped into the riverbed in question, the
           organization, authorization and supervision of               competent authorities have failed to supervise the
           waste disposal operations in the area in question,           undertakings transporting, collecting, storing, tipping or
           in breach of Article 5 of Directive 75/442/EEC ( or          treating their own waste and that of third parties, in
           Article 6 of Directive 75/442/EEC as amended by              breach of the obligations imposed by Article 10 of
           Directive 91 / 156/EC ),                                     Directive 75/442/EEC as originally worded (or Article 13
                                                                        of Directive 75/442/EEC as amended ).
     — the competent authorities have not fulfilled
           their obligation of supervising undertakings                 As regards, finally, the existence of a pit used for fly
           transporting, collecting, storing, tipping or treating       tipping, the Commission, although aware of the criminal
           their own waste and those which collect or                    proceedings instituted against the concessionaire, has
           transport waste on behalf of third parties, in                never been informed of the progress of those proceedings.
            breach of Article 10 of Directive 75/442/EEC (or
            Article 13 of Directive 75/442/EEC as amended by
                                                                         (') OJ L 194, 25 . 7 . 1975 , p . 47; EE 15 F1 p . 129 .
            Directive      91 /156/EC,    which      substantially       ( 2 ) OJ L 78 , 26 . 3 . 1991 , p . 32 .
            reproduces the provisions thereof),
      — it has not taken the necessary measures to ensure
            that, with regard to a pit in the tufa located in the
            S. Rocco riverbed area, used for fly tipping in the
            past, the concessionaire responsible for that pit has
            the waste handled by a private or public waste               Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster
            collector or by a disposal undertaking, in breach             Gerichtshof, Austria, by order of that court of 7 October
            of the first indent of Article 7 of Directive 75/442/         1997 in the case of ( 1 ) The Polo/Lauren Company LP and
            EEC ( or the first indent of Article 8 of Directive               ( 2 ) Poloco SA v. Jürgen Denz, trading as Jeans & More
             75/442/EEC as amended by Directive 91 /156/EC,                                             Case C-370/97 )
             which substantially reproduces the provisions
             thereof),                                                                                ( 97/C 387/14 )
 — Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities by an order of the Fourth Senate
                                                                           of the Oberster Gerichtshof ( Supreme Court), Austria, of
                                                                           7 October 1997, which was received at the Court Registry
  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      on 27 October 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case
                                                                            of ( 1 ) The Polo/Lauren Company LP and ( 2 ) Poloco SA v.
                                                                           Jiirgen Denz, trading as Jeans & More, on the following
  With regard to the pollution caused by the tipping of                     questions :
  waste from the area upstream of the S. Rocco valley, the
  Commission considers that the Italian authorities have
  infringed Article 4 of Directive 75/442/EEC as originally                 Is Article 7 ( 1 ) of the First Council Directive 89/104/EEC
  worded (Article 4 of the amended directive ) in that they                 of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the
  have failed to adopt, in that area , all the measures needed               Member States relating to trade marks ( OJ L 40, 11 . 12 .
 ---pagebreak--- C 387/ 10                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       20 . 12 . 97
1989 , p. 1 , 'the Trade Mark Directive') to be interpreted                     The Italian Republic states that the aid is, all in all ,
as meaning that the trade mark entitles its proprietor to                       of an extremely modest amount. Apart from the very
prohibit a third party from using the mark for goods                            limited extent of the aid, which in itself is indicative
which have been put on the market under that mark in a                          of the fact that it is hardly likely to have any impact
State which is not a Contracting State ?                                        on Community trade or competition, it is noteworthy
                                                                                that no mention is or has been made of any such
                                                                                impact;
May the proprietor of the trade mark on the basis of
Article 7 ( 1 ) of the Trade Mark Directive alone seek an
order that the third party cease using the trade mark for
goods which have been put on the market under that                      ( b ) Incorrect exclusion of the permitted derogations,
mark in a State which is not a Contracting State ?                              without reasons being given: infringement and
                                                                                misapplication of Article 92 ( 3 ) ( c ) of the EC Treaty
                                                                                and of Article 3 ( 1 ) ( d ) of Council Regulation ( EEC )
                                                                                No 1107/70 of 4 June 1970 ( 2 ).
                                                                                The Commission states that the derogations provided
      Action brought on 28 October 1997 by the Italian                          for by both the above provisions are inapplicable .
      Republic against the Commission of the European                           However, rather than giving a definitive ruling of
                             Communities
                                                                                incompatibility, the Commission merely expresses
                          ( Case C-372/97)                                      doubts concerning legality and then concludes,
                                                                                without a proper and logical statement of reasons,
                            ( 97/C 387/ 15 )                                    that the derogations are unavailable;
An action against the Commission of the European                         (c)     Incorrect description of the measures as ' new' aid.
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice on
                                                                                The fact that the measures concerned predate the
28 October 1997 by the Italian Republic, represented by
Oscar Fiumara, Avvocato dello Stato, with an address for
                                                                                1981 Law and the 1985 Law and were thus adopted
                                                                                before the entry into force of the Community
service in Luxembourg at the Italian Embassy, 5 Rue
Marie-Adelaide .
                                                                                legislation which liberalized the carriage of goods by
                                                                                road by way of cabotage by opening up the sector to
                                                                                competition implies that such measures, where they
                                                                                are regarded as ' aid', should be described as 'existing
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                      aid '.
— annul in its entirety the decision of the Commission of
      the European Communities of 30 July 1997 (C ( 97 )                         The Commission, having treated the measures in
      2735 final ) ( M ,                                                         question as new aid, and, as a result, as being subject
                                                                                to the procedure provided for in Article 93 ( 3 ), and
                                                                                having in consequence adopted a decision declaring
                                                                                the measures to be unlawful and incompatible,
— in the alternative, annul the part of that decision                            expressly requiring the funds to be repaid to the
      ( Article 5 ) which imposes the obligation to recover the                  State, a serious infringement of essential procedural
      aid granted as from 1 July 1990, plus interest,                            requirements has been committed rendering the
                                                                                decision invalid, at least in so far as it requires
                                                                                recovery the aid paid;
 — in both cases, order the Commission of the European
      Communities to pay the costs.
                                                                          ( d ) Infringement of the principle of the protection of
                                                                                legitimate expectations and the principle of
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                reasonableness as regards the instruction that aid
                                                                                paid as from 1 July 1990 be recovered . Since the aid
                                                                                has been paid for many years, the requirement of
 (a )   Incorrect classification of the measures as aid .                         recovery is inimical to the principles of the protection
        The measures provided for by Regional Law No 4/                           of legitimate expectations and legal certainty. It is
        1985 cannot be regarded as constituting prohibited                        inconceivable that the State and economic operators
        aid, for two reasons: they do not affect intra                           themselves could, in 1981 and then in 1985 , foresee
        Community trade and they are not liable to have any                       that the aid, which at that time was granted as a
        impact on competition .                                                   matter of routine, would so many years later be


