title: Action brought on 14 May 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic (Case C-167/96)

text:
No C 210/6              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       20 . 7 . 96
Action brought on 14 May 1996 by the Commission of the                 The applicant claims that the Court should :
 European Communities against the Portuguese Republic
                         ( Case C-166/96 )                             — declare that, by failing to adopt in their entirety the laws,
                                                                             regulations or administrative provisions necessary to
                           ( 96/C 210/ 11 )
                                                                             comply with Commission Directive 92/69/EEC of
                                                                             31 July 1992 adapting to technical progress for the 17th
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought                        time Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                   laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating
14 May 1996 by the Commission of the European                                to the classification, packaging and labelling of
Communities, represented by Francisco de Sousa Fialho,                       dangerous substances ^), the Portuguese Republic has
acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg                   failed to fulfil its obligations under the third paragraph
at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,              of Article 189 of the EC Treaty and Article 3 of Directive
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                                    92/69/EEC,
                                                                       — declare , in the alternative, that by failing to inform
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                 the Commission immediately thereof, the Portuguese
                                                                             Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
— declare that, by failing to adopt in their entirety the laws,              same provisions,
     regulations or administrative provisions necessary to
     comply with Commission Directive 92/32/EEC of                     — order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs .
     30 April 1992 amending for the seventh time Directive
     67/548/EEC on the approximation of laws, regulations
     and administrative provisions relating to the                     Pleas in law and main arguments
     classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous
     substances ( ] ), the Portuguese Republic has failed to           The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
     fulfil its obligations under the third paragraph of               in Case C-l 65/96 ( 2 ). The time limit for transposing the
     Article 189 of the EC Treaty and Article 3 of Directive           Directive expired on 31 October 1993 .
     92/32/EEC ,
                                                                       (>) OJ No L 383 , 29 . 12 . 1992 , p . 13 .
— declare, in the alternative, that by failing to inform               ( 2 ) See page 5 of this Official Journal .
     the Commission immediately thereof, the Portuguese
     Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
     same provisions,
— order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs .
                                                                       Action brought on 14 May 1996 by the Commission of the
                                                                         European Communities against the Portuguese Republic
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                ( Case C-168/96 )
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those                                          ( 96/C 210/ 13 )
in Case C-l 65/96 ( 2 ). The time limit for transposing the
Directive expired on 31 October 1993 .                                 An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
                                                                       before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
(') OJ No L 154 , 5 . 6 . 1992 , p . 1 .                               on 14 May 1996 by the Commission of the European
(2 ) See page 5 of this Official Journal .                             Communities, represented by Francisco de Sousa Fialho,
                                                                       acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                       at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,
                                                                       Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should :
Action brought on 14 May 1996 by the Commission of the                 — declare that, by failing to adopt in their entirety the laws,
 European Communities against the Portuguese Republic                        regulations or administrative provisions necessary to
                         ( Case C-167/96 )                                   comply with Commission Directive 93/67/EEC of
                           ( 96/C 210/12 )                                   20 July 1993 laying down the principles for assessment
                                                                             of risks to man and the environment of substances
                                                                             notified in accordance with Council Directive
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought                        67/548/EEC ( ] ), the Portuguese Republic has failed to
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                   fulfil its obligations under the third paragraph of
14 May 1996 by the Commission of the European                                Article 189 of the EC Treaty and Article 8 of Directive
Communities, represented by Francisco de Sousa Fialho,                       93 /67/EEC ,
acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg
at the office of Carlos Gômez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,        — declare, in the alternative, that by failing to inform
Wagner Centre , Kirchberg.                                                   the Commission immediately thereof, the Portuguese


title: Case T-364/14: Action brought on 23 May 2014  — Penny-Markt v OHIM — Boquoi Handels (B! O)

text:
               11.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/32

         Action brought on 23 May 2014 — Penny-Markt v OHIM — Boquoi Handels (B! O)
   (Case T-364/14)
   2014/C 261/56
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Penny-Markt GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey, S. Brandstätter and A. Wagner, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Boquoi Handels OHG (Straelen, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 March 2014 in Case R 1201/2013-4;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the figurative mark including the word element ‘B! O’ for goods in Classes 29, 30, 31 and 32 — Community trade mark No 10 038 008

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Boquoi Handels OHG

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: the national and Community trade mark ‘bo’ for goods and services in Classes 5, 16, 21, 29, 31, 32, 33 and 35

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: the application for a declaration of invalidity was rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the decision of the Cancellation Division was annulled and the Community trade mark was declared invalid

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 53(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case C-455/99: Action brought on 1 December 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom

text:
5.2.2000                  EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 34/19
— The United Kingdom’s failure to take penal or administra-                laid down in the directive. That period expired on 30 June
     tive action against the skippers and vessel owners found              1996 without the United Kingdom having enacted the pro-
     not to have complied with the relevant legislation concern-           visions necessary to comply with the directive referred to in
     ing conservation and control measures is an infringement              the conclusions of the Commission.
     of Article 1(2) of Regulation 2057/82 as amended
     (Article 1(2) of Regulation 2241/87 from 1 August 1987).
                                                                           (1) OJ L 365 of 31.12.1994, p. 10.
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No. 170/83 of 25 January 1983 estab-
    lishing a Community system for the conservation and manage-
    ment of fishery resources, OJ L 24, 27.1.1983, p. 1.
(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2057/82 of 29 June 1982 estab-
    lishing certain control measures for fishing activities by vessels of
    the Member States, OJ L 220, 29.7.1982, p. 1.
(3) Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2241/87 of 23 July 1987 estab-
    lishing certain control measures for fishing activities OJ L 207,
    29.7.1987, p. 1.
                                                                           Action brought on 3 December 1999 by the Commission
                                                                           of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                                                                                (Case C-466/99)
                                                                                (2000/C 34/36)
Action brought on 1 December 1999 by the Commission                        An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
of the European Communities against the United                             Court of Justice of the European Communities on 3 December
                               Kingdom                                     1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                           represented by Lena Ström, of its Legal Service, and Giacinto
                                                                           Bisogni, appeal court judge on secondment to the Legal
                           (Case C-455/99)                                 Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
                                                                           Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
                                                                           Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                            (2000/C 34/35)
An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the                The applicant claims that the Court should:
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 1 December
1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,                        — Declare that, by failing to forward to the Commission
represented by Mr Richard Wainwright, Principal Legal                          information concerning plans for the management and
Adviser, acting as agent, with an address for service at the                   disposal of waste, hazardous waste, packaging and packag-
office of Mr Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, a member of its Legal                   ing waste, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
Service, at the Wagner Centre, Luxembourg.                                     obligations under Articles 7, 6 and 14 of Directives
                                                                               75/442/EEC (1), 91/689/EEC (2) and 94/62/EC respective-
                                                                               ly (3);
The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           — Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws regulations
     or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     Directive 94/62/EC (1) of 20 December 1994 concerning
     packaging and packaging waste, the United Kingdom has                 Pleas in law and main arguments
     failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive, and
— order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.                               The Italian Republic should have forwarded to the Commission
                                                                           the information required under Directives 75/442/EEC,
                                                                           91/689/EEC and 94/62/EC on the drawing up of plans for
                                                                           the management and disposal of waste, hazardous waste,
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            packaging and packaging waste pursuant to Articles 7, 6 and
                                                                           14 thereof respectively.
Article 249 CE (ex Article 189 of the EC Treaty), under which
a directive shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved,             The Italian Republic failed to do so, nor did the Commission
upon each Member State, carries by implication an obligation               receive the requisite information following the reasoned
on the Member States to observe the period for compliance                  opinion notified to the Italian authorities on 21 October 1998.


