title: Case C-507/15: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 February 2017(request for a preliminary ruling from the rechtbank van Koophandel te Gent — Belgium) — Agro Foreign Trade & Agency Ltd v Petersime NV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Self-employed commercial agents — Directive 86/653/EEC — Coordination of the laws of the Member States — Belgian transposition measure — Commercial agency contract — Principal established in Belgium and agent established in Turkey — Choice of Belgian law clause — Applicable law — EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Compatibility)

text:
               10.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/8

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 February 2017(request for a preliminary ruling from the rechtbank van Koophandel te Gent — Belgium) — Agro Foreign Trade & Agency Ltd v Petersime NV
   (Case C-507/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Self-employed commercial agents - Directive 86/653/EEC - Coordination of the laws of the Member States - Belgian transposition measure - Commercial agency contract - Principal established in Belgium and agent established in Turkey - Choice of Belgian law clause - Applicable law - EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Compatibility))
   (2017/C 112/12)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank van Koophandel te Gent

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Agro Foreign Trade & Agency Ltd

      Defendant: Petersime NV

      Operative part of the judgment

   Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents and the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, signed in Ankara on 12 September 1963 by the Republic of Turkey, on the one hand, and by the Member States of the EEC and the Community, on the other, and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Decision 64/732/EEC of 23 December 1963 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation transposing that directive into the law of the Member State concerned, which excludes from its scope of application a commercial agency contract in the context of which the commercial agent is established in Turkey, where it carries out activities under that contract, and the principal is established in that Member State, so that, in such circumstances, the commercial agent cannot rely on rights which that directive guarantees to commercial agents after the termination of such a commercial agency contract.

      (1)  OJ C 414, 14.12.2015.


title: Case T-204/07: Action brought on 4 June 2007 — Italy v Commission

text:
               21.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 170/40

         Action brought on 4 June 2007 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-204/07)
   (2007/C 170/77)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: Paolo Gentili, Avvocato dello Stato)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul Memorandum No 03059 of 26 March 2007 of the European Commission, Directorate General for Regional Policy — Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands, concerning POR Sardegna 2000-20006 (No CCI 1999 IT 16 1PO 010) — Payments made by the Commission which differ from the amount requested;

               —

               annul Memorandum No 04718 of 14 May 2007 of the European Commission, Directorate General for Regional Policy — Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands, concerning POR Sardegna 2000-2006 (No CCI 1999 IT 16 1PO 010) — Payments made by the Commission which differ from the amount requested;

               —

               annul all connected and prior acts and, consequently, order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those relied on in Case T-345/04 Italian Republic v Commission
       (1).

      (1)  OJ C 262, 23.10.2004, p. 55.


title: Case C-127/01: Action brought on 19 March 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
19.5.2001             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 150/15
—     Disregard of the principle of legality, of the duty to give a      Action brought on 19 March 2001 by the Commission of
      statement of reasons and of the audi alteram partem rule,          the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
      on account of the acceptance of documents drawn up
      after the adoption of the contested decision.
—     Failure to have regard to the obligation to provide a                                        (Case C-127/01)
      statement of reasons and violation of the effects attaching
      to a vacancy notice: the factual assessment carried out by
      the Court of First Instance concerning the qualifications
      and experience of Mr L.V. results in an error of law                                         (2001/C 150/29)
      consisting of the attribution to him of qualifications
      corresponding to the requirements of the vacancy notice.
      Thus, the Court of First Instance disregarded the effects          An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
      arising from a notice of vacancy.                                  the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 March
                                                                         2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
—     Failure to have regard to the notion of misuse of powers.          represented by Marie Wolfcarius, Legal Adviser, and Maria
                                                                         Patakia, of its Legal Service.
—     Failure to have regard to Articles 7 and 27 of the Staff
      Regulations and to the principle of non-discrimination:
      since Mr L.V. did not possess the appropriate qualifi-
      cations, he was in any event incapable of being compared           The Commission claims that the Court should:
      with other candidates who did.
—     Failure to have regard to the principle of sound manage-           —     declare that, by failing to adopt and to notify to the
      ment and proper administration, and breach of the                        Commission, within the time-limit laid down, the laws,
      obligation to provide a statement of reasons.                            regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
                                                                               comply fully with Council Directive 98/76/EC of 1 Octo-
                                                                               ber 1998 (1) amending Directive 96/26/EC on admission
                                                                               to the occupation of road haulage operator and road
                                                                               passenger transport operator and mutual recognition
                                                                               of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal
                                                                               qualifications intended to facilitate for these operators
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger                         the right to freedom of establishment in national and
Verwaltungssenat Salzburg by order of that court of 12                         international transport operations, the Hellenic Republic
March 2001 in the appeal concerning (1) Dr Karl Friedrich                      has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty;
Strobl, (2) the Mayor of Salzburg, and (3) the land transfer
                 agent of the Land of Salzburg
                                                                         —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
                        (Case C-123/01)
                        (2001/C 150/28)
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Verwal-
tungssenat Salzburg of 12 March 2001, received at the Court
Registry on 19 March 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the               The Member States are required by the binding character of
appeal concerning (1) Dr Karl Friedrich Strobl, (2) the Mayor            the third paragraph of Article 249 EC and Article 10 EC to
of Salzburg, and (3) the land transfer agent of the Land of              adopt the measures needed to transpose directives into national
Salzburg on the following question:                                      law before the expiry of the time-limit laid down for that
                                                                         purpose and to communicate those measures immediately to
Are the provisions of Article 56 et seq. of the EC Treaty to be          the Commission. That time-limit expired on 1 October
interpreted as precluding the application of Paragraphs 12, 36           1999 without the Hellenic Republic having notified to the
and 43 of the Salzburger Grundverkehrsgesetz (Salzburg Land              Commission the provisions transposing the directive in ques-
Transfer Law) of 1997 in the version published in LGB1.                  tion into national law.
No. 11/1999, whereby any person who wishes to acquire a
building plot in the federal Land of Salzburg must comply
with a notification or authorisation procedure in respect of the
acquisition of that plot, with the consequence that one of the           (1) OJ L 277 of 14.10.1998.
fundamental freedoms of the acquirer of title as guaranteed by
the laws of the European Union has been infringed in this
case?