title: Case T-625/11: Action brought on 2 December 2011 — BSH v OHIM (ecodoor)

text:
               4.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/39

         Action brought on 2 December 2011 — BSH v OHIM (ecodoor)
   (Case T-625/11)
   2012/C 32/77
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by S. Biagosch, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 22 September 2011 in Case R 340/2011-1;

               —

               Order OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘ecoDoor’ for goods in Classes 7, 9 and 11

      Decision of the Examiner: Refusal of registration.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009, since the Community mark concerned is distinctive and not purely descriptive.


title: Case T-138/06: Action brought on  5 May 2006  — Nasuf v Council

text:
               15.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/30

         Action brought on 5 May 2006 — Nasuf v Council
   (Case T-138/06)
   (2006/C 165/61)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Taher Nasuf (Manchester, United Kingdom) (represented by: N. Garcia, Solicitor, S. Cox, Barrister)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 561/2003 of 27 March 2003 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 246/2006 of 10 February 2006 and of the reference to the applicant in Annex I;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments relied on by the applicant are identical to those relied on in Case T-135/06 Al-Faqih v Council.


               29.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 271/27

         Election of the President of the Civil Service Tribunal
   (2005/C 271/51)
   At a meeting on 6 October 2005, in accordance with Article 3 of the Council Decision of 22 July 2005 appointing Judges of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (1) and Article 4(1) of Annex I to the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice, (2) the Judges of the Civil Service Tribunal elected Mr Mahoney President of the Tribunal for the period from 6 October 2005 to 5 October 2008.

      (1)  OJ L 197, 28.7.2005, p. 28.

      (2)  OJ L 333, 9.11.2004, p. 9.


title: Case T-254/05: Action brought on 6 July 2005 by Fachvereinigung Mineralfaserindustrie e.V. Deutsche Gruppe der EURIMA — European Insulation Manufacturers Association against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               17.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 229/26

         Action brought on 6 July 2005 by Fachvereinigung Mineralfaserindustrie e.V. Deutsche Gruppe der EURIMA — European Insulation Manufacturers Association against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-254/05)
   (2005/C 229/57)
   Language of the case: German
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 6 July 2005 by Fachvereinigung Mineralfaserindustrie e.V. Deutsche Gruppe der EURIMA — European Insulation Manufacturers, Düsseldorf (Germany), represented by T. Schmidt-Kötters, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission's decision of 11 February 2005 on State aid N 260b/2004 — Germany — Extension of the support programme on insulating material from renewable raw materials (State aid N 694/2002 — Germany);

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant objects to the Commission's decision of 11 February 2005 in Case C(2005) 379 on State aid N 260/b/2004 — Germany. In the contested decision the Commission considered the extension of the support programme on insulating material from renewable raw materials (State aid N 694/2002) to be compatible with the EC Treaty.
   The applicant claims that the contested decision infringes the duty to state reasons laid down in Article 253 EC since no reasons are given as to why the measure is clearly beneficial to the environment. In addition, the applicant complains that the contested decision does not address the arguments regarding the original decision raised in the proceedings pending before the Court of First Instance.
   The applicant claims furthermore that the contested decision refers to an original decision which is invalid because it infringes essential procedural requirements.
   The applicant, further submits that, in considering the measure to be clearly beneficial to the environment and thus compatible with the common market in accordance with Article 87(3)(c) EC, the Commission's decision is based on an inadequate establishment of the facts.
   Finally, the applicant complains that the contested decision discriminates against the insulating material referred to by the Commission as ‘traditional’, in particular mineral fibre insulation material, and also insulating material from renewable raw materials which do not possess the natureplus quality mark, without any objective reason. According to the applicant, the decision thereby infringes the principle of proportionality and the principle of non-discrimination and is thus contrary to fundamental principles of Community law.


title: Case C-451/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Salamanca (Spain) lodged on 8 October 2012 — Josune Esteban García

text:
               22.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Salamanca (Spain) lodged on 8 October 2012 — Josune Esteban García
   (Case C-451/12)
   2012/C 399/20
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Audiencia Provincial de Salamanca

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Josune Esteban García

      Question referred

   Do Articles 4, 12, 114 and 169 of the Treaty and Article 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in conjunction with Directive 93/13 (1) and the case-law of the Court of Justice relating to the high level of protection of the interests of consumers, as well as to the practical effect of directives and the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, allow the Audiencia Provincial, as a national court of appeal, to hear and determine, in spite of the absence of any relevant domestic legal rule, the appeal brought against the decision of the court of first instance assigning to a court of the place where the defendant has its address territorial jurisdiction to hear and determine the action for damages based on the defendant’s alleged failure to fulfil its contractual obligations under a contract concluded over the internet?

      (1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29)


title: Case T-119/09: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2012 — Protégé International Ltd v European Commission (Competition — Abuse of dominant position — Market for Irish whiskey — Decision to reject a complaint — Lack of Community interest)

text:
               20.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/6

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2012 — Protégé International Ltd v European Commission
   (Case T-119/09) (1)

   (Competition - Abuse of dominant position - Market for Irish whiskey - Decision to reject a complaint - Lack of Community interest)
   2012/C 319/09
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Protégé International Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Shefet, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, A. Biolan and A. Antoniadis, lawyers)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Pernod Ricard SA (Paris, Frace) (represented by: A. Choffel and S. Hautborg, lawyers)

      Re:

   Annulment of Commission decision C(2009) 505 of 23 January 2009 (Case COMP/39.414 — Protégé International/Pernod Ricard), taken pursuant to Article 7(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles [81 and 82 EC] (OJ 2004 L 123, p. 18) and rejecting, for lack of Community interest, the complaint lodged by the applicant concerning infringements of Article 82 EC allegedly committed by Pernod Ricard.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Protégé International Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

               3.

