title: Judgment of the Court 23 April 2002 in Case C-443/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien): Merck, Sharp & Dohme GmbH v Paranova Pharmazeutika Handels GmbH (Trade marks — Directive 89/104/EEC — Article 7(2) — Exhaustion of the rights conferred by the trade mark — Pharmaceutical products — Parallel importation — Repackaging of the trade-marked product)

text:
15.6.2002                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 144/3
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                             hazardous waste and under Article 14 of European Parliament
                                                                                and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on
                                                                                packaging and packaging waste;
                           (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                             2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
                              2 May 2002
                                                                             (1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.
in Case C-292/99: Commission of the European Communi-
                      ties v French Republic (1)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Environment — Waste — Directives 75/442/EEC, 91/156/
EEC, 91/689/EEC and 94/62/EC — Waste management
                                 plans)
                           (2002/C 144/03)                                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                     (Language of the case: French)                                                     23 April 2002
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       in Case C-443/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                    in the European Court Reports)                           the Oberlandesgericht Wien): Merck, Sharp & Dohme
                                                                                GmbH v Paranova Pharmazeutika Handels GmbH (1)
                                                                             (Trade marks — Directive 89/104/EEC — Article 7(2) —
In Case C-292/99, Commission of the European Communities                     Exhaustion of the rights conferred by the trade mark
(Agents: H. van Lier and L. Ström) v French Republic (Agents:                — Pharmaceutical products — Parallel importation —
K. Rispal-Bellanger and D. Colas): Application for a declaration                       Repackaging of the trade-marked product)
that, by failing to draw up management plans either for the
whole of its territory or for all waste, and by failing to include
a chapter relating to packaging waste in all of the waste plans
                                                                                (2002/C 144/04)
which it has adopted, the French Republic has failed to fulfil
its obligations under Article 7(1) of Council Directive 75/442/
EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39), as
amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991                                        (Language of the case: German)
(OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32), under Article 6(1) of Council Directive
91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste (OJ
1991 L 377, p. 20) and under Article 14 of European                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December                                        in the European Court Reports)
1994 on packaging and packaging waste (OJ 1994 L 365,
p. 10), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: F. Macken,
President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet,
V. Skouris (Rapporteur) and J. N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges;
A. Tizzano, Advocate General,: H. A. Rühl, Principal Adminis-                In Case C-443/99: Reference to the Court under Article 234
trator; Registrar, has given a judgment on 2 May 2002, in                    EC by the Oberlandesgericht Wien (Austria) for a preliminary
which it:                                                                    ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
                                                                             Merck, Sharp & Dohme GmbH and Paranova Pharmazeutika
                                                                             Handels GmbH, on the interpretation of Article 7(2) of First
1.    Declares that, by failing to draw up waste management plans            Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to
      for the whole of its territory, by failing to draw up, for certain     approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade
      regions or certain departments, such plans for waste containing        marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1), as amended by the Agreement on
      polychlorinated biphenyls, medical waste and special domestic          the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 (OJ 1994 L 1,
      waste, and by failing to include a specific chapter relating to        p. 3), the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias,
      packaging waste in all of the waste management plans which it          President, P. Jann (President of Chamber), C. Gulmann (Rappor-
      has adopted, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its              teur), D. A. O. Edward, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen, V. Skouris,
      obligations under Article 7(1) of Council Directive 75/442/            J. N. Cunha Rodrigues and C. W. A. Timmermans, Judges;
      EEC on 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council                    F. G. Jacobs, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head
      Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991, under Article 6(1)              of Division, for the Registrar, has given judgment on 23 April
      of Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on                 2002, in which it has ruled:
 ---pagebreak--- C 144/4                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            15.6.2002
Replacement packaging of pharmaceutical products is objectively            2.     Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay
necessary within the meaning of the Court’s case-law if, without such             the costs;
repackaging, effective access to the market concerned, or to a
substantial part of that market, must be considered to be hindered as
the result of strong resistance from a significant proportion of           3.     Orders the Kingdom of Denmark and the Republic of Finland
consumers to relabelled pharmaceutical products.                                  to bear their own costs.
(1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.                                                   (1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                             7 May 2002
                                                                                18 April 2002
in Case C-478/99: Commission of the European Communi-
                  ties v Kingdom of Sweden (1)                             in Case C-9/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                           the Korkein hallinto-oikeus): Palin Granit Oy v Vehmassa-
                                                                                lon kansanterveystyön kuntayhtymän hallitus (1)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts
— Obligation to reproduce in national legislation the list of              (Harmonisation of laws — Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/
terms which may be regarded as unfair contained in the                     156/EEC — Concept of ‘waste’ — Production residue —
                     annex to Directive 93/13)                             Quarry — Storage — Use of waste — No risk to health or
                                                                                the environment — Possibility of recovery of waste)
                           (2002/C 144/05)
                                                                                (2002/C 144/06)
                    (Language of the case: Swedish)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Finnish)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-478/99, Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: L. Parpala and P. Stancanelli) v Kingdom of Sweden                In Case C-9/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
(Agents: L. Nordling and A. Kruse), supported by Kingdom of                by the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) for a preliminary
Denmark (Agent: J. Molde), and by Republic of Finland                      ruling in the proceedings pending before that court instituted
(Agents: T. Pynnä and E. Bygglin): Application for a declaration           by Palin Granit Oy and Vehmassalon kansanterveystyön
that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative         kuntayhtymän hallitus, on the interpretation of Article 1(a) of
provisions necessary to implement in its national legal system             Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ
the annex referred to in Article 3(3) of Council Directive 93/             1975 L 194, p. 39), as amended by Council Directive 91/156/
13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts               EEC of 18 March 1991 (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32), the Court (Sixth
(OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29), the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to                 Chamber), composed of: F. Macken, President of the Chamber,
fulfil its obligations under that directive, the Court (Fifth              J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen, V. Skouris and
Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of                  J. N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate General;
the Chamber, D. A. O. Edward and M. Wathelet, Judges;                      R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 April 2002, in
L. A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; H. A. Rühl, Principal                    which it has ruled:
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
7 May 2002, in which it:
                                                                           1.     The holder of leftover stone resulting from stone quarrying
                                                                                which is stored for an indefinite length of time to await possible
1.    Dismisses the application;                                                  use discards or intends to discard that leftover stone, which is


title: Case C-652/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 April 2013 — Mindo Srl v European Commission (Appeals — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Italian market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco — Payment of the fine by the jointly and severally liable debtor — Interest in bringing proceedings — Burden of proof)

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/11

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 April 2013 — Mindo Srl v European Commission
   (Case C-652/11 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Italian market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco - Payment of the fine by the jointly and severally liable debtor - Interest in bringing proceedings - Burden of proof)
   2013/C 156/17
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Mindo Srl (represented by: G. Mastrantonio, C. Osti and A. Prastaro, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: N. Khan and L. Malferrari, Agents, assisted by F. Ruggeri Laderchi and R. Nazzini, avvocati)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 5 October 2011 in Case T-19/06 Mindo v Commission, whereby the General Court held that there was no need to adjudicate on an action for annulment in part of Decision C(2005) 4012 final of 20 October 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) [EC] (Case COMP/C.38.281/B.2 — Raw tobacco — Italy) concerning a cartel designed to fix prices paid to producers and other intermediaries and to share suppliers in the Italian raw tobacco market, and annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the appellant — Appellant involved in an insolvency procedure in the course of the proceedings — No longer any interest in bringing proceedings

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 5 October 2011 in Case T-19/06 Mindo v Commission;

               2.

               Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

               3.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 49, 18.2.2012.


title: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 November 2004 in Case C-245/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus): Anheuser-Busch Inc v Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik (Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation — Articles 2(1), 16(1) and 70 of the TRIPs Agreement — Trade marks — Scope of the proprietor's exclusive right to the trade mark — Alleged use of the sign as a trade name)

text:
               8.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/5

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Grand Chamber)
   of 16 November 2004
   in Case C-245/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus): Anheuser-Busch Inc v Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik (1)

   (Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation - Articles 2(1), 16(1) and 70 of the TRIPs Agreement - Trade marks - Scope of the proprietor's exclusive right to the trade mark - Alleged use of the sign as a trade name)
   (2005/C 6/08)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   In Case C-245/02: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Korkein oikeus (Finland), made by decision of 3 July 2002, received at the Court on 5 July 2002, in the proceedings between Anheuser-Busch Inc and Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik - the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), A. Rosas and R. Silva de Lapuerta (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and K. Schiemann, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 November 2004, in which it has ruled:

               1.

               The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs Agreement), as set out in Annex 1 C to the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation, approved on behalf of the European Community, as regards matters within its competence, by Council Decision 94/800/EC of 22 December 1994, applies in the event of a conflict between a trade mark and a sign alleged to infringe that trade mark where that conflict arose before the date of application of the TRIPs Agreement but continued beyond that date.

               2.

               A trade name may constitute a sign within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 16(1) of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs Agreement). That provision is intended to confer on the proprietor of a trade mark the exclusive right to prevent a third party from using such a sign if the use in question prejudices or is liable to prejudice the functions of the trade mark, in particular its essential function of guaranteeing to consumers the origin of the goods.
               The exceptions provided for in Article 17 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs Agreement) are intended, inter alia, to enable a third party to use a sign which is identical or similar to a trade mark to indicate his trade name, provided that such use is in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters.

               3.

               A trade name which is not registered or established by use in the Member State in which the trade mark is registered and in which protection against the trade name in question is sought may be regarded as an existing prior right within the meaning of the third sentence of Article 16(1) of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs Agreement) if the proprietor of the trade name has a right falling within the substantive and temporal scope of that agreement which arose prior to the trade mark with which it is alleged to conflict and which entitles him to use a sign identical or similar to that trade mark.

      (1)  OJ C 219 of 14.9.2002.


title: Case C-632/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romania) lodged on 30 November 2015 — Costin Popescu v Guvernul României, Ministerul Afacerilor Interne, Direcția Regim Permise de Conducere și Înmatriculare a Vehiculelor, Direcția Rutieră, Serviciul Public Comunitar Regim Permise de Conducere si Inmatriculare a Vehiculelor

text:
               22.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 68/22

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romania) lodged on 30 November 2015 — Costin Popescu v Guvernul României, Ministerul Afacerilor Interne, Direcția Regim Permise de Conducere și Înmatriculare a Vehiculelor, Direcția Rutieră, Serviciul Public Comunitar Regim Permise de Conducere si Inmatriculare a Vehiculelor
   (Case C-632/15)
   (2016/C 068/29)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Costin Popescu

      Defendants: Guvernul României, Ministerul Afacerilor Interne, Direcția Regim Permise de Conducere și Înmatriculare a Vehiculelor, Direcția Rutieră, Serviciul Public Comunitar Regim Permise de Conducere si Inmatriculare a Vehiculelor

      Question referred

   In the case of riders of mopeds in possession of an official document which gave them the right to ride on the public highway before 19 January 2013, do the provisions of Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) permit the Romanian State to impose a requirement, for the purpose of being able to continue to ride a moped after that date, to obtain a driving licence by undergoing tests/examinations similar to those required for other motor vehicles?

      (1)  Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences (Recast) (OJ 2006 L 403, p. 18).


title: Case T-570/11: Judgment of the General Court of 12 February 2014 — Oetker Nahrungsmittel v OHIM (La qualité est la meilleure des recettes) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark La qualité est la meilleure des recettes — Mark constituted by an advertising slogan — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctiveness — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               29.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 February 2014 — Oetker Nahrungsmittel v OHIM (La qualité est la meilleure des recettes)
   (Case T-570/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark La qualité est la meilleure des recettes - Mark constituted by an advertising slogan - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctiveness - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2014/C 93/36
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Dr. August Oetker Nahrungsmittel KG (Bielefeld, Germany) (represented by: F. Graf von Stosch, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Grand Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 July 2011 (Case R 1798/2010-G) concerning an application for registration of word sign La qualité est la meilleure des recettes as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Dr. August Oetker Nahrungsmittel KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 13, 14.1.2012.


title: Case T-199/08 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 15 January 2009 — Ziegler v Commission (Interim measures — Competition — Payment of a fine — Bank guarantee — Application for stay of execution — Lack of urgency)

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/38

         Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 15 January 2009 — Ziegler v Commission
   (Case T-199/08 R)
   (Interim measures - Competition - Payment of a fine - Bank guarantee - Application for stay of execution - Lack of urgency)
   (2009/C 69/87)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Ziegler SA (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J.-L. Lodomez and J. Lodomez, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented initially by: A. Bouquet and O. Beynet, and subsequently by: A. Bouquet and N. von Lingen, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Application for a stay of execution of Commission Decision C(2008) 926 final of 11 March 2008 on a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.543 — International Removal Services).
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case T-622/16: Action brought on 31 August 2016 — sheepworld v EUIPO (Alles wird gut)

text:
               17.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/23

         Action brought on 31 August 2016 — sheepworld v EUIPO (Alles wird gut)
   (Case T-622/16)
   (2016/C 383/32)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: sheepworld AG (Ursensollen, Germany) (represented by: S. von Rüden, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Mark at issue: EU figurative mark ‘Alles wird gut’ — Application No 14 170 062