title: Case C-405/16 P: Appeal brought on 19 July 2016 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 10 May 2016 in Case T-47/15, Federal Republic of Germany v European Commission

text:
               5.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/18

         Appeal brought on 19 July 2016 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 10 May 2016 in Case T-47/15, Federal Republic of Germany v European Commission
   (Case C-405/16 P)
   (2016/C 326/30)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and R. Kanitz, Agents, assisted by T. Lübbig, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The Federal Republic of Germany claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside, in its entirety, the judgment under appeal of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 10 May 2016 in Case T-47/15;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   The appeal is based on three grounds of appeal:
   1. First ground of appeal
   The judgment of the General Court under appeal failed to have regard for the limits of the definition of aid under Article 107(1) TFEU in the interpretation of ‘State resources’ and State ‘control’ over the financial resources of private undertakings. The judgment under appeal wrongly assumes that ‘authorities’ of the Federal Republic of Germany, on the basis of the requirements of the German Renewable Energy Law, exercise ‘control’, and therefore administrative power, over the financial means of transmission system operators and energy supply undertakings integrated into the existing system in Germany for promoting renewable energies. The General Court ought properly to have recognised that the Renewable Energy Law creates solely private-law contractual relations between single undertakings in the German energy market but establishes no State control over the financial means of those undertakings.
   2. Second ground of appeal
   The appellant criticises the General Court for having wrongly held that the German Renewable Energy Law provides an advantage amounting to aid to energy-intensive undertakings as final consumers. In so holding, the General Court failed to have regard for the case-law relating to structural disadvantages and also to the criterion of the selectivity of aid.
   3. Third ground of appeal
   Finally, the appellant complains of insufficient reasoning in the judgment with regard to the positions of both transmission systems operators and energy supply undertakings.


title: Case C-158/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Roma by order of that Court of 5 April 2002 in the case of Lidia Marcaletti against Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS)

text:
C 144/28                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      15.6.2002
3)    Must the person who acquired the specimen more than                 —     point H(e) of that annex (relating to Italy) includes,
      50 years previously be the present owner?                                 amongst the benefits under the Italian system which are
                                                                                subject to residence requirements, benefits supplementing
                                                                                the minimum pension;
4)    Do the provisions on exemption in Article 32 of Regu-
      lation No 1808/2001 (2) mean that no assessment by the
                                                                          —     benefits supplementing the minimum pension do not
      authority in accordance with Article 2(w) of Regulation
                                                                                possess the characteristics of an autonomous benefit, but
      No 338/97 is required?
                                                                                must instead be regarded as an integral element of the
                                                                                benefit to be awarded,
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the           —     the Court of Justice is requested to give a preliminary
    protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade           ruling on the validity of Annex IIa of Regulation No 1408/
    therein (OJ L 061 of 3.3.1997, p. 1).                                       71, inasmuch as it includes amongst the ‘non-exportable’
(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1808/2001 of 30 August 2001                   benefits listed in point H(e) (relating to Italy) the sup-
    laying down detailed rules concerning the implementation of                 plement to the minimum pension as provided for by the
    Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 on the protection of species              Italian legislation;
    of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein (OJ L 250 of
    19.9.2001, p. 1).
                                                                          in other words, a ruling is requested on the question whether
                                                                          that annex is compatible with Articles 39 and 42 of the EC
                                                                          Treaty inasmuch as it precludes the exportability not of a
                                                                          special non-contributory benefit but rather of an element of a
                                                                          contributory benefit (in this case, an old-age pension) which
                                                                          cannot be subject to any residence requirement.
                                                                          (1) OJ L 149 of 5.7.1971, p. 2.
                                                                          (2) OJ L 136 of 19.5.1992, p. 1.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
Roma by order of that Court of 5 April 2002 in the
case of Lidia Marcaletti against Istituto nazionale della
                    previdenza sociale (INPS)
                         (Case C-158/02)
                                                                          Action brought on 2 May 2002 by the Kingdom of Spain
                                                                            against the Commission of the European Communities
                         (2002/C 144/47)
                                                                                (Case C-165/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 144/48)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Roma
(Rome District Court) of 5 April 2002, received at the Court
Registry on 29 April 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case
of Lidia Marcaletti against Istituto nazionale della previdenza           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
sociale (INPS) (National Social Welfare Institution) on the               ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
following questions: Whereas:                                             Communities on 2 May 2002 by the Kingdom of Spain,
                                                                          represented by Rosario Silva de Lapuerta, Abogado del Estado,
                                                                          with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Spanish
—     Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) lists the              Embassy, 4-6, boulevard E. Servais.
      benefits from amongst the various branches of social
      security which fall within the substantive scope of that
      regulation;                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          —    annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 494/2002 (1) of
—     Article 1(t) sets out a Community definition of the terms
                                                                                19 March 2002 establishing additional technical
      ‘benefits’ and ‘pensions’;
                                                                                measures for the recovery of the stock of hake in ICES
                                                                                sub-areas III, IV, V, VI and VII and ICES divisions VIII a,
—     Annex IIa, introduced by Regulation No 1247/92 (2) of                     b, d, e;
      30 April 1992, refers to the special non-contributory
      benefits which are subject to residence conditions;                 —    order the defendant institution to pay the costs.


title: Case T-394/06: Action brought on 11 December 2006 — Italy v Commission

text:
               24.2.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/32

         Action brought on 11 December 2006 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-394/06)
   (2007/C 42/55)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Aiello, Avvocato dello Stato)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Commission's decision C (2006) 4324 of 3 October 2006, notified on the same date, in so far as it excludes from Community financing, and charges to the budget of the Italian Republic the financial consequences to be applied in the context of the clearance of expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, Guarantee Section, cases of irregularity by a number of operators.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In the present action, the Italian Republic contests the exclusion from Community financing, and the consequent charging to the budget of the Italian State, the financial consequences relating to 157 cases of irregularities in the total amount of EUR 310 849 495,98, in relation to which the applicant failed to take steps with all due diligence by instigating the recovery procedure.
   In support of its claims, the applicant disputes that there is any negligence that can be attributed to it and claims:

               —

               Infringement and/or misapplication of Article 5(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 595/91 of 4 March 1991 concerning irregularities and the recovery of sums wrongly paid in connection with the financing of the common agricultural policy and the organization of an information system in this field and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 283/72 (1).

               —

               Infringement and/or misapplication of Article 8(1)(c) of Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 of the Council of 21 April 1970 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (2), and Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (3).

      (1)  OJ L 67, 14.3.1999. p. 11.

      (2)  OJ English Special Edition 1970 (I), p. 218.