               Orders Pernod Ricard SA to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 16.5.2009.


title: Case C-300/11: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division)) — ZZ v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Freedom of movement for persons — Directive 2004/38/EC — Decision refusing a citizen of the European Union admission to a Member State on public security grounds — Article 30(2) of the directive — Obligation to inform the citizen concerned of the grounds of that decision — Disclosure contrary to the interests of State security — Fundamental right to effective judicial protection)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/7

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division)) — ZZ v Secretary of State for the Home Department
   (Case C-300/11) (1)

   (Freedom of movement for persons - Directive 2004/38/EC - Decision refusing a citizen of the European Union admission to a Member State on public security grounds - Article 30(2) of the directive - Obligation to inform the citizen concerned of the grounds of that decision - Disclosure contrary to the interests of State security - Fundamental right to effective judicial protection)
   2013/C 225/10
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

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

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: ZZ

      Respondent: Secretary of State for the Home Department

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) — Interpretation of Article 30(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77) in the light of Article 346(1)(a) TFEU — Right to effective judicial protection — Decision to exclude a citizen of a Member State from the territory of another Member State on grounds of public security — Obligation to inform the citizen concerned of the reasons for his exclusion in spite of the fact that the authorities responsible consider such disclosure contrary to the interests of State security

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 30(2) and 31 of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as requiring the national court with jurisdiction to ensure that failure by the competent national authority to disclose to the person concerned, precisely and in full, the grounds on which a decision taken under Article 27 of that directive is based and to disclose the related evidence to him is limited to that which is strictly necessary, and that he is informed, in any event, of the essence of those grounds in a manner which takes due account of the necessary confidentiality of the evidence.

      (1)  OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.


title: Case T-329/10: Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2012 — Fraas v OHIM (Tartan pattern in black, grey, beige and dark red) (Community trade mark — Application for a figurative Community trade mark representing a tartan pattern in black, grey, beige and dark red — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b), Article 75 and Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               27.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/20

      Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2012 — Fraas v OHIM (Tartan pattern in black, grey, beige and dark red)
      (Case T-329/10) (1)

      (Community trade mark - Application for a figurative Community trade mark representing a tartan pattern in black, grey, beige and dark red - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b), Article 75 and Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
      (2012/C 331/33)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: V. Fraas GmbH (Helmbrechts-Wüstenselbitz, Germany) (represented by: R. Kunze and G. Würtenberger, lawyers)

         Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented: initially by B. Schmidt, then D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 June 2010 (Case R 191/2010-4) concerning an application for registration of a figurative sign representing a tartan pattern in black, grey, beige and dark red as a Community trade mark.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders V. Fraas GmbH to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.2010.


title: Case T-474/08: Action brought on 31 October 2008 — Umbach v Commission

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/37

         Action brought on 31 October 2008 — Umbach v Commission
   (Case T-474/08)
   (2009/C 32/73)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Dieter C. Umbach (represented by: M. Stephani, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of the defendant's decision (reference: SG.E.3/MV/psi D(2008) 6991) of 2 September 2008.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant has brought an action against the Commission decision by which that institution refused full and unrestricted access to documents connected with a TACIS programme and a TACIS contract to which the applicant was a party. The applicant claims that access to the documents in question is essential for his defence in the action filed by the Commission against him, following termination of the TACIS contract, for reimbursement of the monies paid in advance.
   In support of his action the applicant claims, first, that general principles of Community law have been infringed, in particular the right to sound administration and the right to due process, because he, as a concerned party, must be given the possibility to obtain full and unfettered access to documents necessary for his defence and subsequent vindication of his own claims against the Commission.
   The applicant also claims, secondly, that a right to full and unfettered access to the files arises from Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1), inasmuch as the Commission erred, in particular, in the exercise of its discretionary powers under Articles 4 and 9 of that regulation.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).


title: Action brought on 3 April 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic (Case C-112/96)

text:
1 . 6 . 96           I EN     |            Official Journal of the European Communities                                      No C 158/7
      necessary in order to comply fully with Council                 Action brought on 3 April 1996 by the Commission of the
      Directive 91 /674/EEC of 19 December 1991 on the                     European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
      annual accounts and consolidated accounts of insurance
                                                                                ( Case C-1 12/96
      undertakings (');
                                                                                ( 96/C 158 / 15 )
— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs .
                                                                      An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
Pleas in law and main arguments                                       the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                      3 April 1996 by the Commission of the European
Under Article 189 ( 3 ) of the Treaty establishing the                Communities, represented by Dimitrios Gouloussis, Legal
European Community directives are to be binding upon                  Adviser at the Commission, with an address for service in
each Member State to which they are addressed . The                   Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of the
Hellenic Republic has not yet adopted the measures                    Commission's Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
necessary to incorporate the relevant Directive fully into
Greek law and has also failed to communicate any such                 The applicant claims that the Court should :
measures to the Commission .
                                                                      — declare that the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its
(') OJ No L 374 , 1991 , p . 7 .                                            obligations under the EC Treaty by failing to adopt and
                                                                            also to communicate to the Commission in due time
                                                                            the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
                                                                            necessary in order to comply fully with Council
                                                                            Directive 92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992 on the
Action brought on 3 April 1996 by the Commission of the                     coordination of laws, regulations and administrative
     European Communities against the Hellenic Republic                     provisions relating to direct life assurance (') and
                        ( Case C-111 /96                                    amending Directives 79/267/EEC ( 2 ) and 90/619/EEC ( 3 )
                          ( 96/C 158/ 14 )                                  ( third life assurance directive );
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before            — order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs .
the Court of Justice . of the European Communities on
3 April 1996 by the Commission of the European                        Pleas in law and main arguments
Communities, represented by Dimitrios Gouloussis, Legal
Adviser at the Commission, with an address for service in             Under Article 189 ( 3 ) of the Treaty establishing the
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gômez de la Cruz, of the           European Community directives are to be binding upon
Commission's Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                 each Member State to which they are addressed . The
                                                                      Hellenic Republic has not yet adopted the measures
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          necessary to incorporate the relevant Directive fully into
                                                                      Greek law and has also failed to communicate any such
— declare that the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its         measures to the Commission .
      obligations under the EC Treaty by failing to adopt and
      also to communicate to the Commission in due time               (') OJ No L 360, 1992 , p . 1 .
      the laws, regulations and administrative provisions             ( 2 ) OJ No L 63 , 1979 , p . 1 .
      necessary in order to comply fully with Council                 ( 5 ) OJ No L 330 , 1990 , p . 50.
      Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the
      coordination of laws, regulations and administrative
      provisions relating to direct insurance other than life
      assurance (') and amending Directives 73/239/EEC ( 2 )
      and     88/357/EEC ( 3 )     ( third non-life   insurance       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundessozial
      directive );                                                    gericht by order of that court of 8 February 1996 in the case
— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs .                      of 1 . Manuela Gomez Rodriguez and 2 . Gregorio Gomez
                                                                          Rodriguez v. Landesversicherungsanstalt Rheinprovinz
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                  ( Case C-113 /96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 158/ 16 )
Under Article 189 ( 3 ) of the Treaty establishing the
European Community directives are to be binding upon
each Member State to which they are addressed . The                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Hellenic Republic has not yet adopted the measures                    European Communities by order of the Bundessozialgericht
necessary to incorporate the relevant Directive fully into             ( Federal Social Court ), Thirteenth Chamber, of 8 February
Greek law and has also failed to communicate any such                  1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on 5 April
measures to the Commission .                                           1996 , in the case of 1 . Manuela Gomez Rodriguez and
                                                                      2 . Gregorio Gomez Rodriguez v. Landesversicherungs
(') OJ No L 228 , 1992 , p . 1 .                                      anstalt ( Regional Insurance Office ) Rheinprovinz, on the
( 2 ) OJ No L 228 , 1973 , p . 3 .                                    following questions :
( 3 ) OJ No L 172 , 1988 , p . 1 .
                                                                       1 . Is Article 78 ( 2 ) ( b ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 ( )
                                                                             to be as meaning that the provision contained therein on


