title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 December 2001 in Case C-146/00: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Telecommunications — Financing of a "universal service" — contribution from new market entrants)

text:
6.4.2002                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 84/23
2.    Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                       1.    Declares that, by failing to comply with Article 4c of
                                                                                Commission Directive 90/388/EEC of 28 June 1990 on
                                                                                competition in the markets for telecommunications services, as
(1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.
                                                                                amended by Commission Directive 96/19/EC of 13 March
                                                                                1996, and by failing to comply with Article 5(1), (3), (4) and
                                                                                (5) of Directive 97/33/EC of the European Parliament and
                                                                                of the Council of 30 June 1997 on interconnection in
                                                                                Telecommunications with regard to ensuring universal service
                                                                                and interoperability through application of the principles of
                                                                                Open Network Provision (ONP), the French Republic has failed
                                                                                to fulfil its obligations under those directives;
                                                                           2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                           (1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.
                          (Sixth Chamber)
                        of 6 December 2001
in Case C-146/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                     ties v French Republic (1)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Telecommunications — Financing of a ‘universal service’                                               (Fourth Chamber)
          — contribution from new market entrants)
                                                                                of 6 December 2001
                           (2002/C 84/36)
                                                                           in Case C-148/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                    (Language of the case: French)                                                 ties v Italian Republic (1)
                                                                           (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                       to transpose Directive 98/51/EC)
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (2002/C 84/37)
In Case C-146/00: Commission of the European Communities                                          (Language of the case: Italian)
(Agents: initially by B. Doherty and F. Siredey-Garnier, and,
subsequently, by E. Gippini Fournier and F. Siredey-Garnier) v
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
French Republic (Agents: initially by K. Rispal-Bellanger,
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
F. Million and S. Pailler, and, subsequently, by G. de Bergues,
F. Million and S. Pailler) — application for a declaration that,
by failing to comply with Article 4c of Commission Directive
90/388/EEC of 28 June 1990 on competition in the markets
for telecommunications services (OJ 1990 L 192, p. 10), as                 In Case C-148/00: Commission of the European Communities
amended by Commission Directive 96/19/EC of 13 March                       (Agents: initially S. Dragone and F. P. Ruggeri Laderchi, and
1996 (OJ 1996 L 74, p. 13), and by failing to comply with                  subsequently S. Dragone and L. Visaggio) v Italian Republic
Article 5(1), (3), (4) and (5) of Directive 97/33/EC of the                (Agent: U. Leanza, assisted by G. De Bellis) — application for
European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997                     a declaration that, by not adopting and, in any event, by
on interconnection in Telecommunications with regard to                    not notifying the Commission of the laws, regulations and
ensuring universal service and interoperability through appli-             administrative provisions necessary to comply with:
cation of the principles of Open Network Provision (ONP) (OJ
1997 L 199, p. 32), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its           —     Council Directive 97/41/EC of 25 June 1997 amending
obligations under the EC Treaty and under those directives —                     Directives 76/895/EEC, 86/362/EEC, 86/363/EEC and
the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: F. Macken, President                     90/642/EEC relating to the fixing of maximum levels for
of the Chamber, N. Colneric, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur),                            pesticide residues in and on, respectively, fruit and
J.-P. Puissochet and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; L.A. Geel-                    vegetables, cereals, foodstuffs of animal origin, and certain
hoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a                         products of plant origin, including fruit and vegetables
judgment on 6 December 2001, in which it:                                        (OJ 1997 L 184, p. 33),


title: Case C-463/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 20 November 2006 — FBTO Schadeverzekeringen N.V. v Jack Odenbreit

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/46

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 20 November 2006 — FBTO Schadeverzekeringen N.V. v Jack Odenbreit
   (Case C-463/06)
   (2006/C 326/93)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesgerichtshof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Defendant and appellant on a point of law: FBTO Schadeverzekeringen N.V.

      Applicant and respondent on a point of law: Jack Odenbreit
   Question referred
   Is the reference in Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters to Article 9(1)(b) of that regulation to be understood as meaning that the injured party may bring an action directly against the insurer in the courts for the place in a Member State where the injured party is domiciled, provided that such a direct action is permitted and the insurer is domiciled in a Member State?

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.


title: Case T-85/09: Action brought on 26 February 2009 — Kadi v Commission

text:
               18.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/37

         Action brought on 26 February 2009 — Kadi v Commission
   (Case T-85/09)
   2009/C 90/56
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Yassin Abdullah Kadi (represented by: D. Anderson, QC, M. Lester, Barrister, G. Martin, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul Regulation No 1190/2008, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs of this action.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In the present case the applicant seeks the partial annulment of Commission Regulation No 1190/2008 of 28 November 2008 amending for the 101st time Council Regulation No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban (1) in so far as the applicant is included on the list of natural and legal persons, entities and bodies whose funds and economic resources are frozen in accordance with this provision. Regulation no 881/2002 was annulled by the Court of Justice in joined cases C-402/05 and C-415/05, Kadi and al Barakaat v Council and Commission
       (2)

   The applicant puts forward four pleas in law in support of its claims.
   First, the applicant submits that the contested regulation lacks a sufficient legal basis because it appears to amend Regulation 881/2002 without relevant determination by United Nations which, in the applicant’s opinion, is precondition for the amendment of that regulation.
   Second, the applicant claims that the contested regulation violates his rights of defence, both the right to an effective hearing and the right to effective judicial protection, and fails to remedy the infringements of those rights as found by the Court in joined cases C-402/05 and C-415/05. He further contends that the contested regulation provides no procedure for communicating to the applicant the evidence on which the decision to freeze his assets was based, or for enabling him to comment meaningfully on that evidence.
   Third, the applicant submits that the Commission failed to provide compelling reasons for maintaining the asset freeze against the applicant, in violation of its obligation under Article 253 EC.
   Fourth, it claims that the Commission failed to undertake an assessment of all relevant facts and circumstances in deciding whether to enact the contested regulation and therefore manifestly erred in its assessments.
   Fifth, the applicant contends that the contested regulation constitutes an unjustified and disproportionate restriction on his right to property which is not justified by compelling evidence.