      (3)  OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 103.


title: Case T-104/02: Action brought on 8 April 2002 by SFT Gondrand Frères against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
29.6.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 156/33
Therefore, the applicant puts forward the same pleas and                   The contested Decision contains, according to the applicant,
arguments as in Case T-100/02, which are again the same as                 several errors of assessment and errors in law. Firstly, the
those put forward in Case T-99/02.                                         Commission erred in concluding that the merchant supply of
                                                                           cumene to one of the applicant’s production sites does
                                                                           not constitute a separate economic market. Secondly, the
                                                                           Commission failed to consider whether a dominant position
(1) Under the operation examined by the Commission in this case,           would be created in this market and failed to conclude that
    Deutsche Shell would acquire sole control of the undertaking           a dominant position had been created. Alternatively, the
    DEA Mineraloel. The decision in case no. COMP/M. 2389-Shell/           Commission failed to define a wider relevant market for the
    DEA is also contested by this applicant in Case T-100/02.              sale of cumene and failed to analyse the creation of a dominant
                                                                           position in such a market.
                                                                           The applicant also puts forward a plea concerning the
                                                                           infringement of an essential procedural requirement, the
Action brought on 5 April 2002 by Ineos Phenol GmbH                        misuse of powers and the violation of the principle of sound
& Co KG against the Commission of the European                             administration. According to the applicant, the Commission
                           Communities                                     should have requested information from third parties in
                                                                           relation to the sale of cumene by BP and Veba Oel.
                          (Case T-103/02)
                          (2002/C 156/62)                                  Finally, the applicant claims that there was a lack of reasoning
                                                                           in the contested Decision since the Commission failed to
                                                                           analyse the supply of merchant cumene by BP and Veba Oel
                   (Language of the case: English)                         and failed to address the issues raised in the present application.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 5 April 2002 by Ineos Phenol
GmbH & Co KG, represented by Mr Julian Ellison, Mr Mark
Clough QC and Mr Matthew Hall of Ashurst Morris Crisp,
Brussels (Belgium).
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           Action brought on 8 April 2002 by SFT Gondrand Frères
—     annul under Article 230 of the EC Treaty the Commission
                                                                             against the Commission of the European Communities
      Decision in case no. COMP/M.2533-BP/E.ON insofar as
      it relates implicitly to the merchant supply of cumene;
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                                                        (Case T-104/02)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                     (2002/C 156/63)
The applicant is a significant purchaser of a petrochemical                                   (Language of the case: French)
product called cumene from BP and Veba Oel AG.
The applicant contests the Decision of the Commission
declaring an operation where BP, together with E.ON, would
acquire joint control of Veba Oel under certain conditions
compatible with the common market and the EEA Agreement.                   An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
The grounds of the present application relate to the omission of           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
the Commission to consider, in this Decision, the competition              European Communities on April 2002 by SFT Gondrand
issues raised by the combination of BP and Veba Oel, so far as             Frères of Paris, represented by Mireille Famchon, lawyer, with
their supply of merchant cumene is concerned.                              an address for service in Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- C 156/34               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          29.6.2002
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             Finally, the applicant argues that it cannot be accused of
                                                                        deception and that it has not acted with manifest negligence.
—     annul Decision REM 06/01 of 14 January 2002 and allow
      a rebate of the anti-dumping duties imposed to SFT
      Gondrand Frères.                                                  (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 3319/94 of 22 December 1994
                                                                            imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of urea
                                                                            ammonium nitrate solution originating in Bulgaria and Poland,
                                                                            exported by companies not exempted from the duty, and col-
                                                                            lecting definitively the provisional duty imposed (OJ 1994 L 350,
                                                                            p. 20).
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant is an authorised customs agent. In 1997 it
released for circulation three cargo loads of urea ammonium             Action brought on 15 April 2002 by Grupo El Prado-
nitrate solution from Poland. When making the customs                   Cervera, S.L. against Office for Harmonisation in the
declaration the applicant applied for an exemption from anti-                                      Internal Market
dumping duty which applies to imports of that product from
Poland. Following checks, the French customs authorities took
the view that anti-dumping duty was due and demanded                                               (Case T-117/02)
payment of the customs duty from the applicant.
                                                                                (2002/C 156/64)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
The applicant then requested a rebate of the anti-dumping
duty and the corresponding VAT. That request was sent by the
French authorities to the Commission, which refused a rebate
of the anti-dumping duties. The applicant is challenging that           An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
decision in this case.                                                  Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 15 April 2002 by Grupo El Prado-
                                                                        Cervera, S.L., whose registered office is at Valencia (Spain),
                                                                        represented by Patricia Koch Moreno.
The applicant claims that anti-dumping duties are not payable,
as a result of EC Regulation No 3319/94 (1). The applicant              The applicant claims that the Court should:
states that the goods were invoiced directly by the Polish
company, Zaklady Azotowe Pulawy, to a French company,
Evertrade. The price of the goods was, furthermore, higher              —     declare the Decision of 12 February 2002 of the First
than the minimum import price. In those circumstances the                     Board of Appeal of the OHIM rejecting the opposition
applicant claims that to subject the contested imports to anti-               filed against Community trade mark application No
dumping duties is unjustified.                                                1021229, CHUFAFIT, in Classes 29 and 31 incompatible
                                                                              with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the
                                                                              Community Trade Mark and annul that decision;
                                                                        —     declare that there is a likelihood of confusion between
The applicant also claims that it was justifiable for the duties              Community trade mark application No 1021229, CHU-
to be subject to a rebate in this case in the light of one                    FAFIT, in classes 29 and 31, and Spanish trade mark
particular factor. According to the applicant, the idea is                    No 1778419, CHUFI, registered in respect of goods in
to prevent dumping by means of import routes involving                        Class 29, and Spanish trade mark No 2063328, CHUFI,
intermediate companies in third countries. That danger has                    registered in respect of goods in Class 31;
been averted here, since the first buyer from the Polish exporter
was a French company. Furthermore, the regulation in question           —     refuse Community trade mark application No 1021229,
poses difficulties of interpretation. The applicant claims that               CHUFAFIT, in Classes 29 and 31; and, finally,
the French authorities interpreted it in the same way as the
applicant. It also adds that its omission is a purely formal one
and has not had any real effect on the proper functioning of            —     order the defendant and, if appropriate, the intervener to
the customs system.                                                           pay the costs of the proceedings.


title: Case C-215/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 22 May 2008 — E. Friz GmbH v Carsten von der Heyden

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/23

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 22 May 2008 — E. Friz GmbH v Carsten von der Heyden
   (Case C-215/08)
   (2008/C 209/33)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesgerichtshof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: E. Friz GmbH

      Defendant: Carsten von der Heyden
   Questions referred

               1.

               Must the first sentence of Article 1(1) of Council Directive 85/577/EEC of 20 December 1985 to protect the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away from business premises (1) be interpreted as meaning that it applies to a consumer's entry into a partnership, commercial partnership, association or cooperative if the principal purpose of joining is not to become a member of the partnership, association or cooperative but — as frequently applies in particular in relation to participation in a closed-end real estate fund — participation as a member is simply another means of capital investment or of obtaining services which are typically the object of reciprocal contracts?

               2.

               Must Article 5(2) of Council Directive 85/577/EEC of 20 December 1985 to protect the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away from business premises be interpreted as meaning that it precludes a legal effect under national (judge-made) law within the meaning of Article 7 of the directive which states that, where a consumer becomes a member in a doorstep-selling situation, the consequence is that, in the event that the membership is cancelled, the consumer cancelling the membership has a claim against the partnership, association or cooperative, calculated at the time that the cancellation takes effect, to his severance balance, that is, a sum corresponding to the value of his interest in the partnership, association or cooperative at the time of retirement from membership, with the (possible) effect that, as a result of the economic development of the partnership, association or cooperative, he either gets back less than the value of his capital contribution or even finds himself exposed to payment obligations which, because the severance balance is negative, go beyond the loss of the capital contribution paid?