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 June 2016 in Case R 212/2016-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-127/17: Action brought on 10 March 2017 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

text:
               15.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/22

         Action brought on 10 March 2017 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-127/17)
   (2017/C 151/30)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Hottiaux and W. Mölls, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by imposing on transport companies a requirement to possess special permits in order to use certain public roads, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3 and 7 of Council Directive 96/53/EC of 25 July 1996 laying down for certain road vehicles circulating within the Community the maximum authorised dimensions in national and international traffic and the maximum authorised weights in international traffic, (1) in conjunction with points 3.1 and 3.4 of Annex I to that directive;

               —

               order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission criticises the Republic of Poland on the ground that the circulation of vehicles complying with the maximum authorised axle weight, established at 10 tonnes (non-driving axle) and at 11.5 tonnes (driving axle) in points 3.1 and 3.4 respectively of Annex I to Directive 96/53/EC, is restricted on nearly 97 % of public roads situated in the territory of Poland, which is contrary to Article 3 of that directive. That restriction results from a combination of the following two factors:

               (1)

               the circulation of vehicles with a maximum authorised axle weight of 11.5 tonnes is possible only on roads which form part of the trans-European network (TEN-T) and certain other national roads (Article 41(2) of the Law on Public Roads); and

               (2)

               there is a requirement to possess a special permit allowing circulation on other roads (Article 64 et seq. of the Law on Road Traffic).

         The Commission also criticises the Republic of Poland on the ground that it misinterpreted Article 7 of Directive 96/53/EC. According to the Republic of Poland’s assessment, that provision allows a Member State to derogate from the general principle laid down in Article 3 of that directive by restricting the circulation of vehicles with a driving axle weight amounting to 11.5 tonnes. While it is true that specific examples are given in the second paragraph of Article 7 of places where the use of vehicles may lawfully be restricted (cities, small villages or places of special natural interest), that provision relates only to restrictions imposed on certain roads or on engineering structures on specified sections of road. According to the Commission, a Member State cannot reasonably rely on the possibility of introducing derogations in order to cover nearly 97 % of its road network.
   Moreover, in accordance with Article 64(1) of the Law on Road Traffic, (2) in order to be able to use roads which are not part of the TEN-T, that is to say, nearly 97 % of the roads comprising the public road network, the owners of the vehicles concerned must apply to the appropriate bodies for a special permit and must obtain such a permit, a requirement which gives rise to the following difficulties:

               —

               complicated administrative formalities necessitating contacts with various administrative bodies;

               —

               the geographical area of validity of a permit is limited, which forces transport companies generally to apply for several permits for each route;

               —

               the time necessary to obtain a permit and the cost thereof.

         Lastly, on the basis of Article 64(2) of the Law on Road Traffic mentioned above, a Category IV permit for use of national roads by vehicles with a driving axle weight amounting to 11.5 tonnes cannot be used for the carriage of divisible loads.
   Directive 96/53/EC does not permit this type of obstruction and difficulty in the area of freedom of circulation of vehicles. A company which does not agree to submit to those conditions will be liable to a ban on the use of roads. Such a rule is contrary to Article 3 of Directive 96/53/EC, under which, through the conditions laid down therein, Member States may not ‘reject or prohibit’ the use in their territories, in international traffic, of vehicles complying with the maximum weight values specified in Annex I to that directive.

      (1)  OJ 1996 L 235, p. 59.

      (2)  Announcement of the Speaker of the Sejm (Lower House of Parliament) of the Republic of Poland of 30 August 2012 laying down the consolidated text of the Law on Road Traffic, Dziennik Ustaw 2012, item 1137.


title: Case T-565/15: Action brought on 28 September 2015 — Excalibur City v OHIM — Ferrero (MERLIN'S KINDERWELT)

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/66

         Action brought on 28 September 2015 — Excalibur City v OHIM — Ferrero (MERLIN'S KINDERWELT)
   (Case T-565/15)
   (2015/C 398/80)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Excalibur City s.r.o. (Znojmo, Czech Republic) (represented by: E. EnginDeniz, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ferrero SpA (Alba, Italy)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘MERLIN'S KINDERWELT’ – Application for registration No 1 1 2 01  969

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 July 2015 in Case R 1538/2014-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul in whole the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the fees and costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law

               —

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

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-283/11: Judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2013 — Fon Wireless v OHIM — nfon (nfon) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark nfon — Earlier Community trade mark fon and earlier national word mark FON — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Application for alteration)

text:
               9.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2013 — Fon Wireless v OHIM — nfon (nfon)
   (Case T-283/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark nfon - Earlier Community trade mark fon and earlier national word mark FON - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Application for alteration)
   2013/C 71/26
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Fon Wireless Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented initially by F. Brandolini Kujman, and then by L. Montoya Terán, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: nfon AG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: S. Schweyer, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 March 2011 (Case R 1017/2009-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Fon Wireless Ltd and nfon AG.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               alters the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 18 March 2011 (Case R 1017/2009-4) to the effect that the action brought by nfon AG before the Board of Appeal is dismissed;

               2.

               orders OHIM to bear its own costs and those incurred by Fon Wireless Ltd;

               3.

               orders nfon to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 32, 4.2.2012.


title: Case C-278/01: Action brought on 13 July 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