      (1)  OJ 2008 L 322, p. 25

      (2)  Not yet reported in ECR


title: Case C-235/05 P: Appeal brought on 28 May 2005 by L'Oréal SA against the judgment delivered on 16 March 2005 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-112/03 between L'Oréal SA and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) having been Revlon Suisse SA

text:
               20.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/7

         Appeal brought on 28 May 2005 by L'Oréal SA against the judgment delivered on 16 March 2005 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-112/03 between L'Oréal SA and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) having been Revlon Suisse SA
   (Case C-235/05 P)
   (2005/C 205/13)
   Language of the case: English
   An appeal against the judgment delivered on 16 March 2005 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-112/03 (1) between L'Oréal SA and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) having been Revlon Suisse SA., was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 28 May 2005 by L'Oréal SA, established in Paris (France), represented by Mr Xavier Buffet Delmas d'Autane.
   The Appellant claims that the Court should:

               a)

               set aside the Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 March 2005 in Case T-112/03 in its entirety and annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 15 January 2003 regarding the appeal No R0396/2001-4 relating to the opposition proceedings No B 215048 (Community application No 1011576);

               b)

               order the OHIM to pay all the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The Appellant submits that the Court of First Instance infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (2), and did not draw the legal conclusions from its own findings, by refusing to take into account the weak character of the prior mark (such as FLEX) in its assessment of the degree of similarity between this mark and a complex mark (such as FLEXI AIR), in which it was reproduced.
   It is submitted that signs are not similar or dissimilar in abstracto, but in concreto (i.e. in light of the perception of the relevant public of such signs). Thus, if the signs had been correctly compared in concreto, the logical conclusion would have been to place less importance on non distinctive signs or prior marks with a weak distinctive character.
   The Appellant also contends that the Court of First Instance infringed Articles 36 and 53 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, the contested Judgment being vitiated by a defective statement of reasons. It is submitted that the Court of First Instance breached its duty to state reasons by merely ruling, at paragraph 82, that the ‘weak distinctive character of the earlier mark is not disputed’, without drawing any conclusion on the likelihood of confusion.

      (1)  OJ C 132, 28.05.2005, p. 25.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark, OJ L 11, 14.01.1994, p. 1.


title: Case T-400/08: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2010 — Enercon v OHIM — BP (ENERCON) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark ENERCON — Earlier Community word mark ENERGOL — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Partial refusal to register)

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/27

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2010 — Enercon v OHIM — BP (ENERCON)
   (Case T-400/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark ENERCON - Earlier Community word mark ENERGOL - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Partial refusal to register)
   2010/C 301/45
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Enercon GmbH (Aurich, Germany) (represented by: R. Böhm, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: BP plc (London, United Kingdom)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 July 2008 (Case R 957/2006-4), relating to opposition proceedings between BP plc and Enercon GmbH.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Enercon GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 301, 22.11.2008.


title: Case T-480/12: Judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2014  — Coca-Cola v OHIM — Mitico (Master) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark Master — Earlier Community figurative marks Coca-Cola and earlier national figurative mark C — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Similarity of the signs — Evidence relating to the commercial use of the mark applied for)

text:
               9.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/45

         Judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2014 — Coca-Cola v OHIM — Mitico (Master)
   (Case T-480/12) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark Master - Earlier Community figurative marks Coca-Cola and earlier national figurative mark C - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Similarity of the signs - Evidence relating to the commercial use of the mark applied for))
   (2015/C 046/55)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: The Coca-Cola Company (Atlanta, Georgia, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, D. Stone and L. Ritchie, Solicitors, and S. Baran, Barrister)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Modern Industrial & Trading Investment Co. Ltd (Mitico) (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: A.-I. Malami, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 August 2012 (Case R 2156/2011-2) concerning opposition proceedings between The Coca-Cola Company and Modern Industrial & Trading Investment Co. Ltd (Mitico).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 29 August 2012 (Case R 2156/2011-2);

               2)

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by The Coca-Cola Company;

               3)

               Orders Modern Industrial & Trading Investment Co. Ltd (Mitico) to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.


title: Case C-466/13 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 October 2014 — Repsol YPF SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(1)(b) — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Figurative sign representing the letter ‘R’)

text:
               19.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/11

      Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 October 2014 — Repsol YPF SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)
      (Case C-466/13 P) (1)

      (Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(1)(b) - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Figurative sign representing the letter ‘R’)
      (2015/C 016/15)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Appellant: Repsol YPF SA (represented by: J.-B. Devaureix and L. Montoya Terán, abogados)

         Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) (J. Crespo Carrillo, Agent)

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The appeal is dismissed.

                  2.

                  Repsol YPF SA is ordered to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 313, 26.10.2013.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 13 July 1995 in Case T-557/93: Lars Bo Rasmussen v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Reports procedure - Staff report - Delay in drawing up - Promotion - Procedural irregularity)

text:
 14 . 10 . 95           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 268/21
                                                     COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              of Arendt & Medernach, 8—10 rue Mathias Hardt v .
                          of 13 July 1995                             Council of the European Union ( Agents : Ramon Torrent,
m Case T-557/93 : Lars Bo Rasmussen v. Commission of the              Jorge Monteiro, Hans-Jiirgen Rabe and Georg Berrisch ),
                                                                      supported by Commission of the European Communities
                    European Communities ( 1 )
                                                                      (Agents : Eric White and Claus-Michael Happe ) and
(Officials — Reports procedure — Staffreport — Delay in               Federation of European Bearing Manufacturers '
    drawing up — Promotion — Procedural irregularity)                 Associations, established in Frankfurt-on-Main ( Germany ),
                           ( 95/C 268/44 )                            represented by Dietrich Ehle and Volker Schiller,
                                                                      Rechtsanwàlte, Cologne, with an address for service in
                                                                      Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Lucius, 6 rue Michel
                  (Language of the case: Frencb)                      Welter — application for the annulment of Council
                                                                      Regulation ( EEC ) No 55/93 of 8 January 1993 imposing a
In Case T-557/93 : Lars Bo Rasmussen, an official of the              definitive anti-dumping duty on imports into the
Commission of the European Communities , residing at                  Community of outer rings of tapered roller bearing
Dalheim ( Luxembourg ), represented by Jean-Noël Louis, of            originating in Japan ( OJ No L 9 , 1993 , p . 7 ) — the Court of
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg           First Instance ( Fourth Chamber, extended composition ),
at the office of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 1 rue Glesener v .            composed of: K. Lenaerts, President, R. Schintgen, R.
Commission of the European Communities ( Agent: Ana                   Garcia-Valdecasas, C. W. Bellamy and P. Lindh, Judges; H.
Maria Alves Vieira ) — application for the annulment, first,         Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 July 1995 , in
of the decision of the Commission not to promote the                  which it :
applicant to grade A 4 in the 1992 promotion procedure
and, second, of the decision, published in 'Administrative            1 , dismisses the application;
Notices' No 770 of 4 February 1993 , to promote certain
officials to grade A4 — the Court of First Instance (Third            2 , orders the applicant to pay its own costs and the costs of
Chamber ), composed of: J. Biancarelli, President, and C. P.                the Council and Febma;
Briët and C. W. Bellamy, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has
given a judgment on 13 July 1995 , in which it:                       3 , orders the Commission to bear its own costs.
1 , annuls the decision of the Commission not to promote
                                                                      f 1 ) OJ No C 160, 12 . 6 . 1993 .
      the applicant to grade A 4 in the 1992 promotion
     procedure;
2 , dismisses the remainder of the action;
3 , orders the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
(') OJ No C 1 , 4 . 1 . 1994 .                                                  ( Fourth Chamber, extended composition )
                                                                                of 14 July 1995
                                                                      in Case T-275/94: Groupement des Cartes Bancaires 'CB ' v.
                                                                              Commission of the European Communities ( ] )
                                                                      (Competition — Fine — Default interest — Application of
                                                                                payments)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                ( 95/C 268/46 )
           ( Fourth Chamber, extended composition )
                         of 14 July 1995                                              (Language of the case: French)
in Case T-166/94 : Koyo Seiko Co. Ltd v. Council of the
                        European Union ( ] )
                                                                      In Case T-275/94 : Groupement des Cartes Bancaires ' CB',
                     (Anti-dumping — Injury)                          having its registered office in Paris ( France ), represented by
                           ( 95/C 268/45                              Alain Georges and Hugues Calvet, of the Paris Bar, with an
                                                                      address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                      Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue, against Commission of the
                 (Language of the case: English)                      European Communities ( Agents : Enrico Traversa and
                                                                      Géraud de Bergues ) — application for annulment of the
In Case T-166/94 : Koyo Seiko Co . Ltd, established in Osaka          Commission's letters of 7 June and 15 July 1994 in which
(Japan ), represented by Jacques Buhart, of the Paris Bar, and        the Commission required, for the period 30 June 1992 to the
Charles Kaplan, Barrister, of the Bar of England and Wales,           date of actual settlement, payment of default interest on the
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers             amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by Commission