      (1)  OJ L 372, 31.12.1985, p. 31.


title: Case T-776/16: Action brought on 4 November 2016 — Isocell v EUIPO — iCell (iCell.)

text:
               16.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 14/45

         Action brought on 4 November 2016 — Isocell v EUIPO — iCell (iCell.)
   (Case T-776/16)
   (2017/C 014/54)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Isocell GmbH (Neumarkt am Wallersee, Germany) (represented by: C. Thiele, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: iCell AB (Älvdalen, Sweden)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘iCell.’ — Application No 12 877 676

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 September 2016 in Case R 2496/2015-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               amend the contested decision by declaring that the opposition is upheld in its entirety and that EU trade mark application No 12877676 is refused;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 19 September 2001 in Case T-226/00: Nan Ya Plastics Corporation v Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — Retrospective amendment of the contested act — Case not proceeding to judgment)

text:
C 31/10                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          2.2.2002
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Council of
                                                                         the European Union (Agents: S. Marquardt and G. Berrisch) —
                     of 19 September 2001                                application for the annulment of Council Regulation (EC)
                                                                         No 978/2000 of 8 May 2000 imposing a definitive
                                                                         countervailing duty on imports of synthetic fibres of polyester
in Case T-226/00: Nan Ya Plastics Corporation v Council
                                                                         originating in Australia, Indonesia and Taiwan and collecting
                    of the European Union (1)
                                                                         definitively the provisional duty imposed (OJ 2000 L 113,
                                                                         p. 1) — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended
(Action for annulment — Retrospective amendment of the                   Composition), composed of P. Lindh, President, R. Garcı́a-
      contested act — Case not proceeding to judgment)                   Valdecasas, J.D. Cooke, M. Vilaras and N.J. Forwood, Judges;
                                                                         H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 19 September 2001, the
                          (2002/C 31/19)                                 operative part of which is as follows:
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                         1.    There is no need to adjudicate on the application.
In Case T-226/00: Nan Ya Plastics Corporation, established in            2.    There is no need to give a decision on the application for leave
Taiwan (Republic of China), represented by P. De Baere, lawyer,                to intervene submitted by the Commission.
with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Council of
the European Union (Agents: S. Marquardt and G. Berrisch) —              3.    The defendant shall pay the costs.
application for the annulment of Council Regulation (EC)
No 978/2000 of 8 May 2000 imposing a definitive
countervailing duty on imports of synthetic fibres of polyester          (1) OJ C 316, 4.11.2000.
originating in Australia, Indonesia and Taiwan and collecting
definitively the provisional duty imposed (OJ 2000 L 113,
p. 1) — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended
Composition), composed of P. Lindh, President, R. Garcı́a-
Valdecasas, J.D. Cooke, M. Vilaras and N.J. Forwood, Judges;
H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 19 September 2001, the
operative part of which is as follows:
1.   There is no need to adjudicate on the application.
                                                                               ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
2.   There is no need to give a decision on the application for leave
     to intervene submitted by the Commission.
                                                                                of 24 October 2001
3.   The defendant shall pay the costs.
                                                                         in Case T-352/00: Andrew M. Rosemarine v Office for
(1) OJ C 316, 4.11.2000.                                                 Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                                                                                Designs) (OHIM) (1)
                                                                         (Temporary staff — Recruitment — Age limit — Rejection
                                                                         of application — Action for damages — Inadmissibility —
                                                                                Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                     of 19 September 2001                                                          (2002/C 31/21)
in Case T-227/00: Far Eastern Textiles Ltd v Council of                                      (Language of the case: English)
                     the European Union (1)
(Action for annulment — Retrospective amendment of the
      contested act — Case not proceeding to judgment)
                                                                         In Case T-352/00: Andrew M. Rosemarine, residing in Salford
                          (2002/C 31/20)                                 (United Kingdom), represented initially by J. Davies and
                                                                         subsequently by S. Whale, lawyers, against Office for Harmon-
                                                                         ization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                         (OHIM) (Agents: O. Montalto and F. Casertano) — application
                                                                         for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the
                                                                         applicant by reason of the rejection of his application for a
In Case T-227/00: Far Eastern Textiles Ltd, established in               post of English-language lawyer-linguist — the Court of First
Taiwan (Republic of China), represented by P. De Baere, lawyer,          Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras, President,


title: Case T-103/12: Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2016 — T & L Sugars and Sidul Açúcares v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Agriculture — Sugar — Exceptional measures — Availability of supply on the EU market — 2011/12 marketing year — Rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals — Sufficiently serious infringement — Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 — Principle of non-discrimination — Proportionality — Legal certainty — Legitimate expectations — Duty of diligence and the principle of sound administration)

text:
               23.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2016 — T & L Sugars and Sidul Açúcares v Commission
   (Case T-103/12) (1)

   ((Non-contractual liability - Agriculture - Sugar - Exceptional measures - Availability of supply on the EU market - 2011/12 marketing year - Rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals - Sufficiently serious infringement - Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 - Principle of non-discrimination - Proportionality - Legal certainty - Legitimate expectations - Duty of diligence and the principle of sound administration))
   (2017/C 022/26)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: T & L Sugars Ltd (London, United Kingdom), Sidul Açúcares, Unipessoal Lda (Santa Iria de Azóia, Portugal) (represented initially by D. Waelbroeck, lawyer, and D. Slater, Solicitor, and subsequently by D. Waelbroeck)

      Interveners in support of the applicants: DAI — Sociedade de Desenvolvimento Agro-Industrial, SA (Coruche, Portugal) (represented by M. Mendes Pereira, lawyer), RAR — Refinarias de Açúcar Reunidas, SA (Porto, Portugal) (represented by M. Mendes Pereira), Lemarco SA (Bucharest, Romania), Lemarco Cristal Srl (Urziceni, Romania) and Zaharul Liesti SA (Lieşti, Romania) (represented by L.-I. Van de Waart and D. Gruia Dufaut, lawyers) and SFIR Società Fondiaria Industriale Romagnola SpA (Cesena, Italy) and SFIR Raffineria di Brindisi SpA (Cesena) (represented by P. Buccarelli and M. Todino, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by P. Rossi and N. Donnelly, and subsequently by P. Rossi and P. Ondrůšek, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by E. Sitbon and A. Westerhof Löfflerová, acting as Agents) and Comité européen des fabricants de sucre (CEFS) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by C. Pitschas, lawyer)

      Re:

               (i)

               Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2011 of 30 November 2011 opening a standing invitation to tender for the 2011/12 marketing year for imports of sugar of CN code 1701 at a reduced customs duty (OJ 2011 L 318, p. 4), of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1240/2011 of 30 November 2011 laying down exceptional measures as regards the release of out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose on the Union market at reduced surplus levy during marketing year 2011/12 (OJ 2011 L 318, p. 9), of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1281/2011 of 8 December 2011 on the minimum customs duty to be fixed in response to the first partial invitation to tender within the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation No 1239/2011 (OJ 2011 L 327, p. 60), of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1308/2011 of 14 December 2011 fixing allocation coefficient, rejecting further applications and closing the period for submitting applications for available quantities of out-of-quota sugar to be sold on the Union market at reduced surplus levy during marketing year 2011/12 (OJ 2011 L 332, p. 8), of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1316/2011 of 15 December 2011 on the minimum customs duty to be fixed in response to the second partial invitation to tender within the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation No 1239/2011 (OJ 2011 L 334, p. 16), of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1384/2011 of 22 December 2011 on the minimum customs duty to be fixed in response to the third partial invitation to tender within the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation No 1239/2011 (OJ 2011 L 343, p. 33), of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 27/2012 of 12 January 2012 on the minimum customs duty for sugar to be fixed in response to the fourth partial invitation to tender within the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation No 1239/2011 (OJ 2012 L 9, p. 12), and of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 57/2012 of 23 January 2012, suspending the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation No 1239/2011 (OJ 2012 L 19, p. 12), and (ii) action pursuant to Article 268 TFEU for damages for the loss which the applicants allegedly suffered as a result of the adoption of those measures and of the Commission’s refusal to take the necessary measures to re-establish availability of supply of raw cane sugar.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders T & L Sugars Ltd and Sidul Açúcares, Unipessoal Lda to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

               3.

               Orders the Council of the European Union, DAI Sociedade de Desenvolvimento Agro-Industrial, SA, RAR — Refinarias de Açùcar Reunidas, SA, Lemarco SA, Lemarco Cristal Srl, Zaharul Liesti SA, SFIR — Società Fondiaria Industriale Romagnola SpA, SFIR Raffineria di Brindisi SpA and the Comité européen des fabricants de sucre (CEFS) to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 151, 26.5.2012.


title: Case C-566/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nyíregyházi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 10 November 2016 — Dávid Vámos v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatóság

text:
               3.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/24

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nyíregyházi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 10 November 2016 — Dávid Vámos v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatóság
   (Case C-566/16)
   (2017/C 104/35)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Nyíregyházi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Dávid Vámos

      Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatóság

      Question referred

   Is national legislation pursuant to with the tax authority may, when carrying out an ex post tax inspection, preclude the possibility of opting for the personal exemption, on the basis that the taxable person only has that possibility at the time of stating when his taxable activity commences, contrary to EU law?


title: Case C-463/01: Action brought on 3 December 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

text:
2.3.2002                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 56/3
(the Greek State), (2) Organismos Ikonomikis Anasigkrotisis                     have conferred on taxable persons a right to opt for
Epikhirision AE, legally represented by the liquidator, Ethniki                 taxation? Which of the transactions listed in
Kefalaiou Anonimi Etairia Diakhirisis Energitikou kai Pathiti-                  Article 13B(d) of Directive 77/388/EEC are involved?
kou, (3) Athinaiki Khartopiia AE, and (4) Georgios I. Tsamasfi-
ros and Others on the following question:
                                                                          (1) OJ L 145, p. 1.
In view of the fact that Article 25 of the Second Council
Directive 77/91/EEC (1) of 13 December 1976 does not lay
down a penalty for any infringement of that article, is it
compatible with the objectives pursued by that directive for a
provision of national law to declare valid shares which have
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling, by order of the
resulted from an increase, pursuant to ministerial decisions, in
                                                                          Bundesfinanzhof of 27 September 2001 in the case of
the share capital of public limited companies where the
                                                                          KapHag Renditefonds, 35 Spreecenter Berlin-Hellersdorf,
increase is invalid as contrary to Article 25 of the directive,
                                                                               3. Tranche GbR against Finanzamt Charlottenburg
provided that the provision confers, in return, a right against
the State to full compensation for any harm which the pre-
existing shareholders of those public limited companies have                                       (Case C-442/01)
suffered as a consequence of the increase. In particular, may
that right to full compensation be regarded, in view inter alia                                     (2002/C 56/06)
of the long time which has since passed and the successive
increases which have followed (by decisions of the general
meeting), as equivalent, under Community law, to recognition              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
that the shares which have resulted from the invalid increase             European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof
in the share capital are invalid?                                         (Federal Finance Court) of 27 September 2001, which was
                                                                          received at the Court Registry on 16 November 2001, for a
                                                                          preliminary ruling in the case of KapHag Renditefonds,
(1) OJ L 26 of 31.1.1977, p. 1.                                           35 Spreecenter Berlin-Hellersdorf, 3. Tranche GbR v Finanzamt
                                                                          Charlottenburg on the following questions:
                                                                          1.    Where a partnership assumes a partner on payment of a
                                                                                capital contribution in cash, does it effect a supply to him
                                                                                for consideration within the meaning of Article 2(1) of
                                                                                Directive 77/388/EEC? (1)
                                                                          2.    If so, is it an incidental transaction for the purposes of
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-                         Article 19(2), sentence 2, of Directive 77/388/EEC, and is
hof by order of that court of 17 May 2001 in the case                           the taxable person entitled to rely on Article 19(2),
of Finanzamt Groß-Gerau against MKG-Kraftfahrzeuge-                             sentence 2, of Directive 77/388/EEC, according to which
                         Factoring GmbH                                         such incidental transactions do not exclude a deduction?
                          (Case C-305/01)                                 (1) OJ L 145, p. 1.
                           (2002/C 56/05)
                                                                          Action brought on 3 December 2001 by the Commission
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-
European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof                                                lic of Germany
(Federal Finance Court) of 17 May 2001, received at the Court
Registry on 3 August 2001, for a preliminary ruling in                                             (Case C-463/01)
the case of Finanzamt Groß-Gerau v MKG-Kraftfahrzeuge-
Factoring GmbH on the following questions:                                                          (2002/C 56/07)
1.    Can a factoring company which buys debts and assumes
      liability for the risk of loss in relation to those debts be        An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
      said to be using goods and services received by it for the          brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
      purposes of its transactions?                                       ties on 3 December 2001 by the Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities, represented by Götz zur Hausen, Legal Adviser
2.    Do such activities involve taxable transactions or trans-           in the Commission of the European Communities, with an
      actions (they involve the latter in any event) for the              address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Luis Escobar
      purposes of Article 13B(d) of Directive 77/388/EEC (1)              Guerrero, of the Commission’s Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
      which may be taxed to the extent that the Member States             Kirchberg.
 ---pagebreak--- C 56/4                 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       2.3.2002
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            The argument that the measures in issue serve environmental
                                                                       purposes is not enough to justify them, since they are
                                                                       disproportionate. This is because, where the journey to be
                                                                       travelled is greater than a certain distance, the burden imposed
(1) declare that, by introducing, by means of Paragraphs 8(1)
                                                                       on the environment outweighs the ecological advantages
       and 9(2) of the Verpackungsverordnung 1998, a system
                                                                       connected with the use of refillable containers. For the
       for the re-use of packaging for products which are
                                                                       purposes of the present proceedings, it is immaterial what
       required, under Directive 80/777/EEC, to be bottled at
                                                                       distance actually represents that threshold in respect of mineral
       source, the Federal Republic of Germany has infringed its
                                                                       water, since the German rules apply, quite irrespective of any
       obligations under Article 5 of European Parliament and
                                                                       transportation distance, to all mineral waters to be bottled at
       Council Directive 94/62/EC (1) of 20 December 1994 on
                                                                       source, and thus also cover cases in which that distance is
       packaging and packaging waste, in conjunction with
                                                                       considerable.
       Article 28 EC, and Article 3 in conjunction with point
       2(d) of Annex II to Council Directive 80/777/EEC (2) of
       15 July 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the
       Member States relating to the exploitation and marketing        (1) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994, p. 10.
       of natural mineral waters;                                      (2) OJ L 229, 30.8.1980, p. 1.
(2) order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster
                                                                       Gerichthof by order of 8 November 2001 in the case of
                                                                            Johann Gruber against Bay Wa Aktiengesellschaft
The rules laid down in Paragraphs 8(1) and 9(2) of the                                         (Case C-464/01)
Verpackungsverordnung (Packaging Order) 1998 are incom-
patible, as regards natural mineral waters to be bottled at
source, with Article 5 of the packaging directive and Article 28
                                                                                (2002/C 56/08)
EC, since they result in an impairment of trade which cannot
be justified on grounds of environmental protection. The
interaction of the German legislation is such that it is in the
interests of producers of mineral waters in other Member
States who wish to market their products in Germany to use
refillable containers if they wish to avoid the obligation to          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
collect a deposit in respect of the packaging distributed by           European Communities by order of the Oberste Gerichtshof
them and to retain the possibility of participating in general         (Supreme court of Austria) of 8 November 2001, which was
return systems. Although that legislation undeniably favours           received at the Court Registry on 4 December 2001, for a
the use of refillable containers rather than non-reusable ones,        preliminary ruling in the case of Johann Gruber against Bay
national measures to promote the use of refillable containers          Wa Aktiengesellschaft, on the following questions:
are only in accordance with Article 5 of Directive 94/62/EC if,
at the same time, they meet the requirements of Article 28 EC.
The German rules in the present case, however, constitute a            1.    Where the purposes of a contract are partly private, does
measure the effect of which is equivalent to a quantitative                  the status of ‘consumer’ for the purposes of Article 13 of
restriction within the meaning of Article 28 EC. The German                  the Convention depend on which of the private and the
measures operate to make the distribution of natural mineral                 trade or professional purposes is predominant, and what
waters from other Member States more difficult and/or more                   criteria are to be applied in determining which of the
expensive. It is true that German producers must also, as the                private and the trade or professional purposes predomi-
case may be, transport empty refillable containers over long                 nates?
distances; but, where bottling takes place outside Germany,
the distance between the bottling plant and the place of               2.    Does the determination of the purpose depend solely on
consumption in Germany is in most cases significantly greater                the circumstances which could be objectively ascertained
than when bottling and consumption both take place within                    by the other party to the contract with the consumer?
Germany. The possibility, for foreign mineral water producers,
of participating in a system of standardised re-usable packaging
would result in additional conversion costs for those producers        3.    In case of doubt, is a contract which may be attributed
whilst, at best, reducing the need for the return transportation             both to private and to trade or professional activity to be
of empty refillable containers.                                              regarded as a consumer contract?