text:
C 245/16               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                          1.9.2001
The Court of First Instance was wrong to find, at paragraph 47         The applicant claims that the Court should:
of the judgment, that the assessment of the Promotions
Committee was based on the view that the applicant experi-             —      Declare that, by failing to adopt, contrary to its obligations
enced difficulties in adjusting to his duties as Head, of the                 under Article 4 of Council Directive 76/160/EEC (1) of
Madrid Information Office. According to the minutes of the                    8 December 1975 concerning the quality of bathing
Committee’s meeting, that assessment, however, is no more                     water, measures to ensure that the quality of inshore
than an assessment by the Chair of the Committee who does                     bathing water in Spain conforms to the limit values set
not even have a vote on the Committee.                                        by Article 3 of that directive, the Kingdom of Spain has
                                                                              failed to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice
                                                                              of the European Communities of 12 February 1998 in
Finally, the Court of First Instance was wrong to find, at                    Case C-92/96 (2), and thus failed to fulfil its obligations
paragraph 48 of the judgment, that the Promotions Committee                   under Article 228 of the EC Treaty;
based itself solely on the marks awarded in the staff reports. It
follows, in fact, from the minutes of the meeting of the               —      order the Kingdom of Spain to pay to the Commission of
Committee, that it had decided to take into account the level                 the European Communities, into the ‘European Com-
of responsibility of the duties carried out by the applicant and              munity own resources’ account, a penalty payment of
to uprate the applicant’s marks accordingly.                                  EUR 45 600 in respect of every day it delays in taking the
                                                                              measures necessary to comply with the judgment in Case
                                                                              C-92/96, from the date on which judgment is delivered
Limits of judicial review:                                                    in the present case until such time as the judgment in
                                                                              Case C-92/96 is complied with;
The Court of First Instance has replaced the assessment of the         —      order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
Promotions Committee with its own subjective assessment of
the applicant’s merits.
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
The Court of First Instance wrongly found, at paragraph 52 of
the judgment, that the applicant carried out the duties of Head
of the Information Office with success and failed, in so doing,        In Case C-92/96 Commission v Spain, the Court of Justice
to make an objective comparison between the applicant and              held that by failing to take all necessary measures to ensure
his colleagues.                                                        that the quality of inshore bathing waters in Spain conforms
                                                                       to the limit values set in accordance with Article 3 of Council
                                                                       Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975 concerning the
The Court of First Instance wrongly takes the view, at                 quality of bathing water, the Kingdom of Spain had failed to
paragraph 53 of the judgment, that the appointing authority            fulfil its obligations under Article 4 thereof.
failed to take proper account of the duties actually carried out
by the applicant with success. That subjective assessment does
not however support the conclusion that the Promotions                 Article 228(1) of the EC Treaty requires the Kingdom of Spain
Committee committed a manifest error of assessment.                    to take the measures necessary to comply with the judgment.
                                                                       There is no doubt whatsoever that the Kingdom of Spain
                                                                       should long ago have adopted the measures necessary to
                                                                       ensure that the quality of bathing water conformed to the limit
                                                                       values set in Article 3 of the directive; more than two years
                                                                       elapsed between the judgment and the reasoned opinion
                                                                       without the Spanish Government having adopted any
                                                                       measures.
Action brought on 13 July 2001 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
                                                                       Pursuant to Article 228(2) EC, the Commission asks the Court
                        (Case C-278/01)                                to order the Kingdom of Spain to pay a penalty payment of
                                                                       EUR 45 600 in respect of every day it delays in taking the
                                                                       measures necessary to comply with the judgment in Case
                        (2001/C 245/29)                                C-92/96, as from the date of delivery of the judgment in the
                                                                       present case.
An action against Kingdom of Spain was brought before the
                                                                       (1) OJ 1976 L 31, p. 1.
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 13 July
                                                                       (2) Case C-92/96 Commission v Spain [1998] ECR I-505.
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana, acting as Agent, with
an address for service in Luxembourg.


title: Case T-400/03: Action brought on 8 December 2003 by Sophie Bachotet against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 35/16                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         7.2.2004
Action brought on 8 December 2003 by Sophie Bachotet                       —     Breach of the duty to state reasons and a manifest error
  against the Commission of the European Communities                             of assessment.
                          (Case T-400/03)                                  (1) Not yet published in the ECR.
                           (2004/C 35/25)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           Action brought on 12 December by Deirdre McCabe
                                                                             against the Commission of the European Communities
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                                            (Case T-401/03)
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 8 December 2003 by Sophie                                                     (2004/C 35/26)
Bachotet, residing in Brussels, represented by Sébastien Orlan-
di, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Étienne Marchal,
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                                           (Language of the case: French)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
—     Annul the decision of the Research selection committee               European Communities on 12 December 2003 by Deirdre
      in COM/R/A/01/1999 not to include the name of the                    McCabe, residing in Mondorf-Les-Bains (Luxembourg), rep-
      applicant on the reserve list;                                       resented by Mario Spandre, lawyer.
—     Order the defendant to pay the costs.                                The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           —     Annul the decision to dismiss Mrs McCabe;
                                                                           —     Order the Commission of the European Communities to
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                  pay compensation for wrongful dismissal;
                                                                           —     Order the Commission of the European Communities to
Following the judgment of the Court of First Instance of                         pay all the expenses and costs.
24 September 2002 in Case T-182/01 (1), annulling the
decision of the selection board not to enter the applicant’s
name on the reserve list resulting from selection procedure
COM/R/A/01/1999 held in order to create a reserve list of                  Pleas in law and main arguments
temporary agents, the applicant was invited to another oral
test. The applicant contests the final decision not to enter her
name on the list of suitable candidates following that second              The applicant, a former probationary official at Eurostat,
oral test.                                                                 contests the decision of the appointing authority not to
                                                                           establish her at the end of her probationary period.
In support of her claims the applicant relies on the following             In support of her claims, she submits that her dismissal was
pleas:                                                                     manifestly wrongful and, therefore, contrary to Article 34(3)
                                                                           of the Staff Regulations. She claims in that connection that her
                                                                           incompetence was alleged merely to prevent her from
—     Breach of Article 233 EC, in so far as the selection board
                                                                           reporting anomalies in the management of Eurostat which
      organised the oral test without taking account of the
                                                                           were revealed subsequently.
      grounds and the operative part of the above judgment of
      the Court of First Instance of 24 September 2002;
                                                                           The decision to dismiss her is based on the various intermediate
—     Breach of the principle of equal treatment for candidates,           probationary reports drawn up on her over 18 months and, in
      in so far as the selection board did not establish, before           particular, on the final report at the end of her probationary
      the oral test, the criteria necessary to enable it to make an        period. The grounds stated in that report were cursory, vague
      assessment, more than two years after the first tests were           and ambiguous and based on allegations wholly without
      held, of the comparative merits of the applicant and the             substance.
      successful candidates placed on the reserve list bearing in
      mind the principle of equal treatment;


title: Case C-118/08: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 January 2010 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Transportes Urbanos y Servicios Generales SAL v Administración del Estado (Procedural autonomy of the Member States — Principle of equivalence — Action for damages against the State — Breach of European Union law — Breach of the Constitution)

text:
               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/4

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 January 2010 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Transportes Urbanos y Servicios Generales SAL v Administración del Estado
   (Case C-118/08) (1)

   (Procedural autonomy of the Member States - Principle of equivalence - Action for damages against the State - Breach of European Union law - Breach of the Constitution)
   2010/C 63/06
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Transportes Urbanos y Servicios Generales SAL

      Defendant: Administración del Estado

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Supremo (Spain) — Infringement by a Member State of the rights granted to individuals under European Union law — Obligation to remedy the damage caused — An act contrary to the constitution of a Member State and an act contrary to European Union law — Principles of equivalence and effectiveness

      Operative part of the judgment

   European Union law precludes the application of a rule of a Member State under which an action for damages against the State, alleging a breach of that law by national legislation which has been established by a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities given pursuant to Article 226 EC, can succeed only if the applicant has previously exhausted all domestic remedies for challenging the validity of a harmful administrative measure adopted on the basis of that legislation, when such a rule is not applicable to an action for damages against the State alleging breach of the Constitution by national legislation which has been established by the competent court.