C 211/26              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                  22.7.2000
       Removal from the register of Case T-194/98 (1)                    ordered the removal from the register of Case T-180/99,
                                                                         Vassilios Tsarnavas v Commission of the European Communi-
                        (2000/C 211/54)                                  ties.
                   (Language of the case: French)                        (1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.99.
By order of 16 May 2000, the President of the Second
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Case T-194/98: Scan Office Design S.A. v Commission of the
European Communities.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-221/99 (1)
(1) OJ C 48 of 20.2.1999.
                                                                                (2000/C 211/57)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
        Removal from the register of Case T-4/99 (1)                     By order of 16 May 2000, the President of the Fifth Chamber
                                                                         of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                        (2000/C 211/55)                                  has ordered the removal from the register of Case T-221/99:
                                                                         Gitte Rassmussen v Council of the European Union.
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         (1) OJ C 366 of 18.12.1999.
By order of 13 April 2000 the President of the Fifth Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
has ordered the removal from the register of Case T-4/99,
OGT-Fruchthandelgesellschaft mbH v Commission of the
European Communities.
(1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.                                                       Removal from the register of Case T-21/00 (1)
                                                                                (2000/C 211/58)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
       Removal from the register of Case        T-180/99 (1)
                                                                         By order of 3 May 2000 the President of the Fifth Chamber of
                        (2000/C 211/56)                                  the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has
                                                                         ordered the removal from the register of Case T-21/00 David
                                                                         Crabbe v Centre Européen pour le Développement de la
                   (Language of the case: French)                        Formation Professionnelle (CEDEFOP).
By order of 13 April 2000 the Court of First Instance of the
European Communites (single judge: R.M. Moura Ramos) has                 (1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.


title: Action brought on 18 June 1996 by Neue Maxhütte Stahlwerke GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-97/96)

text:
 No C 247/ 18           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   24 . 8 . 96
     and that, by failing to initiate the consultative                 authority is thereby denying the applicant the right to a fair
     examination procedure under Article 93 ( 2 ) of the               hearing which is granted by the Treaty to complainants
     Treaty, the Commission has failed to fulfil its obligations       during the consultative examination procedure .
     under the Treaty,
— in the alternative, annul the decision of the Commission
     contained in the letter of the competent Head of Unit of
     DG [V, Claude Rouam , dated 20 February 1996 ,
                                                                       Action brought on 18 June 1996 by Neue Maxhiitte
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                               Stahlwerke GmbH against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                            ( Case T-97/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 247/40 )
The cause of this action is the Commission 's persistent
failure to take any steps with regard to the complaints                              (Language of the case: German)
lodged by the applicant company, the concessionnaire of a
private television channel, against the State aid received by
all the public television companies in Spain, with which it is         An action against the Commission of the European
in competition , both in the market for advertising market             Communities was brought before the Court of First
and in that for purchasing rights .                                    Instance of the European Communities on 18 June 1996 by
                                                                       Neue Maxhiitte Stahlwerke GmbH, Sulzbach-Rosenberg
The applicant points out in that respect that in Spain                 ( Federal Republic of Germany ), represented by Rainer M.
publicly-owned television is not very different in content             Bierwagen, Rechtsanwalt, Brussels, with an address for
from privately-owned television . No special public service            service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Victor Elvinger
responsibilities and duties are placed on the public television        of Messrs Elvinger & Dessoy, 31 Rue d'Eich .
companies which are not borne by the private television
operators . On the other hand , the restrictions on                    The applicant claims that the Court should :
participating in the advertising field are now the same , and
have been since 1 994, as those imposed on private operators          — annul the Commission 's decision of 13 March 1996 , in
in Spain .                                                                 so far as it concerns the applicant,
After successive contacts with the Commission               staff     — order the defendant to pay the costs .
responsible for dealing with the complaint, the applicant
was informed that that procedure had been halted pending               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
the production of research which an external consultant had
been instructed to carry out into the financing of television         The action concerns the classification of loans granted to the
undertakings throughout the Community .                                applicant undertaking in connection with its privatization as
                                                                       aid contrary to Article 4 ( c ) of the ECSC Treaty.
As a matter of law, the applicant claims that, in accordance
with the relevant case law, the Commission was obliged, in            The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
view of the particular difficulties which it seems to have             in Case T-2/96 Neue Maxhiitte Stahlwerke GmbH v.
encountered in carrying out an analysis of the                         Commission , which concerns the same privatization .
incompatibility with the Treaty of the aid complained of, to
initiate the consultative examination procedure provided
for in Article 93 ( 2 ) of the Treaty . From that viewpoint, the
excessive time which has elapsed since the complaints were
made ( more than four years in the case of the autonomous
television companies and more than two and a half years in
the case of the State-owned company ) is proof in itself that         Action brought on 27 June 1996 by Miguel Vicente Nunez
the Commission appears to be experiencing obvious                          against Commission of the European Communities
difficulties in deciding whether or not the aid is compatible                                ( Case T- 100/96 )
with the common market. Furthermore, the commissioning                                          ( 96/C 247/41 )
of the abovementioned report from an external consultant
bears that out .
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
So, in the applicant's view, by failing to initiate the
procedure laid down in Article 93 ( 2 ) of the Treaty, the            An action against the Commission of the European
Commission has plainly failed to fulfil its obligations under         Communities was brought before the Court of First
the Treaty and also clearly infringed the rights conferred by         Instance of the European Communities on 27 June 1996 by
Community law on the applicant in its position as                     Miguel Vicente Nunez, residing in Krainem ( Belgium ),
complainant. It is unacceptable that the defendant                    represented by Marc-Albert Lucas , of the Liege Bar, with an
institution should be able to continue a preliminary                  address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
investigation for several years , since the Community                 Evelyne Korn , 21 Rue de Nassau .