title: Case T-148/05: Action brought on 11 April 2005 by the Comunidad Autónoma de Madrid and Madrid, Infraestructuras del Transporte (MINTRA) against Commission of the European Communities

text:
               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/41

         Action brought on 11 April 2005 by the Comunidad Autónoma de Madrid and Madrid, Infraestructuras del Transporte (MINTRA) against Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-148/05)
   (2005/C 143/77)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 11 April 2005 by the Comunidad Autónoma de Madrid and Madrid, Infraestructuras del Transporte (MINTRA), having its principal place of business in Madrid, represented by C. Fernández Vicién, D. Ortega Peciña and J. Sabater Marotias, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission's decision; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The present action is brought against the defendant's decision classifying MINTRA in the general sector ‘public administrations’, in accordance with the ‘European system of accounts — ESA 1995’ provided for in Annex A to Council Regulation (EC) No 2223/96 of 25 June 1996 on the European system of national and regional accounts in the Community. (1) The ESA 1995 consists of a series of definitions, nomenclatures and rules of accounting methodology which the Member States apply when drawing up their national accounts and economic statistics. That accounting system is also used for the application of the excessive deficit procedure.
   MINTRA is a public-law entity of the Comunidad de Madrid attached to the Consejería de Transportes e Infraestructuras. It has legal personality and its own assets and also full capacity to act. It also has the capacity to incur autonomous debts with regard to the Comunidad de Madrid.
   In support of its claims, the applicant alleges:

               —

               breach of various rules of the ESA 1995 on the classification of institutional units as ‘market’ or ‘non-market’ entities;

               —

               breach of the principle of legitimate expectations, in so far as the contested decision presumes a radical change in the position of Eurostat concerning the classification adopted by that body vis-à-vis MINTRA by letter of 14 February 2003, a reclassification which resulted from a declaration of Eurostat to the same effect in a very similar case, that of the Austrian public entity Bundesimmobiliengesellschaft. Significant, in that regard, is the fact that the decision has extremely serious financial consequences for the applicant and for MINTRA, since the debt of that public entity will be incorporated in the accounts of the Comunidad de Madrid. Furthermore, MINTRA could be obliged to rescind the contracts already entered into in connection with the plan to expand the metropolitan railway network, which the Comunidad de Madrid undertook on the basis of the classification of February 2003;

               —

               breach of the obligation to state reasons, in that, among other reasons, the contested decision lacks any reference to its legal basis and to the specific factual elements on which it is based.

      (1)  OJEC L 310 of 30.11.1996, p. 1.


title: Case T-330/01: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 September 2006 — Akzo Nobel NV v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Sodium gluconate — Article 81 EC — Fine — Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 — Guidelines for the calculation of the amount of fines — Principle of proportionality — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/41

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 September 2006 — Akzo Nobel NV v Commission
   (Case T-330/01) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Sodium gluconate - Article 81 EC - Fine - Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 - Guidelines for the calculation of the amount of fines - Principle of proportionality - Obligation to state reasons)
   (2006/C 294/86)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Akzo Nobel NV (Arnhem, Netherlands) (represented by: initially by M. van Empel and C. Swaak, and subsequently by C. Swaak, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Whelan, A. Bouquet and W. Wils, Agents, assisted by H.van der Woude, lawyer)
   Re:
   Annulment of Articles 3 and 4 of Decision C(2001) 2931 of 2 October 2001 concerning a procedure under Article 81 of the Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case No COMP/E 1/36.756 — Sodium Gluconate), in so far as it pertains to the applicant or, in the alternative, reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Akzo Nobel NV to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 68, 16.3.2002.


title: Case C-598/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 1 de Jerez de la Frontera (Spain) lodged on 16 November 2015 — Banco Santander, S.A. v Cristobalina Sánchez López

text:
               1.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/32

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 1 de Jerez de la Frontera (Spain) lodged on 16 November 2015 — Banco Santander, S.A. v Cristobalina Sánchez López
   (Case C-598/15)
   (2016/C 038/45)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Jerez de la Frontera

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Banco Santander, S.A.

      Defendant: Cristobalina Sánchez López

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is it contrary to the abovementioned provisions and the objectives of the Directive (1) for legislation such as the Spanish legislation to establish a procedure like that of Article 250.1.7 of the Law of Civil Procedure, requiring the national court to give a ruling ordering the dwelling subject to enforcement to be handed over to the person who acquired it in extrajudicial enforcement proceedings, in which, under the current regime contained in Article 129 of the Law on Mortgages in the version contained in Law 1/2000 of 8 January and Articles 234 to 236-0 of the Mortgage Rules, in the wording of Royal Decree 290/1992, there could be no review ex officio of unfair terms and the debtor could not raise an effective objection on those grounds, either in the extrajudicial enforcement procedure or in separate legal proceedings?