      (1)  OJ C 128, 24.5.2008.


title: Case C-318/16 P: Appeal brought on 2 June 2016 by Ukraine against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 11 March 2015 in Case T-347/14: Yanukovych v Council

text:
               9.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/24

         Appeal brought on 2 June 2016 by Ukraine against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 11 March 2015 in Case T-347/14: Yanukovych v Council
   (Case C-318/16 P)
   (2017/C 006/30)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Ukraine (represented by: M. Kostytska, avocat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Viktor Viktorovych Yanukovych, Council of the European Union, European Commission
   By order of 5 October 2016 the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


title: Case T-516/13: Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2016 — CW v Council (Common Foreign and Security Policy — Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia — Freezing of funds — Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the basis of new grounds following the annulment of the previous measures freezing funds — Right to property — Proportionality — Factual error — Misuse of powers — Non-contractual liability — Causal link)

text:
               22.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/25

         Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2016 — CW v Council
   (Case T-516/13) (1)

   ((Common Foreign and Security Policy - Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia - Freezing of funds - Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the basis of new grounds following the annulment of the previous measures freezing funds - Right to property - Proportionality - Factual error - Misuse of powers - Non-contractual liability - Causal link))
   (2016/C 305/34)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

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

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: G. Étienne and M. Bishop, Agents)

      Re:

   First, application based on Article 264 TFEU and seeking the annulment of Council Implementing Decision 2013/409/CFSP of 30 July 2013 implementing Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ 2013, L 204, p. 52), in so far as that decision concerns the applicant and, secondly, an application based on Article 268 TFEU and seeking compensation in respect of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Declares that CW shall bear his own costs and orders him to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

      (1)  OJ C 351, 6.10.2014.


title: Case C-348/11: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 23 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d'instance de Paris — France) — Thomson Sales Europe SA v Administration des douanes (Direction Nationale du Renseignement et des Enquêtes douanières) (Articles 92(1) and 103(1) of the Rules of Procedure — Manifest inadmissibility — Article 104(3), second subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure — Answer admitting of no reasonable doubt — Reference for a preliminary ruling — Assessment of validity — Common commercial policy — Dumping — Importation of televisions manufactured in Thailand — Validity of the investigation carried out by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) — Validity of Regulations (EC) Nos 710/95 and 2584/98)

text:
               4.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/4

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 23 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d'instance de Paris — France) — Thomson Sales Europe SA v Administration des douanes (Direction Nationale du Renseignement et des Enquêtes douanières)
   (Case C-348/11) (1)

   (Articles 92(1) and 103(1) of the Rules of Procedure - Manifest inadmissibility - Article 104(3), second subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure - Answer admitting of no reasonable doubt - Reference for a preliminary ruling - Assessment of validity - Common commercial policy - Dumping - Importation of televisions manufactured in Thailand - Validity of the investigation carried out by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) - Validity of Regulations (EC) Nos 710/95 and 2584/98)
   2012/C 235/06
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal d’instance de Paris

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Thomson Sales Europe SA

      Defendant: Administration des douanes (Direction Nationale du Renseignement et des Enquêtes douanières)

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal d'instance de Paris — Validity of Council Regulation (EC) No 710/95 of 27 March 1995 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of colour television receivers originating in Malaysia, the People’s Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, Singapore and Thailand and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed (OJ 1995 L 73, p. 3) — Validity of Council Regulation (EC) No 2584/98 of 27 November 1998, amending Regulation (EC) No 710/95 (OJ 1998 L 324, p. 1) — Regulations applying a method consistent with zeroing to determine the weighted average dumping margin — Validity of the investigation carried out by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) on the origin of the televisions

      Operative part of the order

   The examination of Questions 4 and 5 does not disclose any factor capable of affecting the validity of Council Regulation (EC) No 710/95 of 27 March 1995 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of colour television receivers originating in [Malaysia], the People’s Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, Singapore and Thailand and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed, or Council Regulation No 2584/98 of 27 November 1998, ameding Regulation No 710/95.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 24.09.2011.


title: Case C-399/15 P: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 12 July 2016 — Vichy Catalán, SA v European Union Intellectual Property Office, Hijos de Rivera, SA (Appeal — European Union trade mark — Period within which an action must be brought — Unforeseeable circumstances — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               19.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/12

         Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 12 July 2016 — Vichy Catalán, SA v European Union Intellectual Property Office, Hijos de Rivera, SA
   (Case C-399/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - European Union trade mark - Period within which an action must be brought - Unforeseeable circumstances - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Manifest inadmissibility))
   (2016/C 343/18)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Vichy Catalán, SA (represented by: R. Bercovitz Álvarez, abogado)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas, Agent), Hijos de Rivera, SA (represented by: C. Sueiras Villalobos, abogada)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Vichy Catalán SA shall pay the costs.

               3.

               Hijos de Rivera SA shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 406, 7.12.2015.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 November 2001 in Case T-128/99: Signal Communications Ltd v Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Word mark TELEYE — Application accompanied by a claim of priority on the basis of the earlier mark TELEEYE — Request for correction — Substantial alteration of the mark)

text:
C 44/12                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     16.2.2002
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 15 November 2001
                     of 15 November 2001
                                                                          in Case T-194/99: Cristiano Sebastiani v Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
in Case T-128/99: Signal Communications Ltd v Office for                  (Officials — Promotion — Staff report — Absence —
Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and                                   Consideration of comparative merits)
                       Designs) (OHIM) (1)
                                                                                (2002/C 44/21)
(Community trade mark — Word mark TELEYE — Appli-                                             (Language of the case: French)
cation accompanied by a claim of priority on the basis of
the earlier mark TELEEYE — Request for correction —
              Substantial alteration of the mark)
                                                                          In Case T-194/99: Cristiano Sebastiani, residing in Brussels,
                                                                          represented by J.-N. Louis, G.-F. Parmentier and V. Peere,
                                                                          lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
                          (2002/C 44/20)                                  Commission of the European Communities (Agents: C. Berar-
                                                                          dis-Kayser and D. Waelbroeck) — application for annulment
                                                                          of the decision of the Commission not to promote the
                                                                          applicant to Grade A 6 in the 1998 promotions procedure —
                  (Language of the case: English)                         the Court of First Instance (Single Judge); J. Palacio González,
                                                                          Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 Nov-
                                                                          ember 2001, in which it:
                                                                          1.    annuls the decision of the Commission not to promote the
                                                                                applicant to Grade A 6 in the 1998 promotions procedure;
In Case T-128/99: Signal Communications Ltd, established in               2.    orders the Commission to pay the costs.
Hong Kong (China), represented by J. Grayston and A. Bywater,
Lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks              (1) OJ C 314 of 30.10.1999.
and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: F. López de Rego and
G. Humphreys) — action brought against the decision of
24 March 1999 of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Designs) (Case R 219/1998-1), notified to the applicant on
25 March 1999 — the Court of First Instance (Fourth
Chamber), composed of P. Mengozzi, President, R.M. Moura                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Ramos and V. Tiili, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for
the Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 November 2001, in
which it:                                                                                of 15 November 2001
                                                                          in Case T-142/00: Michel Van Huffel v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
1.    Annuls the decision of 24 March 1999 of the First Board of
      Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
                                                                          (Officials — Access to internal competitions — Contracts
      (Trade Marks and Designs) (Case R 219/1998-1);
                                                                          with undertakings — Competition notice — Condition for
                                                                          admission requiring membership of the staff covered by the
                                                                                Staff Regulations)
2.    Orders the Office to bear its own costs and to pay those of the
      applicant.
                                                                                (2002/C 44/22)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
                                                                          In Case T-142/00: Michel Van Huffel, member of the tempor-
                                                                          ary staff of the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                          residing in Chaumont-Gistoux (Belgium), represented by