title: Case C-275/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Belgium) lodged on 21 July 2009 — Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest and Others v Vlaamse Gewest. Other party: Brussels International Airport Company NV, now The Brussels Airport Company NV

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/28

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Belgium) lodged on 21 July 2009 — Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest and Others v Vlaamse Gewest. Other party: Brussels International Airport Company NV, now The Brussels Airport Company NV
   (Case C-275/09)
   2009/C 267/51
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest and Others

      Defendant: Vlaamse Gewest

      Intervening party: Brussels International Airport Company NV (Now: The Brussels Airport Company NV)

      Questions referred

               1.

               When separate development consents are required for, on the one hand, the infrastructure works for an airport with a basic runway length of 2 100 m or more and, on the other hand, for the operation of that airport, and the latter development consent — the environmental permit — is only granted for a fixed period, should the term ‘construction’, referred to in paragraph 7(a) of Annex I to Council Directive 85/337/EEC (1) of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997, be interpreted as meaning that an environmental impact report should be compiled not only for the execution of the infrastructure works but also for the operation of the airport?

               2.

               Is that mandatory environmental impact assessment also required for the renewal of the environmental permit for the airport, both in the case where that renewal is not accompanied by any change or extension to the operation, and in the case where such a change or extension is indeed intended?

               3.

               Does it make a difference to the mandatory environmental impact reporting in the context of the renewal of an environmental permit for an airport whether an environmental impact report was compiled earlier, in relation to a previous operational consent, and whether the airport was already in operation at the time that environmental impact reporting was introduced by the European or the national legislator?

      (1)  OJ L 175, p. 40.


title: Case C-495/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Patent- und Markensenat (Austria) lodged on 14 November 2007 — Silberquelle GmbH v Maselli-Strickmode GmbH

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/26

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Patent- und Markensenat (Austria) lodged on 14 November 2007 — Silberquelle GmbH v Maselli-Strickmode GmbH
   (Case C-495/07)
   (2008/C 22/51)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Oberster Patent- und Markensenat
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Silberquelle GmbH

      Defendant: Maselli-Strickmode GmbH
   Question referred
   Are Articles 10(1) and 12(1) of the First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (Trade Mark Directive) (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a trade mark is being put to genuine use if it is used for goods (here: alcohol-free drinks) which the proprietor of the trade mark gives, free of charge, to purchasers of his other goods (here: textiles) after conclusion of the purchase contract?

      (1)  OJ 1989 L 40, p. l.


title: Case T-285/12: Judgment of the General Court of 2 October 2013 — Cartoon Network v OHIM — Boomerang TV (BOOMERANG) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark BOOMERANG — Earlier Community figurative mark BoomerangTV — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/55

         Judgment of the General Court of 2 October 2013 — Cartoon Network v OHIM — Boomerang TV (BOOMERANG)
   (Case T-285/12) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark BOOMERANG - Earlier Community figurative mark BoomerangTV - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 344/97
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: The Cartoon Network, Inc. (Wilmington, United States) (represented by: I. Starr, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Boomerang TV, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Canela Giménez, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 April 2012 (Case R 699/2011-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Boomerang TV, SA and The Cartoon Network, Inc.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders The Cartoon Network, Inc. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 273, 8.9.2012.


title: Case C-572/11: Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo, Bulgaria) — Menidzherski biznes reshenia OOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Veliko Tarnovo pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite (Directive 2006/112/EC — VAT — Right to deduct — Refusal — Tax mentioned on an invoice — Actual performance of a taxable transaction — None — Evidence — Principles of fiscal neutrality and the protection of legitimate expectations)

text:
               19.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 304/2

         Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo, Bulgaria) — Menidzherski biznes reshenia OOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Veliko Tarnovo pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite
   (Case C-572/11) (1)

   (Directive 2006/112/EC - VAT - Right to deduct - Refusal - Tax mentioned on an invoice - Actual performance of a taxable transaction - None - Evidence - Principles of fiscal neutrality and the protection of legitimate expectations)
   2013/C 304/02
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Menidzherski biznes reshenia OOD

      Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Veliko Tarnovo pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo — Interpretation of Article 203 in conjunction with Article 168(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Deduction of input tax — Refusal of the right to deduct VAT on the part of the recipient of supplies of services on the ground that there is no evidence of actual supplies in the light of the invoices — Verification of those invoices in the course of a fiscal audit of the supplier not having given rise to any rectification of the VAT due — Principle of fiscal neutrality

      Operative part of the order

   Article 168(a) and Article 203 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, and the principles of fiscal neutrality and the protection of legitimate expectations, must be interpreted as not precluding the recipient of an invoice from being refused the right to deduct VAT mentioned on that invoice where the transactions to which the invoice relates have not actually been performed, even if the risk of any loss in tax revenue has been eliminated on the ground that the issuer of that invoice has paid the VAT mentioned thereon. It is for the referring court to carry out, in accordance with the national rules relating to evidence, an overall assessment of all the facts and circumstances of the dispute before it in order to determine whether the transactions to which the invoices at issue in the main proceedings relate were actually carried out.