               2.

               Is it contrary to the abovementioned provisions and the objectives of the Directive for legislation, such as the Fifth Transitional Provision of Law 1/2013, to allow the notary to suspend extrajudicial enforcement proceedings already commenced when Law 1/2013 came into force only if the consumer establishes that he has lodged a claim concerning the unfairness of a clause in the mortgage loan agreement on which the extrajudicial sale is based, or which determines the amount payable on enforcement, provided that the separate claim has been lodged by the consumer within a period of one month from publication of Law 1/2013, without the consumer having been notified in person of that period, and in any case before the notary has made the award?

               3.

               Are the abovementioned provisions of the Directive, the objective it pursues and the obligation it imposes on national courts to examine of their own motion the unfairness of unfair terms in consumer contracts without the consumer having to request it to be interpreted as allowing the national court, in proceedings such as that established in Article 250. 1.7 of the Law of Civil Procedure or in the ‘extrajudicial sale’ procedure governed by Article 129 of the Law on Mortgages, to disapply national law when the latter it does not permit that judicial review of the court’s own motion, in view of the clarity of the provisions of the Directive and of the affirmations of the CJEU concerning the obligation of national courts to review of their own motion the existence of unfair terms in cases relating to consumer contracts?

               4.

               Is it contrary to the abovementioned provisions and the objectives of the Directive for national legislation, such as Article 129 of the Law on Mortgages, in the wording of Law 1/2013, merely to confer on a notary, as sole effective remedy for protecting the consumer rights enshrined in the Directive, and in respect of extrajudicial enforcement procedures with consumers, the power to warn of the existence of unfair terms; or to give the consumer against whom extrajudicial enforcement is sought an opportunity of lodging a claim in separate legal proceedings before the notary has awarded the property subject to enforcement?

               5.

               Is it contrary to the abovementioned provisions and the objectives of the Directive for national legislation, such as Article 129 of the Law on Mortgages, in the wording provided by Law 1/2013, and Articles 234 to 236 of the Mortgage Rules in the wording given in Royal Decree 290/1992, to establish an extrajudicial procedure for the enforcement of mortgage loan agreements concluded with consumers by sellers or suppliers in which there is no opportunity whatsoever for review ex officio of unfair terms?

      (1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).


title: Case C-296/08 PPU: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 August 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Montpellier — France) — Criminal proceedings of extradition v Ignacio Pedro Santesteban Goicoechea (Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Articles 31 and 32 — European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States — Possibility for the State executing an extradition request to apply a convention adopted before 1 January 2004 but applicable in that State from a later date)

text:
               11.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/4

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 August 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Montpellier — France) — Criminal proceedings of extradition v Ignacio Pedro Santesteban Goicoechea
   (Case C-296/08 PPU) (1)

   (Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Articles 31 and 32 - European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States - Possibility for the State executing an extradition request to apply a convention adopted before 1 January 2004 but applicable in that State from a later date)
   (2008/C 260/05)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Cour d'appel de Montpellier
   Party in the main proceedings
   Ignacio Pedro Santesteban Goicoechea
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour d'appel de Montpellier (France) — Interpretation of Articles 31 and 32 of the Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1) — Power of a Member State to use in its relations with another Member State procedures other than those provided for in the Framework Decision, in particular, those provided for by the Dublin Convention of 27 September 1996 relating to extradition between the Member States of the European Union — Effect of the failure of the Member State issuing the arrest warrant to give notification of the agreements and arrangements which it wishes to continue to apply — Possibility, for the Member State executing the arrest warrant, to apply a convention adopted prior to 1 January 2004, but which entered into force in that Member State after that date
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 31 of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States must be interpreted as referring only to the situation in which the European arrest warrant system is applicable, which is not the case where a request for extradition relates to acts committed before a date specified by a Member State in a statement made pursuant to Article 32 of that Framework Decision;

               2.

               Article 32 of Framework Decision 2002/584 must be interpreted as not precluding the application by an executing Member State of the Convention relating to extradition between the Member States of the European Union drawn up by Council Act of 27 September 1996 and signed on that date by all the Member States, even where that convention became applicable in that Member State only after 1 January 2004.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 30.8.2008.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 2 October 1996 in Case T-356/94: Sergio Vecchi v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Notice of vacancy - Manifest error - Misuse of powers - Statement of reasons - Admissibility)