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 25 June 2002 in Case T-34/02 R: B v Commission of the European Communities (Interlocutory proceedings — State aid — Aid for construction and conversion of vessels granted as development assistance — Recovery — Legitimate expectations — Prima facie — Urgency)

text:
24.8.2002               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 202/29
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                                The applicant claims that the Court should:
                             INSTANCE
                                                                            —     annul the Commission’s Decision contained in its letter
                           of 25 June 2002                                        of 7 March 2002 refusing access to the documents
                                                                                mentioned in the applicant’s confirmatory request dated
in Case T-34/02 R: B v Commission of the European                                 3 December 2001;
                            Communities
                                                                            —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
(Interlocutory proceedings — State aid — Aid for construc-
tion and conversion of vessels granted as development
assistance — Recovery — Legitimate expectations — Prima
                          facie — Urgency)
                           (2002/C 202/47)                                  Pleas in law and main arguments
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            The applicant in the present case is the same as in case T-68/
                                                                            02, Masdar (U.K.) -v- Commission, and its object is the
                                                                            Decision of the Commission expressly rejecting the applicant’s
In Case T-34/02 R: B, residing in Versailles (France), and                  request for access to the two audit reports mentioned in the
255 others, represented by P. Kirch and N. Chahid-Nouraï,                   notice to the Official Journal of the European Communities
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against                 relating to the above mentioned case (not yet published).
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: G. Rozet)
— application for suspension of operation of Commission
Decision 2001/882/EC of 25 July 2001 on the State aid
implemented by France in the form of development assistance                 The applicant submits that the Commission has committed an
for the cruise vessel ‘Le Levant’, built by Alstom Leroux Naval             infringement of Article 253 EC in that the contested Decision
for operation in Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon (OJ 2001 L 327,                   failed to give adequate reasons for relying on the mandatory
p. 37) — the President of the Court of First Instance made an               exclusion in the first and second indents of Article 4(2) of
order on 25 June 2002, the operative part of which is as                    Regulation (EC) No. 1049/2001 (1).
follows:
1.    The application for interim relief is dismissed.
                                                                            The Commission has, in the applicant’s view, made a manifest
2.    Costs are reserved.                                                   error of assessment in the application of Article 4(2) of this
                                                                            Regulation, in that the contested Decision found that the grant
                                                                            of the applicant’s request would undermine the protection of
                                                                            the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits, as well
                                                                            as the protection of the commercial interest of a third
                                                                            undertaking.
Action brought on 17 May 2002 by Masdar (U.K.) Ltd                          The applicant contends that the Commission has also made a
  against the Commission of the European Communities                        manifest error of assessment in the application of Article 4(2)
                                                                            of the above mentioned Regulation, and has infringed the
                                                                            general principles of law, in so far as the contested Decision
                           (Case T-159/02)                                  found that there was no overriding public interest in disclosure
                                                                            of the audit reports to the applicant.
                           (2002/C 202/48)
                    (Language of the case: English)                         (1) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and
                                                                                the Council of 30 May 2001, regarding public access to European
                                                                                Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJEC L 145, of
                                                                                31.5.2001, p. 43).
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 17 May 2002 by Masdar (U.K.)
Ltd, represented by Philip Bentley QC and Patrick Green,
Barrister.


title: Case T-218/09: Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2013 — Italy v Commission (Languages — Notices of open competition for the recruitment of assistants — Language of the tests — Choice of second language from three official languages)

text:
               26.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2013 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-218/09) (1)

   (Languages - Notices of open competition for the recruitment of assistants - Language of the tests - Choice of second language from three official languages)
   2013/C 313/35
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: J. Currall and J. Baquero Cruz, and subsequently by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Republic of Latvia (represented by: K. Drēviņa, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Notices of open competitions EPSO/AST/91/09, to constitute a reserve list for the recruitment of assistants (AST 3) in the offset printing field, and EPSO/AST/92/09, to constitute a reserve list for the recruitment of assistants (AST 3) in the pre-press field, published in the Official Journal of the European Union of 18 March 2009 (OJ 2009 C 63 A, p. 1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the notices of open competitions EPSO/AST/91/09, to constitute a reserve list for the recruitment of assistants (AST 3) in the offset printing field, and EPSO/AST/92/09, to constitute a reserve list for the recruitment of assistants (AST 3) in the pre-press field, published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 23 January 2008;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic, the Republic of Latvia and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 180, 1.8.2009.


title: Case T-725/14: Judgment of the General Court of 1 February 2017 — Aalberts Industries v European Union (Non-contractual liability — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Reasonable period within which a judgment must be delivered — Circumstances specific to the case — Importance of the case — Complexity of the dispute — Conduct of the parties and supervening procedural matters — No period of unjustified inactivity)

text:
               13.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/21

         Judgment of the General Court of 1 February 2017 — Aalberts Industries v European Union
   (Case T-725/14) (1)

   ((Non-contractual liability - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Reasonable period within which a judgment must be delivered - Circumstances specific to the case - Importance of the case - Complexity of the dispute - Conduct of the parties and supervening procedural matters - No period of unjustified inactivity))
   (2017/C 078/27)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Aalberts Industries NV (Utrecht, Netherlands) (represented by: R. Wesseling and M. Tuurenhout, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union, represented by the Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: initially, A. Placco and, subsequently, J. Inghelram and E. Beysen, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Noë, P. van Nuffel and V. Bottka, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action based on Article 268 TFEU and seeking compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the duration of the proceedings, before the General Court, in the case which gave rise to the judgment of 24 March 2011, Aalberts Industries and Others v Commission (T-385/06, EU:T:2011:114).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The General Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the European Union, represented by the Court of Justice of the European Union, to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by Aalberts Industries NV in connection with the plea of inadmissibility raised by the Court of Justice of the European Union which gave rise to the order of 13 February 2015, Aalberts Industries v European Union (T-725/14, not published, EU:T:2015:107);

               3.