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 14 February 2005 in Case T-406/03 Nicolas Ravailhe v Committee of the Regions of the European Union (Officials — Prior administrative procedure — Inadmissibility)

text:
               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/35

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 14 February 2005
   in Case T-406/03 Nicolas Ravailhe v Committee of the Regions of the European Union (1)

   (Officials - Prior administrative procedure - Inadmissibility)
   (2005/C 143/66)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-406/03: Nicolas Ravailhe, a former member of the temporary staff of the Committee of the Regions of the European Union, residing in Amiens (France), represented by J.-P. Brodsky, against Committee of the Regions of the European Union (Agent: P. Cervilla, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer) — application, primarily, against the refusal of the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment to reinstate the applicant in his post and restore his rights under the Staff Regulations as a member of the temporary staff of the Committee of the Regions of the European Union or, in the alternative, for payment of compensation — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras, President, F. Dehousse and D. Šváby, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 14 February 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The application is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               The parties shall bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 47 of 21.2.2004.


title: Case T-484/04: Action brought on 9 December 2004 by François Pilat against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               5.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 57/31

         Action brought on 9 December 2004 by François Pilat against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-484/04)
   (2005/C 57/53)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 9 December 2004 by François Pilat, residing in Honfleur (France), represented by Jean-François Péricaud, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               order the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities jointly and severally to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 377 253, alternatively the sum of EUR 325 579, together, in either event, with interest from the date when this application was brought;

               —

               order the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities jointly and severally to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments raised by the applicant are the same as those raised by the applicants in Case T-440/03 (1)
      Arizmendi and Others v Council and Commission.

      (1)  OJEU C 59, of 06.03.2004, p. 31.


title: Case C-260/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 26 May 2010 — Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v The Rank Group PLC

text:
               31.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/29

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 26 May 2010 — Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v The Rank Group PLC
   (Case C-260/10)
   ()
   2010/C 209/40
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (United Kingdom)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

      Defendant: The Rank Group PLC

      Questions referred

               1.

               Where a Member State in the exercise of its discretion under Article 13B(f) of the Sixth VAT Directive (1) subjected certain types of machines used for gambling (‘Part III gaming machines’) to VAT, while retaining exemption for other such machines (which included fixed odds betting terminals, ‘FOBTs’), and where it is contended that in so doing the Member State infringed the principle of fiscal neutrality: is it
               (i) determinative, or (ii) relevant, when comparing Part III gaming machines and FOBTs that

                           (a)

                           FOBTs offered activities that were ‘betting’ under domestic law (or activities that the relevant regulatory authority, for the purposes of exercising its regulatory powers, was prepared to treat as ‘betting’ under domestic law)
                           and

                           (b)

                           Part III gaming machines offered activities subject to a different classification under domestic law, namely ‘gaming’ and that gaming and betting were subject to different regulatory regimes under that Member State's law relating to the control and regulation of gambling? If so, what are the differences between the regulatory regimes in question to which the national court should have regard?

               2.

               In determining whether the principle of fiscal neutrality requires the same tax treatment of the types of machine referred to in Question 1 (FOBTs and Part III gaming machines), what level of abstraction should be adopted by the national court in determining whether the products are similar? In particular, to what extent is it relevant to take into account the following matters:

                           (a)

                           similarities and differences in the permitted maximum stakes and prizes as between FOBTs and Part III gaming machines;

                           (b)

                           that FOBTs could be played only on certain types of premises licensed for betting, which were different, and subject to regulatory constraints that were different from those applicable to, premises licensed for gaming (although FOBTs and up to two Part III gaming machines could be played alongside each other in premises licensed for betting);

                           (c)

                           that the chances of winning the prize on FOBTs were directly related to the published fixed odds, whereas the chances of winning on Part III gaming machines could in some cases be varied by a device that ensured a particular percentage return to the operator and player over time;

                           (d)

                           similarities and differences in the formats available on FOBTs and Part III gaming machines;

                           (e)

                           similarities and differences as between FOBTs and Part III gaming machines in the interaction which could occur between the player and the machine;

                           (f)

                           whether or not the matters referred to above were either known to the generality of players of the machines or regarded by them as relevant or important;

                           (g)

                           whether the difference in VAT treatment is justified by any of the above?

               3.

               In a situation where a Member State, in the exercise of its discretion under Article 13B(f) of the Sixth VAT Directive, exempted gambling from VAT but subjected a defined class of machines used for gambling to VAT: -

                           (a)

                           is there in principle a defence of due diligence available to a Member Sate to a claim that the principle of fiscal neutrality has been infringed by that Member Sate; and

                           (b)

                           if the answer to (a) is ‘yes’, what factors are relevant in determining whether or not the Member Sate is entitled to rely on that defence?

      (1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment
   OJ L 145, p. 1


title: Case C-25/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Budapest Környéki Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 21 January 2015 — Criminal proceedings against István Balogh

text:
               20.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 127/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Budapest Környéki Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 21 January 2015 — Criminal proceedings against István Balogh
   (Case C-25/15)
   (2015/C 127/15)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Budapest Környéki Törvényszék

      Party to the main proceedings

   István Balogh

      Question referred

   Article 1(1) of Directive 2010/64/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings reads: ‘This Directive lays down rules concerning the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings and proceedings for the execution of an European arrest warrant’. Must this formulation be taken to mean, inter alia, that, during a special procedure (Chapter XXIX of a büntetőeljárásról szóló 1998. évi XIX. törvény (Law XIX of 1998 on criminal procedure)), a court in Hungary must apply this Directive, that is to say, must a special procedure under Hungarian law be regarded as being covered by the expression ‘criminal proceedings’, or must this expression be interpreted as referring only to procedures which conclude with a final decision concerning the criminal liability of the defendant?