text:
9 . 11 . 96           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 336/27
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              Communities ( Agent: Ana Maria Alves Vieira ) —
                   of 24 September 1996                              application for annulment of the Commission's decision of
                                                                     8 August 1994 not to accept the applicant's candidature for
in Case T-l 82/94 : Ricardo Marx Esser and Casto Del Amo
                                                                     the post of head of the Commission 's delegation to
             Martinez v. European Parliament ( 1 )                   Kazakhstan and, consequently, annulment of the decision to
(Officials   — Representation — Staff Committee —                    appoint another candidate to that post, and a claim for
Elections — List of staff members entitled to vote —                 damages — the Court of First Instance ( Fourth Chamber ),
Elimination, following the ballot, ofstaffmembers on leave           composed of K. Lenaerts , President, P. Lindh and J. D.
                    on personal grounds)                             Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the
                           96/C 336/57 )                             Registrar, gave a judgment on 2 October 1996 , the operative
                                                                     part of which is as follows :
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     1 . the Commission 's decision of 8 August 1994 not to
                                                                         accept the applicant 's candidature for the post ofhead of
In Case T-l 82/94 : Ricardo Marx Esser and Casto Del Amo                 the Commission 's delegation to Kazakhstan is annulled,
Martinez, officials of the European Parliament, respectively             together with its decision of 8 August 1994 to appoint
residing at Luxembourg, and at Sandweiler ( Luxembourg ),                Mr K to that post;
represented by Georges Vandersanden , of the Brussels Bar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of           2 . the remainder of the application is dismissed;
Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 1 Rue Glesener, v. European
Parliament ( Agents : Manfred Peter and Alex Bonn ) —                3 . the Commission is ordered to pay the costs , including
application for annulment of the elections to the Staff                  those relating to the procedure for interim relief.
Committee of the Secretariat of the European Parliament,
held on 21 to 27 May 1993 — the Court of First Instance
( Third Chamber ), composed of: C. P. Briët, President, and          (') OJ No C 370 , 24 . 12 . 1994 .
B. Vesterdorf and A. Potocki , Judges ; J. Palacio Gonzalez,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
24 September 1996 , in which it:
1 . declares that there is no need to give a ruling on the
     applications for measures of inquiry submitted by the
     applicants;                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 8 October 1996
2 . annuls the decision of the President of the European             in Joined Cases T-24/93 , T-25/93 , T-26/93 and T-28/93 ,
     Parliament of 3 February 1 994 rejecting the applicants '       Compagnie Maritime Beige Transports SA and Others v.
     complaint and refusing to annul the electoral                          Commission of the European Communities (')
     proceedings in issue;
                                                                     (Competition — International maritime transport — Liner
                                                                     conferences — Regulation (EEC) No 4056/86 — Effect on
3 . orders the Parliament to pay the costs.
                                                                     trade — Collective dominantposition — Implementation of
                                                                     an agreement providing for an exclusive right — Fighting
(') OJ No C 174, 25 . 6 . 1994 .                                     ships — Loyalty rebates — Fines — Assessment criteria)
                                                                                ( 96/C 336/59 )
                                                                          (Languages of the case: Dutch, English , German)
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             In Joined Cases T-24/93 , Compagnie Maritime Beige
                       of 2 October 1996                             Transports SA and Compagnie Maritime Beige SA,
                                                                     established at Antwerp ( Belgium ), represented by Michel
in Case T-356/94 : Sergio Vecchi v. Commission of the                Waelbroeck and Denis Waelbroeck, of the Brussels Bar, and
                  European Communities (*)                           by Aurelio Pappalardo , of the Trapani Bar, with an address
 (Officials — Notice of vacancy — Manifest error — Misuse            for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest
    of powers — Statement of reasons — Admissibility)                Arendt, 34 Rue Philippe II v. Commission of the European
                          ( 96/C 336/58 )                            Communities ( Agents, during the written procedure , Bernd
                                                                     Langeheine and Richard Lyal and , at the hearing, Richard
                                                                     Lyal, Paul Nemitz and Berend Jan Drijber ), supported by
                (Language of the case: French)                        Grimaldi , established at Palermo ( Italy ), and Cobelfret,
                                                                     established at Antwerp ( Belgium ), represented by Mark
 In Case T-356/94 : Sergio Vecchi, an official of the                 Clough, Barrister, with an address for service in
 Commission of the European Communities, residing at                  Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31
 Overijse ( Belgium ), represented by Georges Vandersanden            Grand-Rue ; T-25/93 , Dafra-Lines A/S, established at
 and Laure Levi, both of the Brussels Bar, with an address for        Copenhagen , represented by Michel Waelbroeck and Denis
 service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson            Waelbroeck, of the Brussels Bar, and by Aurelio
 Sari, 1 Rue Glesener v. Commission of the European                   Pappalardo, of the Trapani Bar, with an address for service


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) 16 May 2002 in Case C-142/01: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 92/51/EEC — System for the recognition of professional education and training — Ski monitor)

text:
13.7.2002                EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 169/11
Northern Ireland (Agent: R. Magrill, assisted by R. Anderson,                 di ordinamento della professione di guida alpina (Framework
barrister): Application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt           Law for the profession of ski monitor and supplementary
the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary                 provisions relating to the regulation of the profession of
to comply with Council Directive 96/48/EC of 23 July 1996                     mountain guide) of 8 March 1991 (GURI No 64 of 16 March
on the interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail                 1991, p. 3), which makes recognition of a ski-monitor diploma
system (OJ 1996 L 235, p. 6), the United Kingdom of Great                     subject to a condition of reciprocity, the Italian Republic has
Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations             failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 92/51/
under that directive, the Court (First Chamber), composed of:                 EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for
P. Jann, President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet and A. Rosas                   the recognition of professional education and training to
(Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General;                        supplement Directive 89/48/EEC (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 25), the
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 May 2002, in                  Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: S. von Bahr, President
which it:                                                                     of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur) and C.W.A. Tim-
                                                                              mermans, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General;
                                                                              R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 May 2002, in
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period
                                                                              which it:
      the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
      comply with Council Directive 96/48/EC of 23 July 1996 on
      the interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail              1.    Declares that, by maintaining in force the first paragraph of
      system, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern                      Article 12 of Law No 81, Legge-quadro per la professione di
      Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;            maestro di sci e ulteriori disposizioni in materia di ordinamento
                                                                                della professione di guida alpina (Framework Law for the
                                                                                profession of ski monitor and supplementary provisions relating
2.    Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
                                                                                to the regulation of the profession of mountain guide) of
      Ireland to pay the costs.
                                                                                8 March 1991, which makes recognition of a ski-monitor
                                                                                diploma subject to a condition of reciprocity, the Italian
(1) OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001.                                                           Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council
                                                                                Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general
                                                                                system for the recognition of professional education and training
                                                                                to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC;
                                                                              2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                              (1) OJ C 150 of 19.5.2001.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Fourth Chamber)
                             16 May 2002
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
in Case C-142/01: Commission of the European Communi-                                                   (Third Chamber)
                      ties v Italian Republic (1)
                                                                                30 May 2002
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Directive 92/51/EEC — System for the recognition of                           in Case C-323/01: Commission of the European Communi-
     professional education and training — Ski monitor)                                             ties v Italian Republic (1)
                           (2002/C 169/18)                                    (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                              Directive 98/101/EC — Batteries and accumulators contain-
                                                                                ing certain dangerous substances)
                     (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                (2002/C 169/19)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                                                 (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-142/01, Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: M. Patakia and A. Aresu) v Italian Republic (Agent:
U. Leanza, assisted by G. Aiello, avvocato dello Stato): Appli-
cation for a declaration that, by maintaining in force the first              In Case C-323/01, Commission of the European Communities
paragraph of Article 12 of Law No 81, Legge-quadro per la                     (Agents: R. Wainwright and R. Amorosi) v Italian Republic
professione di maestro di sci e ulteriori disposizioni in materia             (Agent: U. Leanza, assisted by M. Fiorilli): Application for a


title: Case T-387/02: Action brought on 13 December 2002 by Dorte Schmidt-Brown against Commission of the European Communities