               Orders Aalberts Industries to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the European Union, represented by the Court of Justice of the European Union, in connection with the action which gave rise to the present judgment;

               4.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 431, 1.12.2014.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 6 December 2004 in Case T-55/02 Peter Finch v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Complaint — Implied rejection — Express rejection within the time-limit for appeals — Late notification of rejection — Admissibility — Pensions — Transfer of national pension rights — Calculation of years of service to be taken into account in the Community scheme — Salary taken as basis — Action manifestly unfounded in law)

text:
               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/33

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 6 December 2004
   in Case T-55/02 Peter Finch v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Officials - Complaint - Implied rejection - Express rejection within the time-limit for appeals - Late notification of rejection - Admissibility - Pensions - Transfer of national pension rights - Calculation of years of service to be taken into account in the Community scheme - Salary taken as basis - Action manifestly unfounded in law)
   (2005/C 143/63)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-55/02: Peter Finch, an official of the Commission of the European Communities,residing in Luxembourg (Luxembourg), represented by J.-N. Louis, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and H. Tserepa-Lacombe, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for annulment of the Commission's decision concerning the crediting of years of pensionable service to be taken into account in the Community scheme in consequence of the transfer of all the pension rights acquired by the applicant prior to his entry into service with the Commission — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras, President, M.E. Martins Ribeiro and K. Jürimäe, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 6 December 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly unfounded in law.

               2.

               The parties shall bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 97 of 20.4.2002.


title: Case T-228/11 P: Appeal on 26 April 2011 by Florence Barbin against the judgment of 15 February 2011 by the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-68/09 Barbin v Parliament

text:
               16.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/26

         Appeal on 26 April 2011 by Florence Barbin against the judgment of 15 February 2011 by the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-68/09 Barbin v Parliament
   (Case T-228/11 P)
   2011/C 211/56
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Florence Barbin (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal, and D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

      Forms of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 15 February 2011 in Case F-68/09 Barbin v Parliament, dismissing the action by the appellant;

               —

               annul the decision of 10 November 2008 not to promote the appellant to Grade AD12 in the 2006 promotions year;

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By this appeal, the appellant seeks the annulment of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 15 February 2011 in Case F-68/09 Barbin v Parliament, in which the Civil Service Tribunal dismissed her action for the annulment of the European Parliament’s decision of 10 November 2008 not to promote her to Grade AD12 in the promotion year 2006.
   In support of her appeal, the appellant makes two pleas in law, claiming:

               —

               error of law in that the Civil Service Tribunal wrongly took the view that the Parliament did not make a manifest error of assessment in deciding, first, that the latter was not required to comply with the internal rules on staff reports and promotions, and, second, that it could lawfully promote officials having fewer merit points than the appellant on the strength of grounds not taking account of the system for comparing the respective merits of officials eligible for promotion such as that established by the decisions of the Bureau and the Secretary General of the European Parliament;

               —

               infringement of the principle of equal treatment and of the obligation of the Parliament to prove that the appellant suffered no discrimination on account of exercising her right to parental leave.


title: Case C-510/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 25 September 2013 — E.ON Földgáz Trade Zrt. v Magyar Energetikai és Közmű-szabályozási Hivatal

text:
               18.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 15/2

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 25 September 2013 — E.ON Földgáz Trade Zrt. v Magyar Energetikai és Közmű-szabályozási Hivatal
   (Case C-510/13)
   2014/C 15/02
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Kúria

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: E.ON Földgáz Trade Zrt.

      Defendant: Magyar Energetikai és Közmű-szabályozási Hivatal

      Questions referred

               1.

               In proceedings relating to an administrative decision adopted when Directive 2003/55/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC (‘the 2003 Directive’) was in force, do the provisions laid down in Article 25 of that directive, determining who is entitled to bring an action, apply, or are the provisions to be taken into consideration for the purposes of those proceedings those laid down in Article 41 of Directive 2009/73/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 2003/55/EC (‘the 2009 Directive’), which entered into force during the proceedings, account being taken of the second subparagraph of Article 54(1) of that directive, under which those provisions are to be applicable from 3 March 2011?

               2.

               In the event that the 2009 Directive is applicable, can an approved vendor with a financial interest comparable to the interest at stake in the present proceedings, in relation to an action contesting the decision approving a network code or determining its content, be regarded as ‘a party affected’ for the purposes of Article 41(17) of that directive, or can only the network manager who is authorised to seek approval of the code be regarded as ‘a party affected’?

               3.

               In the event that the 2003 Directive is applicable, does the approval or amendment of the network code, such as that which has taken place in the present case, fall within the situations contemplated in Articles 25(5) and (6), in as much as it refers to the assessment of requests for reserve capacity?

               4.

               In the event that the case falls within one of the situations contemplated in Article 25(6) of the 2003 Directive, can an approved vendor with a financial interest comparable to the interest at stake in the present proceedings, in relation to an action contesting the decision approving a network code or determining its content, be regarded as ‘a party affected’ for the purposes of Article 41(17) of that directive, or can only the network manager who is authorised to seek approval of the code be regarded as ‘a party affected’?

               5.

               What interpretation is to be given to Article 25(11) of the 2003 Directive, in accordance with which the claims referred to in Article 25(5) and (6) are to be without prejudice to the exercise of rights of appeal under Community and national law, in the event that it is apparent from the answers to the preceding questions that national law makes the bringing of an action subject to more stringent requirements than those laid down in the directive or in Community law?

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 176, p. 57.