      (1)  OJ 2010 L 280, p. 1.


title: Judgment of the Court of 31 March 2017 in Case E-13/16 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to comply — Directive 2000/30/EC — Technical roadside inspections)

text:
               13.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/16

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 31 March 2017
   in Case E-13/16
   EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

      (Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to comply — Directive 2000/30/EC — Technical roadside inspections)

   (2017/C 224/07)
   In Case E-13/16, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at point 17h of Annex XIII to the EEA Agreement (Directive 2000/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 June 2000 on the technical roadside inspection of the roadworthiness of commercial vehicles circulating in the Community) by not introducing the technical roadside inspections required by Article 3(1) of the Act, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 31 March 2017, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               Declares that, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations arising from the Act referred to at point 17h of Chapter II of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2000/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 June 2000 on the technical roadside inspection of the roadworthiness of commercial vehicles circulating in the Community), as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1, by not introducing, within the time prescribed, the technical roadside inspections required by Article 3(1) of the Act.

               2.

               Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.


title: Action brought on 3 February 1998 by Hermanek & Rademacher GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-26/98)

text:
2.5.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 137/17
1. dismisses the application for interim measures;                Communities in accordance with Article 47(1) of the EC
                                                                  Statute of the Court of Justice.
2. reserves the costs.
                                                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                  Ð annul the decision of the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities of 25 November 1997 (K (97) 3620),
              ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT                              Ð declare that the applicant's case is one of hardship
         OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                within the meaning of Article 30 of Regulation (EEC)
                      of 2 March 1998                                  No 404/93.
in Case T-24/98 R: Antonio Pernice v. Commission of the           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                  European Communities
(Temporary member of staff Ð Suspension Ð Suspension              In 1991 the applicant made investments in a banana-
        of operation Ð No need to give a decision)                ripening centre. In its view there had at that time been no
                                                                  grounds at all to suppose that the market in bananas
                        (98/C 137/37)
                                                                  might be affected by Commission intervention or other
                                                                  regulatory measures. When the proposal for the
              (Language of the case: French)                      organisation of the market in bananas was put forward all
                                                                  the applicant's investments had already been made. The
In Case T-24/98 R: Antonio Pernice, a member of the               reference years used as a basis, which have caused the
temporary staff at the Commission of the European                 applicant heavy losses, unfairly place it at a disadvantage.
Communities, represented by Ariane Tornel and Jean-NoeÈl
Louis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in        Furthermore, the organisation of the market has resulted
Luxembourg at Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30, rue de                   in improper interference with the applicant's business
Cessange, against Commission of the European                      enterprise which has been set up and carried on, because a
Communities (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and Julian                special sacrifice is expected of the applicant, in contrast to
Currall) Ð application for suspension of the operation of         other traders. It simultaneously follows, moreover, that the
the decision of the Commission of the European                    applicant and its shareholders and management are being
Communities of 12 November 1997 seeking to maintain               denied the right freely to choose their trade, without
the suspension imposed on the applicant pursuant to               reasons which would justify such a difference in treatment
Article 88 of the Staff Regulations and the second                being apparent.
paragraph of Article 49(1) of the conditions of
employment of other servants of the European
Communities Ð the President of the Court of First
Instance made an order on 2 March 1998, the operative
part of which is as follows:
                                                                  Action brought on 2 March 1998 by Aruba against the
1. there is no need to adjudicate on the application;                            Council of the European Union
                                                                                (Case T-36/98)
2. costs are reserved.
                                                                                (98/C 137/39)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                  An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                  brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Action brought on 3 February 1998 by Hermanek &
                                                                  Communities on 2 March 1998 by Aruba, represented by
    Rademacher GmbH against the Commission of the
                                                                  Mr P. V. F. Bos and Mr M. Slotboom, with an address for
                  European Communities
                                                                  service in Luxembourg at the Offices of Loesch & Wolter,
                       (Case T-26/98)                             11, rue Goethe.
                        (98/C 137/38)
                                                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
             (Language of the case: German)
                                                                  Ð annul Council Decision 97/803 of 24 November
An action against the Commission of the European                       1997 (1) pursuant to Articles 173 and 174 of the EC
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      Treaty,
Instance of the European Communities on 3 February
1998 by Hermanek & Rademacher GmbH, Cologne,                      or, in the alternative,
represented by, and with an address for service at the
offices of, Hubert Weber, Rechtsanwalt, 14, Zülpicher             Ð annul paragraphs 31, 32, 53 (in so far as they concern
Platz, Cologne. The application was transmitted to the                 Article 232(1), first and second indent, of Council
Registry of the Court of First Instance of the European                Decision 91/482/EEC), 54 and 55 of Article 1 of


title: Case T-331/10: Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 May 2012 — Yoshida Metal Industry v OHIM — Pi-Design and Others (Representation of a triangular surface with black dots) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Figurative Community trade mark representing a surface with black dots — Shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result — Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               23.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/10

         Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 May 2012 — Yoshida Metal Industry v OHIM — Pi-Design and Others (Representation of a triangular surface with black dots)
   (Case T-331/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Figurative Community trade mark representing a surface with black dots - Shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result - Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2012/C 184/17
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Yoshida Metal Industry Co. Ltd (Tsubame-shi, Japan) (represented by: S. Verea, K. Muraro and M. Balestriero, lawyers)

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

      Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Pi-Design AG (Triengen, Switzerland), Bodum France (Neuilly-sur-Seine, France) and Bodum Logistics A/S (Billund, Denmark) (represented by H. Pernez, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 May 2010 (Case R 1235/2008-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Pi-Design AG, Bodum France and Bodum Logistics A/S, on the one hand, and Yoshida Metal Industry Co. Ltd, on the other hand

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 20 May 2010 (Case R 1235/2008-1);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of Yoshida Metal Industry Co. Ltd;

               3.

               Orders Pi-Design AG, Bodum France and Bodum Logistics A/S to bear their own respective costs.

      (1)  OJ C 274, 9.10.2010.


               28.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/27

         Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Markedsrådet by decision of that court of 7 July 2004 in the case of Pedicel AS v Sosial- og helsedirektoratet
   (Case E-4/04)
   (2005/C 103/13)
   A request has been made to the EFTA Court by decision of 7 July 2004 of Markedsrådet (the Market Council), Oslo, Norway, which was received at the Court Registry on 9 July 2004, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Pedicel AS v Sosial- og helsedirektoratet, on the following questions:

               1.

               Since wine is not included in the product coverage of Article 8(3) of the EEA Agreement:
               should the Agreement — including Article 18 and Article 23 cf. Protocol 47 — be so understood that Article 11 and/or Article 36 are applicable to wine?

               2.

               Should Article 11 and/or Article 36 of the EEA Agreement be so understood that they are applicable to national legislation that contains a general prohibition against the advertising of alcoholic beverages, such as in the Act on the sale of alcoholic beverages, section 9-2 et al.?

               3.