text:
22.3.2003              EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 70/23
Action brought on 29 November 2002 by Mühlens GmbH                          Decision of the Oppo-          Dismissal of the opposition
& Co. KG against the Office for Harmonisation in the                        sition Board:
         Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                            Decision of the Board of       Dismissal of the applicant’s appeal
                                                                            Appeal:
                          (Case T-355/02)
                                                                            Grounds of claim:              —    The goods are partly ident-
                          (2003/C 70/38)                                                                        ical, or to a great extent
                                                                                similar
(Language of the case to be decided in accordance with Article 131(2)                                      —    There is great similarity in
of the Rules of Procedure — Language in which the application was                                               relation to the marks
                           drafted: German)
                                                                                —    There is a risk of confusion
                                                                                between the marks that are
                                                                                comparable
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
29 November 2002 by Mülhens GmbH & Co. KG, Köln
(Germany), represented by T. Schulte-Beckhausen. Also a party
before the Board of Appeal: Zirh International CDRP, New
York, United States of America
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 Action brought on 13 December 2002 by Dorte Schmidt-
                                                                            Brown against Commission of the European Communities
—     annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of
      1 October 2002 (File No R 657/2001-2;
                                                                                (Case T-387/02)
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                                (2003/C 70/39)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Applicant for the Com-           ZIRH International CDRP
munity trade mark:
Community trade mark             Word mark ‘ZIRH’ for goods and             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
concerned:                       services in Classes 3 and 42 (inter        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                 alia, Soaps; perfumery; essential          European Communities on 13 December 2002 by Dorte
                                 oils; cosmetics; hair lotions and          Schmidt-Brown, residing in Wellen (Germany), represented by
                                 Hygienic and beauty care services)         Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers.
                                 — Application No 1316744
Owner of the right to            The applicant
the trade mark or sign                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
asserted by way of oppo-
sition in the opposition
                                                                            —     annul the decision of the Commission of 26 April 2002
proceedings:
                                                                                rejecting the applicant’s request seeking:
Trade mark or sign               The figurative mark ‘Sir’ for Goods
asserted by way of oppo-         in Class 3 (Perfumery, essential                 —    aid and assistance from her institution in the action
sition in the opposition         oils, cosmetics, dentifrices, soaps,                  brought before the courts of the United Kingdom
proceedings:                     hair lotions.                                         against Eurogramme Ltd;
 ---pagebreak--- C 70/24                 EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                        22.3.2003
       —    access, permission to copy and to produce before              Action brought on 19 December 2002 by Arla Foods
            the courts all documents relating to the project              and Others against the Commission of the European
            PRODCOM concerning Eurogramme Ltd directly or                                            Communities
            indirectly and, in particular, those appearing in the
            list enclosed with the originating request together
            with all the elements of the internal investigation                                    (Case T-397/02)
            file carried out by the Head of Unit DG EUROSTAT/
            R.1 ‘Administrative and personnel matters’ including
            the audit report of 21 December 2000;                                                   (2003/C 70/40)
       —    financial assistance to allow her to cover the entire                           (Language of the case: Danish)
            cost of defending the action seeking compensation
            for non-material, professional and material damage
            suffered as a result of defamatory statements made
            against her;
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
—      order the defendant to pay the costs.                              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 19 December 2002 by Arla Foods,
                                                                          Viby J (Denmark), and eight other Danish cheese producers,
                                                                          represented by Georg Lett, advokat.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          The applicants claim that the Court should:
The applicant was an official of the Commission, working for              —      Annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 1829/2002 of
DG EUROSTAT. She was responsible for the PRODCOM                                 14 October 2002 (1) on the registration of the name ‘Feta’
project in respect of which Eurogramme Ltd entered into a                        under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of Council
contract for the provision of statistical services.                              Regulation No 2081/92.
                                                                          —      Order the Commission to pay the costs.
According to the applicant, Eurogramme Ltd made serious
accusations against the applicant in this respect. Subsequently,
the applicant brought an action on the grounds of defamation
against Eurogramme Ltd before the courts in the United
Kingdom.                                                                  Pleas in law and main arguments
In that context, the applicant submitted a request within the             Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the
meaning of Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations seeking to              protection of geographical indications and designations of
obtain access and permission to copy and produce before the               origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs ( 2) introduced
courts in the United Kingdom all documents relating to                    Community rules governing inter alia designations for food-
the PRODCOM project. That request also sought financial                   stuffs. Under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 of
assistance to allow her to cover the entire cost of defending             12 June 1996 on the registration of geographical indications
the action seeking compensation for damage suffered as a                  and designations of origin under the procedure laid down
result of defamatory statements made against her by Eurogram-             in Article 17 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 (3)
me Ltd. That request was rejected by the contested decision.              designations including ‘feta’ were registered. By judgment of
                                                                          16 March 1999 (4), the Court of Justice annulled Regulation
                                                                          No 1107/96 as regards the term ‘feta’. With the contested
In support of her application, the applicant alleges infringe-            regulation, the Commission has again registered the term ‘feta’
ment of Decision No 94/90 (1)on public access to Commission               as a protected geographical indication in favour of Greece.
documents and infringement of Article 19 of the Staff
Regulations. The applicant points out that the contested
decision gives no reason for refusing access to the file and              The applicants, all Danish producers of feta cheese, claim that
permission to produce such documents before the courts.                   the contested regulation should be annulled and submit that
                                                                          the regulation is vitiated by fundamental formal defects which
                                                                          lead to its being invalid as regards registration of the term
( 1) 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom: Commission Decision of 8 February           ‘feta’. According to the applicants, the Greek legislation was
     1994 on public access to Commission documents (OJ 1994 L 46,         enacted too late to enable the term ‘feta’ to be registered
     58).                                                                 pursuant to Article 17 of Council Regulation No 2081/92.
                                                                          Moreover, neither the principal points in Greece’s application
                                                                          nor technical goods specifications for the term ‘feta’ have been
                                                                          made public.


title: Case C-343/16 P: Appeal brought on 20 June 2016 by Europäischer Tier- und Naturschutz e.V. and Horst Giesen against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 14 June 2016 in Case T-595/15, Europäischer Tier- und Naturschutz e.V. and Horst Giesen v European Commission

text:
               20.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 53/20