      (1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.


title: Case C-536/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 14 October 2013 — Gazprom OAO, other party to the proceedings: Republic of Lithuania

text:
               21.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 377/7

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 14 October 2013 — Gazprom OAO, other party to the proceedings: Republic of Lithuania
   (Case C-536/13)
   2013/C 377/14
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Referring court

   Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant in cassation: Gazprom OAO

      Other party to the proceedings: Republic of Lithuania, represented by the Ministry of Energy of the Republic of Lithuania

      Questions referred

               1.

               Where an arbitral tribunal issues an anti-suit injunction and thereby prohibits a party from bringing certain claims before a court of a Member State, which under the rules on jurisdiction in the Brussels I Regulation (1) has jurisdiction to hear the civil case as to the substance, does the court of a Member State have the right to refuse to recognise such an award of the arbitral tribunal because it restricts the court’s right to determine itself whether it has jurisdiction to hear the case under the rules on jurisdiction in the Brussels I Regulation?

               2.

               Should the first question be answered in the affirmative, does the same also apply where the anti-suit injunction issued by the arbitral tribunal orders a party to the proceedings to limit his claims in a case which is being heard in another Member State and the court of that Member State has jurisdiction to hear that case under the rules on jurisdiction in the Brussels I Regulation?

               3.

               Can a national court, seeking to safeguard the primacy of European Union law and the full effectiveness of the Brussels I Regulation, refuse to recognise an award of an arbitral tribunal if such an award restricts the right of the national court to decide on its own jurisdiction and powers in a case which falls within the jurisdiction of the Brussels I Regulation?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).


title: Joined Cases C-24/12 and C-27/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X BV (C-24/12), TBG Limited (C-27/12) v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Free movement of capital — Restrictions — Payment of dividends from a Member State to an overseas territory of the same State — Scope of EU law — Special European Union-OCTs arrangements)

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/3

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X BV (C-24/12), TBG Limited (C-27/12) v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Joined Cases C-24/12 and C-27/12) (1)

   ((Free movement of capital - Restrictions - Payment of dividends from a Member State to an overseas territory of the same State - Scope of EU law - Special European Union-OCTs arrangements))
   2014/C 253/03
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: X BV (C-24/12), TBG Limited (C-27/12)

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Re:

   Requests for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Articles 63 TFEU and 64 TFEU — Territorial scope — Movements of capital from a Member State to one of its overseas territories — Whether or not the overseas territory is to be regarded as a third country

      Operative part of the judgment

   EU law must be interpreted as not precluding a tax measure of a Member State which restricts movements of capital between that Member State and its own overseas country and territory whilst pursuing the objective of combating tax avoidance in an effective and proportionate manner.

      (1)  OJ C 98, 31.3.2012.


title: Case T-119/08: Action brought on 7 March 2008 — Republic of Cyprus v Commission

text:
               7.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/29

         Action brought on 7 March 2008 — Republic of Cyprus v Commission
   (Case T-119/08)
   (2008/C 142/53)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: P. Kliridis)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the procurement notice under reference EuropeAid/125672/C/SER/CY for the conclusion of a contract entitled ‘Technical Assistance οn animal husbandry’, which was published, only in English, on the webpage http://ec.europa.eu/europaid/tender/data/ on or around 27 December 2007, and annul points 5 and 28.2 of the notice;

               —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant's pleas in law and main arguments are identical or similar to those advanced in Cases T-91/08, T-92/08 and T-93/08 Cyprus v Commission.


title: Case T-499/04: Action brought on 23 December 2004 by Hammarplast AB against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               5.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 57/36

         Action brought on 23 December 2004 by Hammarplast AB against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case T-499/04)
   (2005/C 57/61)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 23 December 2004 by Hammarplast, established in Tingsryd (Sweden), represented by R. Almaraz Palmero, lawyer.
   Steninge Slott AB, established in Märsta (Sweden), was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               annul the Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 25 October 2004 in case R 394/2003-2;

               2.

               order the office to refuse the registration of the term STENINGE SLOTT as a Community trade mark in respect of the goods in class 21 for which registration has been accepted;

               3.

               order the office and the intervening party, Steninge Slott AB, to pay all the costs of the dispute before the Court of First Instance, including those relating to the procedure before the Second Board of Appeal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               Steninge Slott AB

               Community trade mark concerned:

               Word mark ‘STENINGE SLOTT’ for products in class 21 (design products of glass etc.)

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               The applicant

               Trade mark or sign cited in opposition:

               National mark ‘STENINGE KERAMIK’ for products in the same class

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Refusal of registration

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Appeal allowed

               Pleas in law:

               Violation of Article 8 paragraph 1 b) of Regulation 40/94 (1)

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


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 24 October 1996 in Case C-76/95: Commission of the European Communities v. Royale Belge SA (Officials - Insurance against accidents and occupational diseases)