      (2)  OJ 2009 L 211, p. 94.


title: Case F-60/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 2 March 2016 — Ruiz Molina v OHIM (Civil service — Member of the temporary staff — OHIM staff — Fixed-term contract with a termination clause — Clause terminating the contract in the event that the member of staff is not included on a reserve list of a competition — Termination of the contract pursuant to the termination clause — Date on which the termination clause takes effect — Open Competition OHIM/AD/01/13 and OHIM/AST/02/13)

text:
               18.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 136/47

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 2 March 2016 — Ruiz Molina v OHIM
   (Case F-60/15) (1)

   ((Civil service - Member of the temporary staff - OHIM staff - Fixed-term contract with a termination clause - Clause terminating the contract in the event that the member of staff is not included on a reserve list of a competition - Termination of the contract pursuant to the termination clause - Date on which the termination clause takes effect - Open Competition OHIM/AD/01/13 and OHIM/AST/02/13))
   (2016/C 136/67)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: José Luis Ruiz Molina (San Juan de Alicante, Spain) (represented by: N. Lhoëst, lawyer, then N. Lhoëst and S. Michiels, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially, B. Wägenbaur, lawyer, then A. Lukošiūtė, Agent, and B. Wägenbauer, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision of the President of OHIM of 4 June 2014 terminating the applicant’s contract as a member of the temporary staff, seeking reinstatement by OHIM, if possible, and, if not, fair financial compensation for the alleged unlawful termination of his contract, and finally for damages for the non-material harm allegedly suffered.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Declares that Mr Ruiz Molina is to bear his own costs and orders him to pay half of the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs);

               3.

               Declares that the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) is to bear half of its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 213, 29/6/2015, p. 48.


title: Case T-386/10: Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Dornbracht v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Coordination of price increases and exchange of sensitive business information — Plea of illegality — Gravity of the infringement — Mitigating circumstances — Equal treatment — Proportionality — Non-retroactivity)

text:
               9.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 325/28

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Dornbracht v Commission
   (Case T-386/10) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Coordination of price increases and exchange of sensitive business information - Plea of illegality - Gravity of the infringement - Mitigating circumstances - Equal treatment - Proportionality - Non-retroactivity)
   2013/C 325/46
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Aloys F. Dornbracht GmbH & Co. KG (Iserlohn, Germany) (represented: initially by H. Janssen, T. Kapp and M. Franz, and subsequently by H. Janssen and T. Kapp, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and A. Antoniadis, acting as Agents, assisted by A. Böhlke, lawyer)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Simm and F. Florindo Gijón, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2010) 4185 final of 23 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.092 — Bathroom Fittings and Fixtures), and, in the alternative, for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant in that decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Aloys F. Dornbracht GmbH & Co. KG to bear its own costs and pay those of the European Commission;

               3.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.


title: Case C-654/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen — Sweden) — Länsförsäkringar AB v Matek A/S (Reference for a preliminary ruling — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 9(1)(b) — Article 15(1) — Article 51(1)(a) — Extent of the exclusive right granted to the proprietor — Period of five years following registration)

text:
               20.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 53/18

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen — Sweden) — Länsförsäkringar AB v Matek A/S
   (Case C-654/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 9(1)(b) - Article 15(1) - Article 51(1)(a) - Extent of the exclusive right granted to the proprietor - Period of five years following registration))
   (2017/C 053/22)
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Högsta domstolen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Länsförsäkringar AB

      Defendant: Matek A/S

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 9(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the [European Union] trade mark, read in conjunction with Articles 15(1) and 51(1)(a) of that regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that, during the period of five years following registration of an EU trade mark, its proprietor may, if there is a likelihood of confusion, prevent third parties from using in the course of trade a sign identical or similar to his mark in respect of all goods and services identical or similar to those for which that mark has been registered without having to demonstrate genuine use of that mark in respect of those goods or services.

      (1)  OJ C 48, 8.2.2016.


title: Case C-21/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Ufficio del Giudice di Pace di Massa, by order of 8 October 1999 in the action pending before that court between Hamadeh Adnan and Società Fiat Sava SpA

text:
18.3.2000               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 79/19
     of a List II disease on an approved farm or in an approved         Action brought on 27 January 2000 by the Commission
     zone, a Member State adopts a domestic measure the                         of the European Communities against Ireland
     application of which results in the destruction and slaugh-
     ter of fish, are the principles of Community law relating to                                (Case C-22/00)
     the protection of fundamental rights in particular the right
     of property, to be interpreted as having placed on a
     Member State the obligation to adopt measures providing                                     (2000/C 79/37)
     for the payment of compensation
                                                                        An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
     (a) to an owner of fish which are destroyed; and                   Justice of the European Communities on 27 January 2000 by
     (b) to an owner of fish which are required to be slaughtered       the Commission of the European Communities, represented
         immediately, thereby necessitating the immediate sale          by Mr Richard Wainwright, Principal Legal Adviser, acting as
         of those fish by that owner?                                   agent, with an address for service at the office of Mr Carlos
                                                                        Gómez de la Cruz, a member of the Legal Service of the
2. If the Member State is required to adopt such measures,              Commission, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.
     what are the criteria of interpretation needed by a national
     court to determine whether the measures that are adopted           The Applicant claims that the Court should:
     are compatible with the fundamental rights, in particular
     the right of property, which the Court ensures and which           — declare that, in failing to adopt all the measures to
     derive in particular from the European Convention on                    fully and correctly transpose Article 7, second indent, of
     Human Rights?                                                           Directive 87/217/EEC (1), Ireland has failed to comply with
                                                                             Directive 87/217/EEC;
3. In particular, do the criteria require that the measures
     differentiate between the situation where the outbreak of
                                                                        — order Ireland to pay the costs.
     the disease was due to the fault of the owner of the fish
     concerned and the situation where the owner was not at
     fault?
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
(1) Council Directive 93/53/EEC of 24 June 1993 introducing mini-
    mum Community measures for the control of certain fish diseases,    Article 249 CE (ex Article 189 of the EC Treaty) under which
    OJ L 175, 19.07.1993, p. 23.                                        a directive shall be binding as to the result to be achieved,
                                                                        upon each Member State, carries by implication an obligation
                                                                        on the Member States to observe the period for compliance
                                                                        laid down in the directive. That period expired on 31 December
                                                                        1988 without Ireland having adopted all the measures necess-
                                                                        ary to fully and correctly transpose Article 7, second indent, of
                                                                        the directive referred to in the conclusions of the Commission.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Ufficio del
Giudice di Pace di Massa, by order of 8 October 1999 in
the action pending before that court between Hamadeh                    (1) Council Directive 87/217/EEC on the prevention and reduction
                Adnan and Società Fiat Sava SpA                             of environmental pollution by asbestos (OJ L 85 of 28.3.1987, p.
                                                                            40).
                           (Case C-21/00)
                           (2000/C 79/36)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Ufficio del Giudice del
Pace di Massa (Office of the Justice of the Peace, Massa) of
8 October 1999, received at the Court Registry on 24 January            Action brought on 8 February 2000 by the Commission of
2000, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending               the European Communities against Kingdom of Belgium
before it between Hamadeh Adnan and Fiat Sava SpA
                                                                                (Case C-33/00)
On the question of the validity and effect within Italian
territory of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April (1) in view                                  (2000/C 79/38)
of the Italian State’s failure to implement the directive in good
time or by 9 March 1995 when a deed of guarantee was
concluded by the defendant in the present action.                       An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
                                                                        before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                        on 8 February 2000 by the Commission of the European
(1) Directive on unfair terms in consumer contracts, OJ 1993 L 95,      Communities, represented by Michel Nolin, of its Legal Service,
    p. 29.                                                              acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                        the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,
                                                                        Kirchberg.