         Appeal brought on 20 June 2016 by Europäischer Tier- und Naturschutz e.V. and Horst Giesen against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 14 June 2016 in Case T-595/15, Europäischer Tier- und Naturschutz e.V. and Horst Giesen v European Commission
   (Case C-343/16 P)
   (2017/C 053/24)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellants: Europäischer Tier- und Naturschutz e.V. and Horst Giesen (represented by: Dr. P. Brockmann, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
   By order of 12 January 2017 the Court of Justice of the European Union (Eighth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.


title: Case C-341/10: Order of the President of the Court of 17 May 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

text:
               6.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/23

         Order of the President of the Court of 17 May 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-341/10) (1)

   2011/C 232/37
   Language of the case: Polish
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 25.9.2010.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 4 December 2001 in Case T-125/00: Joaquín López Madruga v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Transfer of part of remuneration in the currency of a Member State other than that of the country in which the institution has its seat — Article 17(2)(a) and (b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Combined application)

text:
6.4.2002                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 84/57
vessels, the Court of First Instance of the European Communi-             2.    Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay one
ties (Third Chamber), composed of: J. Azizi, President, K. Le-                  half of the applicant’s costs.
naerts and M. Jaeger, Judges, Registrar: J. Palacio González,
Administrator, has given a judgment on 6 December 2001, in
which it:                                                                 (1) OJ C 211 of 22.7.2000.
1.     Dismisses the action;
2.     Orders the applicants to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.
                                                                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                11 December 2001
                                                                          in Case T-138/00: Erpo Möbelwerk GmbH v Office for
                                                                          Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                                                                                Designs) (OHIM) (1)
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                          (Community trade mark — ‘DAS PRINZIP DER BEQUEM-
                       of 4 December 2001                                 LICHKEIT’ — Absolute grounds for refusal —
                                                                               Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
in Case T-125/00: Joaquı́n López Madruga v Commission
                                                                                (2002/C 84/106)
                of the European Communities (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(Officials — Transfer of part of remuneration in the
currency of a Member State other than that of the country
in which the institution has its seat — Article 17(2)(a) and
(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Combined
                             application)                                 In Case T-138/00, Erpo Möbelwerk GmbH, established in
                                                                          Ertingen (Germany), represented by S. von Petersdorff-Camp-
                                                                          en, Rechtsanwalt, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
                          (2002/C 84/105)                                 v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
                                                                          and Designs) (OHIM), represented by F. López de Rego and
                                                                          G. Schneider, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
                    (Language of the case: Spanish)                       Luxembourg: action brought against the decision of the Third
                                                                          Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the
                                                                          Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 23 March 2000
                                                                          (Case R 392/1999-3) concerning the registration of ‘DAS
                                                                          PRINZIP DER BEQUEMLICHKEIT’ as a Community trade
In Case T-125/00: Joaquı́n López Madruga, an official of                 mark, the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed
the Commission of the European Communities, residing in                   of: P. Mengozzi, President, V. Tiili and R.M. Moura Ramos,
Brussels, represented by J.R. Iturriagagoitia, lawyer, with an            Judges, Registrar: J. Palacio González, Administrator, has given
address for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of the                    a judgment on 11 December 2001, in which it has ruled:
European Communities (Agents: J. Currall, J. Rivas Andres and
J.J. Guttierrez Gisbert) — application for partial annulment of
the decision implicitly rejecting the applicant’s request of              1.    Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office
12 October 1999 for the transfer of part of his remuneration                    for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
under Article 17 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — the                    Designs) of 23 March 2000 (Case R 392/1999-3);
Court of First Instance (Single Judge: A.W.H. Meij); H. Jung,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 4 December 2001, in
                                                                          2.    Orders the Office to bear its own costs and to pay those of the
which it:
                                                                                applicant.
1.     Annuls the implicit decision of the Commission of 23 March
       2000 in so far as it limits to 19 % of the applicant’s net         (1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.
       monthly remuneration the amount which he may transfer
       pursuant to Article 17(2)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff
       Regulations;


title: Case T-371/17 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 12 July 2017 — Qualcomm and Qualcomm Europe v Commission (Interim proceedings — Competition — Antitrust — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 18(3) — Decision requesting information — Application for interim measures — No urgency)

text:
               18.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 309/33

         Order of the President of the General Court of 12 July 2017 — Qualcomm and Qualcomm Europe v Commission
   (Case T-371/17 R)
   ((Interim proceedings - Competition - Antitrust - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 18(3) - Decision requesting information - Application for interim measures - No urgency))
   (2017/C 309/43)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Qualcomm, Inc., (San Diego, California (United States of America) and Qualcomm Europe, Inc., (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Pinto de Lemos Fermiano Rato and M. Davilla, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Van Vliet, G. Conte, C. Urraca Caviedes and M. Farley, Agents)

      Re:

   Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for the grant of interim measures, seeking the suspension of operation of Commission Decision of 31 March 2017 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 18(3) and to Article 24(1)(d) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1) (Case AT.39711 — Qualcomm (predation)).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-736/14: Judgment of the General Court of 28 October 2015 — Monster Energy v OHIM — Home Focus (MoMo Monsters) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark MoMo Monsters — Earlier Community word marks MONSTER and MONSTER ENERGY and earlier international figurative mark MONSTER ENERGY — Relative ground for refusal — No similarity between the goods — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               21.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 429/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 October 2015 — Monster Energy v OHIM — Home Focus (MoMo Monsters)
   (Case T-736/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark MoMo Monsters - Earlier Community word marks MONSTER and MONSTER ENERGY and earlier international figurative mark MONSTER ENERGY - Relative ground for refusal - No similarity between the goods - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 429/29)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

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

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

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 August 2014 (Case R 1167/2013-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Monster Energy Company and Home Focus Development Ltd.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Monster Energy Company to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 448, 15.12.2014.


title: Case C-502/06 P: Appeal brought on 13 December 2006 by Carlos Correia de Matos against the order made by the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) on 27 September 2006 in Case T-440/05 Carlos Correia de Matos v European Parliament

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/19

         Appeal brought on 13 December 2006 by Carlos Correia de Matos against the order made by the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) on 27 September 2006 in Case T-440/05 Carlos Correia de Matos v European Parliament
   (Case C-502/06 P)
   (2008/C 22/37)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Appellant: Carlos Correia de Matos

      Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament
   By order of 21 November 2007 the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.