text:
 No C 9/6               LIN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       11 . . 97
  1 . The expression 'canalization and flood-relief works ' in                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
       point 10 (e) of Annex II to Council Directive 85/337/                                       ( Sixth Chamber )
       EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects
       of certain public and private projects on the                                           of 24 October 1996
       environment must be interpreted as including certain              in Case C-73/95 P: Viho Europe BV v. Commission of the
       types of work on a dyke running alongside waterways.                European Communities, supported by Parker Pen Ltd ( 1 )
                                                                          (Competition — Groups of companies — Article 85 (1 ) of
                                                                                the EC Treaty)
 2 . The expression 'canalization and flood-relief works ' in                                          ( 97/C 9/10 )
       point 10 (e) of Annex II to Directive 85/337/EEC is to
       be interpreted as including not only construction of a
       new dyke but also modification of an existing dyke                                 (Language of the case: French)
       involving its relocation, reinforcement or widening,
       replacement of a dyke by constructing a new dyke in                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
       situ, whether or not the new dyke is stronger or wider                      published in the European Court Reports)
       than the old one, or a combination of such works.
                                                                         In Case C-73/95 P: Viho Europe BV (Agent: Werner
                                                                         Kleinmann ) — appeal against the judgment of the Court
                                                                         of First Instance of the European Communities ( First
 3 ) — Article 4 (2) of Directive 85/337/EEC and
                                                                         Chamber ) of 12 January 1995 in Case T-102/92 Viho v.
           point 10 (e) of Annex II must be interpreted as
                                                                         Commission [ 1995] ECR 11-17, seeking to have that
           meaning that a Member State which establishes the
                                                                         judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings
           criteria or thresholds necessary to classify projects
                                                                         being Commission of the European Communities ( Agent:
           relating to dykes at a level such that, in practice,
                                                                         Bernd Langeheine ), supported by Parker Pen Ltd, — the
           all such projects are exempted in advance from the
                                                                         Court ( Sixth Chamber), composed of: G. F. Mancini,
           requirement of an impact assessment exceeds the               President of the Chamber, C. N. Kakouris and H.
           limits of its discretion within the meaning of
                                                                         Ragnemalm ( Rapporteur), Judges; C. O. Lenz, Advocate
           Articles 2 (1 ) and 4 (2) of the Directive unless all
                                                                         General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on
           projects excluded could, when viewed as a whole,              24 October 1996, in which it:
           be regarded as not being likely to have significant
           effects on the environment.
                                                                         1 . Dismisses the appeal.
       — Where under national law a court must or may                    2 . Orders the appellant to pay the costs.
           raise of its own motion pleas in law based on a
           binding national rule which have not been put                 (!) OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 , p . 10 .
           forward by the parties, it must, for matters within
           its jurisdiction, examine of its own motion
           whether the legislative or administrative
           authorities of the Member State have remained
           within the limits of their discretion within the
           meaning of Articles 2 (1 ) and 4 (2) of the
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
           Directive, and take account thereof when
           examining the action for annulment.                                                    ( Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 24 October 1996
                                                                        in     Case   C-76/95 : Commission of the European
      — Where that discretion has been exceeded and
                                                                                Communities v. Royale Beige SA ( J )
           consequently the national provisions must be set
           aside in that respect, it is for the authorities of the       (Officials — Insurance against accidents and occupational
           Member State, according to their respective                                                   diseases)
           powers, to take all the general or particular                                              ( 97/C 9/11 )
           measures necessary to ensure that projects are
           examined in order to determine whether they are
           likely to have significant effects on the                                     (Language of the case: French)
           environment and, if so, to ensure that they are
           subject to an impact assessment.                                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
0 ) OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 , p . 8 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 175 , 5 . 7. 1985 , p. 40 .                               In Case C-76/95 : Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities ( Agents: Julian Currall, assisted by Jean-Luc
                                                                        Fagnart) v. Royale Beige SA ( Counsel: Francois van der
                                                                        Mensbrugghe ) — application for an order that the insurers
                                                                        pay the Commission the lump sum allegedly due from the
 ---pagebreak---  11.1.97            1 EN 1                Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 9 / 7
Commission to one of its officials on the ground of                  part — the Court ( Sixth Chamber), composed of: J. L.
occupational illness by virtue of Article 73 of the Staff            Murray, President of the Fourth Chamber, acting for the
Regulations of officials of the European Communities —               President of the Sixth Chamber, C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G.
the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: G. F. Mancini,             Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ). G. Hirsch and H. Ragnemalm,
President of the Chamber, C. N. Kakouris and P. J. G.                Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; R. Grass,
Kapteyn ( Rapporteur), Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate-              Registrar, has given a judgment on 24 October 1996, in
General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the                  which it:
Registrar, has given a judgment on 24 October 1996, in
which it:
                                                                     1 . Dismisses the appeal.
1 . Orders Royal Belge SA, Assurances Générales de
     France SA, Caisse Nationale de Prévoyance, Les                  2 . Orders the appellants to pay the costs.
     Mutuelles du Mans, Assurantie van de Belgische
     Boerenbond SA, Hannover SA, Securitas AG and
                                                                     0 ) OJ No C 189, 22 . 7. 1995, p . 6 .
     Condor to pay the Commission the sum of Bfrs
     25 794 194, plus interest at the rate of 8 % from 6 May
     1994.
2 . Orders Royal Belge SA, Assurances Générales de
     France SA, Caisse Nationale de Prévoyance, Les
     Mutuelles du Mans, Assurantie van de Belgische
     Boerenbond SA, Hannover SA, Securitas AG and                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
     Condor to pay the costs.                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 7 November 1996
(') OJ No C 159, 24 . 6 . 1995 , p. 13 .
                                                                     in    Case C-221/94: Commission of the European
                                                                           Communities v. Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (')
                                                                     (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                     Non-transposition of Directive 91/263/EEC —
                                                                     Telecommunications        —     Telecommunications     terminal
                                                                         equipment — Mutual recognition of their conformity)
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                             ( 97/C 9/ 13
                        ( Sixth Chamber)
                      of 24 October 1996                                             (Language of the case: French)
in Case C-91/95 P: Roger Tremblay, Harry Kestenberg
and Syndicat des Exploitants de Lieux de Loisirs ( SELL ) v.
       Commission of the European Communities ( J )                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                              published in the European Court Reports)
(Appeal — Competition — Rejection of a complaint —
              Absence of Community interest)
                            ( 97/C 9/12 )                            In Case C-221 /94 : Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities (Agents: Anders C. Jessen and Jean-Francis
                                                                     Pasquier) v. Grand Duchy of Luxembourg ( Agent: Nicolas
               (Language of the case: French)                        Schmit) — application for a declaration that, by not
                                                                     adopting within the period laid down the laws, regulations
                                                                     and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                     Council Directive 91/263/EEC of 29 April 1991 on the
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       approximation of the laws of the Member States
         published in the European Court Reports)                    concerning telecommunications terminal equipment,
                                                                     including the mutual recognition of their conformity (2 ),
                                                                     and, in any event, by not immediately informing the
In Case C-91/95 P: Roger Tremblay, Harry Kestenberg                  Commission of such measures, the Grand Duchy of
and Syndicat des Exploitants de Lieux de Loisirs ( SELL )            Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations pursuant to
( Counsel: Jean-Claude Fourgoux ), the other party to the            the Directive and in particular pursuant to Article 17
proceedings being: Commission of the European                        thereof — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: G. F.
Communities ( Agents : Giuliano Marenco and Géraud de                Mancini , President of the Chamber ( Rapporteur), J. L.
Bergues ) — appeal against the judgment of the Court of              Murray, C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G. Kapteyn and H.
First Instance ( Second Chamber ) of 24 January 1995 in              Ragnemalm, Judges; C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General; H. A.
Case T-5/93 Tremblay and Others v. Commission [ 1995]                Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the REgistrar, has given
ECR 11-185 , seeking to have that judgment set aside in              a judgment on 7 November 1996, in which it:


title: NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITIONS

text:
No C 144 / 34      EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                            10 . 6 . 95
                                       COURT OF JUSTICE
                                          NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITIONS
                                                     (95 /C 144/ 13)
            The Court of Justice of the European Communities has advertised in the Official Journal ofthe
            European Communities No C 144 A of 10 June 1995 the following open competitions :
            French edition
            CJ/C/ 14 (typists of French mother tongue)
            Dutch edition
            CJ/C/ 15 (typists of Dutch mother tongue)
            To obtain a copy of the Official Journal please apply to the Personnel Division of the Court of
            Justice of the European Communities, L-2925 Luxembourg.
            Closing date for application : 10 July 1995.


title: Case T-254/15: Action brought on 18 May 2015 — Aldi Einkauf v OHIM — Dyado Liben OOD (Casale Fresco)

text:
               27.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/37

         Action brought on 18 May 2015 — Aldi Einkauf v OHIM — Dyado Liben OOD (Casale Fresco)
   (Case T-254/15)
   (2015/C 245/43)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. oHG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, C. Fürsen and N. Bertram, Lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Dyado Liben OOD (Sofia, Bulgaria)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant/Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Casale Fresco’ — Application No 010 886 604

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Chamber of the Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11.03.2015 in Case R 1138/2014-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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