               If question 2 is answered in the affirmative: Can such a prohibition nevertheless be maintained out of concerns for public health, and if so, is it in conformity with the proportionality principle of EEA law?
               When answering this question, it should be indicated to what extent the application of a general precautionary principle in this field would be in conformity with the case law of the EFTA Court/Court of Justice of the European Communities.


title: Case C-556/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — TDC A/S v Teleklagenævnet (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Electronic communications networks and services — Directive 2002/19/EC — Article 2(a) — Access to and use of specific network elements and associated facilities — Articles 5, 8, 12 and 13 — Competence of the national regulatory authorities — Obligation relating to access to and use of specific network elements and associated facilities — Undertaking with significant market power on a specific market — Drop cable connecting the distribution frame of the access network to the network termination point at the end-user’s premises — Proportionality of the obligation to meet reasonable requests for access to and use of specific network elements and associated facilities — Directive 2002/21/EC — Article 8 — Policy objectives for the carrying out of the tasks of the national regulatory authorities)

text:
               25.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/7

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — TDC A/S v Teleklagenævnet
   (Case C-556/12) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Electronic communications networks and services - Directive 2002/19/EC - Article 2(a) - Access to and use of specific network elements and associated facilities - Articles 5, 8, 12 and 13 - Competence of the national regulatory authorities - Obligation relating to access to and use of specific network elements and associated facilities - Undertaking with significant market power on a specific market - Drop cable connecting the distribution frame of the access network to the network termination point at the end-user’s premises - Proportionality of the obligation to meet reasonable requests for access to and use of specific network elements and associated facilities - Directive 2002/21/EC - Article 8 - Policy objectives for the carrying out of the tasks of the national regulatory authorities))
   2014/C 282/09
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Østre Landsret

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: TDC A/S

      Defendant: Teleklagenævnet

      Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               Articles 2(a), 8 and 12 of Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (Access Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/140/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that the national regulatory authority has the power to impose on an electronic communications operator that has significant market power on a specific market, pursuant to the obligation to meet reasonable requests for access to, and use of, specific network elements and associated facilities, an obligation to install, at the request of competing operators, a drop cable not exceeding 30 metres in length connecting the distribution frame of an access network to the network termination point at the end-user’s premises, as long as that obligation is based on the nature of the problem identified, proportionate and justified in the light of the objectives set out in Article 8(1) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/140, which is a matter for the referring court to verify.

               2)

               Articles 8 and 12 of Directive 2002/19, as amended by Directive 2009/140, read in conjunction with Article 13 of Directive 2002/19, must be interpreted as meaning that a national regulatory authority, when minded to require an electronic communications operator that has significant market power on a specific market to install drop cables for the purpose of connecting the end-user to a network, has to take into account the initial investment made by the operator concerned and the existence of a price control that makes it possible to recover the costs of installation.

      (1)  OJ C 38, 9.2.2013.


title: Action brought on 19 September 1997 by Hans C. Herold against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-257/97)

text:
22 . 11 . 97          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 357/33
     'Administrative information' of 7 April 1986 (No 498 ),         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     in so far as the contested decision was signed by a
     head of division posted in Luxembourg and not by the
     Director General for Personnel and Administration,
                                                                     The applicant was employed as a member of the
                                                                     defendant's staff at Ispra . After suffering a skiing accident
                                                                     in March 1982, he took early retirement on 1 March
— infringement of Article 25 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations          1986 on account of partial permanent invalidity. In May
     and of the principle 'non bis in idem', which is                1986 he applied for an increase in the percentage of his
     contained, in particular, in Article 86 ( 3 ) of the Staff      partial invalidity from 28% to 50/55% . After 10 years, in
     Regulations, and a manifest error of assessment, in so          April 1996, the applicant received, as a result, a 14%
     far as the defendant based its refusal to terminate the         increase in the degree of his partial invalidity which
     applicant's temporary secondment to the Publications            brought it up to a total of 42% , a compensation payment
     Office and to reinstate him in his usual duties in the          which was credited to his account on 25 April 1996 .
     Security Office on reasoning relating exclusively to the
     reprimand he received.                                          By his action, the applicant seeks compensation for the
                                                                     damage .suffered by him by reason of the length of time
The applicant claims, in that respect, that the effect of            which it took to process his claim, the period in question
refusing his request on those grounds was to impose a                having lasted from 14 May 1986 until 25 April 1996 , on
second penalty on him for conduct in respect of which                which latter date the payment was made to him.
a definitive disciplinary decision had been taken .
Furthermore, the contested decision implies that the                 The applicant claims compensation for the damage
responsibilities of an official within the Security Office are       suffered as a result of the delay, for the loss culpably
so sensitive that they require a higher level of morality            inflicted on him and for the damage caused by default.
than other departments of the Commission. According to
the applicant, that approach constitutes a manifest error
of assessment. In that respect, he points out that another           According to the applicant, an official who does not
official who was involved in the same disciplinary                   receive a compensation payment until many years after his
proceedings was able to remain in his post, despite the              accident is placed in a considerably worse position than
fact that he carried out very sensitive duties within the            an official in comparable circumstances who receives
'Euratom Security Control' Directorate and received the              payment of the compensation only a short time after the
same reprimand.                                                      accident. Such unequal treatment is in breach of the legal
                                                                     principle prohibiting discrimination. That principle, the
                                                                     counterpart formulation of which is the requirement of
                                                                     equal treatment, prevails over the Staff Regulations of
                                                                     officials of the European Communities, and in this
                                                                     particular case over Article 73 ( 2 ) thereof.
Action brought on 19 September 1997 by Hans C. Herold
   against the Commission of the European Communities                In so far as the defendant seeks to rely on that provision
                                                                     in opposition to the applicant's claim, the applicant will
                        ( Case T-257/97)                             plead that the defendant's obligations even extended to
                          ( 97/C 357/62 )                            securing an amendment to, or supplementation of, the
                                                                     Staff Regulations. Hitherto, however, it has not in fact
                                                                     made any attempt to do so .
               (Language of the case: German)
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 19 September
1997 by Hans C. Herold, residing at Levanto (Italy ),                Action brought on 22 September 1997 by Societa Eridania
represented by Bernd Potthast, Hans-Josef Ruber and                  SpA and Others against the Council of the European
Albert Potthast, Rechtsanwalte, Cologne, with an address                                           Union
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest
Arendt, 8—10 Rue Mathias Hardt.                                                             ( Case T-258/97)
                                                                                ( 97/C 357/63 )
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
— annul the defendant's decision of 20 November 1996 ,
                                                                     An action against the Council of the European Union was
— order the defendant to pay to the applicant                         brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
     compensation in the sum of BF 1 057 567 together                 Communities on 22 September 1997 by Societa Eridania
      with 5 % interest from 26 October 1984,                         SpA whose registered office is at Genoa, and Industria
                                                                      Saccarifera Italiana Agroindustriale SpA, whose registered
                                                                      office is at Padua, of the Eridania Group, Societa Sadam
— order the defendant to pay the costs.                               Zuccherifici, a division of S.E.C.I. ( Societa Esercizi