title: Case C-62/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen Sad — Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 7 February 2012 — Galin Kostov v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ -grad Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite

text:
               21.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen Sad — Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 7 February 2012 — Galin Kostov v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ -grad Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite
   (Case C-62/12)
   2012/C 118/21
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen Sad — Varna

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Galin Kostov

      Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ -grad Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite

      Question referred

   Is a natural person who is registered for VAT by reason of his activity as a private bailiff to be regarded as a taxable person within the meaning of Article 9(1) of Directive 2006/112 (1) and required, pursuant to Article 193 of Directive 2006/112, to pay VAT in respect of a service which he has provided on an occasional basis and not in connection with his activity as a private bailiff?

      (1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 April 2005 in Case T-336/02 Susan Christensen v Commission of the European Communities (Staff case — Selection procedure for temporary staff — Composition of the Selection Committee and conduct of the procedure)

text:
               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/32

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 5 April 2005
   in Case T-336/02 Susan Christensen v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Staff case - Selection procedure for temporary staff - Composition of the Selection Committee and conduct of the procedure)
   (2005/C 143/60)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-336/02: Susan Christensen, residing in Ispra (Italy), represented by G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: E. Tserepa-Lacombe and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for annulment of the decision of Selection Committee COM/R/A/01/2000, for the constitution of a reserve list for recruitment of temporary staff in category A, not to include the applicant on the reserve list, and for compensation — the Court of First Instance (A.W. Meij, Single Judge) D. Christensen, administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 5 April 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 7 of 11.1.2003.


title: Case T-140/03: Action brought on 28 April 2003 by Forum 187 against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 158/26               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          5.7.2003
According to the applicant, the appointing authority commit-              The applicants submit that the defendants made a manifest
ted a manifest error of assessment in selecting a candidate who           error of assessment, misused their powers and violated the
did not satisfy the conditions set out in the notice of vacancy.          legitimate expectations of European consumers.
The appointment of that candidate should for that reason be
set aside. The applicant also asserts that there has been an
infringement of the principle of equal treatment and of the               The applicants maintain that the defendants made a manifest
rules governing the deliberations of the selection board. She             error of assessment in their management of the risks associated
claims that certain members of the selection board were                   with the BSE epidemic by not recommending a forward
not adequately qualified and/or lacked the impartiality and               scientific evaluation of the risk of BSE developing BSE in the
objectivity necessary for sitting on such a board. Furthermore,           various geographical areas of the Union at the time of
the staff reports of the applicant and of the candidate appointed         identification of the causes of the epidemic and of adoption of
evaluate their respective activities and profiles according to            the first protective measures in the United Kingdom. That
different criteria and provisions of the Staff Regulations. In            manifest error of assessment is also evidenced by the failure of
conclusion, the applicant submits that the appointing authority           the defendants to call for a retrospective study to shed light on
infringed the principle of equality as between men and women.             the cause of the infections subsequently recorded in France.
She argues that she was more meritorious than the candidate
who was appointed. Moreover, in the event that her merits
should be deemed to have been no more than equivalent to                  In support of their claims, the applicants submit that the
those of that candidate, priority ought to have been given to             defendants’ conduct in this case constitutes a misuse of powers
the applicant by reason of the fact that she is a woman.                  inasmuch as it was aimed only at protecting in an ill-considered
                                                                          manner the interests of the market and of the beef sector.
                                                                          According to the applicants, the defendants’ action consisted
                                                                          in dissuading the Member States from adopting unilateral
                                                                          protective measures.
Action brought on 24 April 2003 by ‘U’ and Others
                                                                          The applicants further maintain that the defendants’ internal
against the Council of the European Union and the
                                                                          disorganisation led their staff to underestimate the risks of BSE
         Commission of the European Communities
                                                                          developing and by that very fact constitutes a serious breach
                                                                          of the legitimate expectations of European consumers.
                          (Case T-138/03)
                         (2003/C 158/47)                                  The applicants draw attention to the abnormal and special
                                                                          nature of the damage suffered by them as a result of the non-
                   (Language of the case: French)                         natural cause of BSE and of the inapplicability of the European
                                                                          system of producers’ liability for defective products to the case
                                                                          in point.
An action against the Council of the European Union and the
Commission of the European Communities was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
on 24 April 2003 by ‘U’ and Others, represented by François
Honnorat, lawyer.
The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                          Action brought on 28 April 2003 by Forum 187 against
                                                                                the Commission of the European Communities
—     order compensation for the non-material or material
      damage suffered by them as a consequence of the
      infection of their close relatives with BSE;                                                 (Case T-140/03)
—     order the defendants to pay the costs.
                                                                                (2003/C 158/48)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                               (Language of the case: English)
The applicants all live in France and are victims, either
indirectly or as persons entitled under or through persons who
have died in France, of a ‘variant’ form of Creutzfeldt-Jakob             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
disease. By this action, the applicants are lodging a claim for           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
damages to compensate for the material or non-material                    European Communities on 28 April 2003 by Forum 187,
damage allegedly suffered as a consequence of the death of                Brussels, Belgium, represented by Mr A. Sutton and Mr
persons infected with BSE.                                                J. Killick, Barristers.
 ---pagebreak--- 5.7.2003              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 158/27
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               Proprietor of mark or         The applicant
                                                                          sign cited in the oppo-
—     annul the Contested Decision in whole or in part,                   sition proceedings:
—     order the Commission to pay the costs of this Case and              Mark or sign cited in         Word mark ‘ARTEX’ registered in
      of Case T-276/02.                                                   opposition:                   France, Portugal and the Benelux
                                                                                for goods in Class 5
                                                                          Decision of the Oppo-         Opposition upheld
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           sition Division:
                                                                          Decision of the Board of      Annulment of the decision of the
The applicant in the present case is the same association as in
                                                                          Appeal:                       Opposition Division and dis-
case T-276/02, Forum against Commission (1). The applicant
                                                                                missal of the appeal
challenges the final decision relating to the same Belgian State
Aid measure which was, as far as the decision to open the                 Pleas in law:                 Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b)
procedure as foreseen by Article 88(2) of the Treaty was                                                of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (like-
involved, the object of that case. The grounds and main                                                 lihood of confusion)
arguments are those submitted in that aforementioned case.
( 1) OJEC C 289, 23.11.02, p. 28.
                                                                          Action brought on 9 May 2003 by Industrias Químicas
                                                                          del Vallés, S.A. against Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
Action brought on 2 May 2003 by Biofarma against the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade                                            (Case T-158/03)
                 Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
                                                                                (2003/C 158/50)
                        (Case T-154/03)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
                        (2003/C 158/49)
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 9 May 2003 by Industrias Quí-
                                                                          micas del Vallés, S.A., whose registered office is in Mollet del
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal            Vallés (Barcelona, Spain), represented by Cani Fernández
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before                Vicién, Paloma González-Espejo and Julio Sabater Marotias,
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                lawyers.
2 May 2003 by Biofarma, represented by Antonia Ruiz López
and Víctor Gil Vega, lawyers.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               —     annul Commission Decision 2003/308/EC of 2 May
                                                                                2003,
—     annul the decision of the OHIM (Third Board of Appeal)
      of 5 February 2003 and declare that there is a likelihood           —     order the European Commission to pay all the costs,
      of confusion between the trade marks ARTEX and                            including those incurred for the purposes of making an
      ALREX, which designate similar goods.                                     application for interim relief.
—     order the OHIM to pay the costs.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          This action is directed against Commission Decision 2003/
                                                                          308/EC of 2 May 2003 concerning the non-inclusion of
Applicant for Com-             Bausch & Lomb Pharmaceuticals              metalaxyl in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the
munity trade mark:             Inc.                                       withdrawal of authorisations for plant-protection products
                                                                          containing this active substance (1).
Community trade mark           Word mark ‘ALREX’ — Appli-
sought:                        cation No 789461 for goods in
                               Class 5 (ophthalmological prod-            In support of its claims, the applicant company relies on the
                               ucts)                                      following pleas in law and main arguments:


title: Case C-441/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 5 August 2013 — Pez Hejduk v EnergieAgentur.NRW GmbH

text:
               26.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 5 August 2013 — Pez Hejduk v EnergieAgentur.NRW GmbH
   (Case C-441/13)
   2013/C 313/18
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Handelsgericht Wien

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Pez Hejduk

      Defendant: EnergieAgentur.NRW GmbH

      Question referred

   Is Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1) to be interpreted as meaning that, in a dispute concerning an infringement of rights related to copyright which is alleged to have been committed in that a photograph was kept accessible on a website, the website being operated under the top-level domain of a Member State other than that in which the proprietor of the right is domiciled, there is jurisdiction only

               —

               in the Member State in which the alleged infringer is established; and

               —

               in the Member State(s) to which the website, according to its content, is directed?

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.


21.2.2004              EN                  Official Journal of the European Union                                     C 47/27
       Removal from the register of Case C-126/02 (1)              from the register of Case C-80/03: Commission of the
                                                                   European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands.
                         (2004/C 47/48)
                                                                   (1) OJ C 83, 5.4.2003.
By order of 23 October 2003 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-126/02: Commission of the
European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case C-108/03 (1)
(1) OJ C 144, 15.6.2002.
                                                                                (2004/C 47/52)
                                                                   By order of 10 September 2003 the President of the Court of
       Removal from the register of Case C-35/03 (1)               Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                   from the register of Case C-108/03: Commission of the
                         (2004/C 47/49)                            European Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 112, 10.5.2003.
By order of 6 November 2003 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-35/03: Commission of the
European Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 70, 22.3.2003.                                                   Removal from the register of Case C-142/03 (1)
                                                                                (2004/C 47/53)
       Removal from the register of Case C-57/03 (1)               By order of 11 November 2003 the President of the Court of
                                                                   Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                         (2004/C 47/50)                            from the register of Case C-142/03: Commission of the
                                                                   European Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
By order of 21 October 2003 the President of the Court of          (1) OJ C 146 of 21.6.2003.
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-57/03: Commission of the
European Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 83, 5.4.2003.
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case C-218/03 (1)
                                                                                (2004/C 47/54)
       Removal from the register of Case C-80/03 (1)
                                                                   By order of 10 September 2003 the President of the Court of
                         (2004/C 47/51)                            Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                   from the register of Case C-218/03: Commission of the
                                                                   European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
By order of 21 October 2003 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal            (1) OJ C 158, 5.7.2003.


title: Case C-565/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Irinodikio Lerou (Greece) lodged on 9 Νοvember 2016 — Alessandro Saponaro and Kalliopi-Chloi Xylina

text:
               23.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/13

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Irinodikio Lerou (Greece) lodged on 9 Νοvember 2016 — Alessandro Saponaro and Kalliopi-Chloi Xylina
   (Case C-565/16)
   (2017/C 022/19)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Referring court

   Irinodikio Lerou (Greece)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Alessandro Saponaro and Kalliopi-Chloi Xylina

      Question referred

   In the event that a petition for leave to renounce an inheritance is brought before a Greek court by the parents of a minor child who is habitually resident in Italy, is it the case that, if there is to be a valid prorogation of jurisdiction under Article 12(3)(b) of Regulation No 2201/2003 (1): (a) the unequivocal agreement to the prorogation by the parents is demonstrated by merely the lodging of the application before the Greek court, (b) the prosecutor before the first instance courts is one of the parties who must agree to the prorogation at the time of the lodging of the application, given that under Greek law he is legally a party to the relevant proceedings, (c) the prorogation of jurisdiction is in the best interests of the child, given that the child and the applicants, who are the child’s parents, are habitually resident in Italy, while the place of residence of the person from whom property is inherited at the time of his death was Greece and the property inherited is in Greece.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1).


title: Case F-131/14: Action brought on 16 November 2014  — ZZ v Commission

text:
               12.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/61

         Action brought on 16 November 2014 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-131/14)
   (2015/C 007/80)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: A. Salerno, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision not to increase the salary of the applicant, who is a member of the contract staff, following the increase in working hours to 40 hours a week as a result of the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations on 1 January 2014.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               Annul his salary slip in respect of January 2014 in so far as it records and lays down discrimination in terms of salary between himself and a colleague who, working in the same sector as he is and with less responsibility than him, is better paid in terms of gross salary than he is;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay all the costs of the proceedings.