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) 7 March 2002 in Case C-64/01: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to transpose Directive 96/61/EC)

text:
C 118/16                  EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                             18.5.2002
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Second Chamber)                                                              (Second Chamber)
                                                                                7 March 2002
                             7 March 2002
                                                                              in Case C-64/01: Commission of the European Communi-
in Case C-39/01: Commission of the European Communi-                                               ties v Hellenic Republic (1)
ties v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
                               Ireland (1)
                                                                              (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure
                                                                                to transpose Directive 96/61/EC)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure
                  to transpose Directive 96/61/EC)
                                                                                (2002/C 118/25)
                            (2002/C 118/24)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
                      (Language of the case: English)
                                                                              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-39/01, Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: R. B. Wainwright) v United Kingdom of Great Britain                   In Case C-64/01, Commission of the European Communities
and Northern Ireland (Agent: R. Magrill, assisted by R. Ander-                (agents: R. B. Wainwright and P. Panayotopoulos) v Hellenic
son, Barrister): Application for a declaration that, by failing to            Republic (agent: N. Dafniou): Application for a declaration
adopt the laws, regulations and administrative measures                       that, by failing within the prescribed period to adopt the laws,
necessary in order to comply with Council Directive 96/61/                    regulations and administrative measures necessary in order to
EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution                       comply fully with Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September
prevention and control (OJ 1996 L 257, p. 26), or, in any                     1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control
event, by failing to communicate the same to the Commission,                  (OJ 1996 L 257, p. 26), or alternatively by failing to
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has                  communicate the same to the Commission, the Hellenic
failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive, the Court              Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.
(Second Chamber), composed of: N. Colneric, President of the                  the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: N. Colneric,
Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and V. Skouris, Judges;                    President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and
C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given               V. Skouris, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass,
a judgment on 7 March 2002, in which it:                                      Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 March 2002, in which it:
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and            1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
      administrative measures necessary in order to comply with                     administrative measures necessary in order to comply with
      Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning                    Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning
      integrated pollution prevention and control, the United                       integrated pollution prevention and control, the Hellenic Repub-
      Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to                   lic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
      fulfil its obligations under that directive;
2.    Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern                 2.    Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
      Ireland to pay the costs.
                                                                              (1) OJ C 108 of 7.4.2001.
(1) OJ C 79 of 10.3.2001.


title: Case T-11/09: Action brought on 14 January 2009 — Özdemir v OHIM — Aktieselskabet af  21. november 2001 (James Jones)

text:
               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/47

         Action brought on 14 January 2009 — Özdemir v OHIM — Aktieselskabet af 21. november 2001 (James Jones)
   (Case T-11/09)
   (2009/C 55/85)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Rahmi Özdemir (Dreieich, Germany) (represented by: M. Heinrich, I. Hoes, C. Schröder, K. von Werder and J. Wittenberg, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aktieselskabet af 21. november 2001 (Brande, Denmark)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 November 2008 in case R 858/2007-2;

               —

               Dismiss the opposition of the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of 25 January 2005 against the application for registration of the Community trade mark — application No 3 493 137; and

               —

               Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred in the course of the opposition proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘James Jones’, for goods in class 25

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited: Community trade mark registration No 1 107 747 of the word mark ‘Jack & Jones’ for goods in classes 3, 18 and 25; United Kingdom trade mark registration No 2 063 437 of the word mark ‘Jack Jones’ for goods in class 25; Benelux trade mark registration No 474 622 of the word mark ‘Jack Jones’ for goods in class 25; Denmark trade mark registration No VR 1990 06569 of the word mark ‘Jack & Jones’ for goods in class 25

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for all the contested goods

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal wrongly assessed that there was a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned; infringement of Article 43(2) of Council Regulation 40/94 as there has been no proof of use submitted before the Board of Appeal for United Kingdom trade mark registration No 2 063 437.


title: Case C-302/99 P: Appeal brought on 10 August 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment delivered on 3 June 1999 by the Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-17/96 between Télévision Française 1 SA (TF1) and the Commission of the European Communities supported by the French Republic

text:
C 299/14                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    16.10.1999
     (ii) a substantial proportion of the relevant trace and            — declare TF1’s action inadmissible in so far as it is directed
          public believe that goods of that shape come from the              against the Commission’s failure to act pursuant to Article
          trade mark proprietor, absent a statement to the                   90 of the EC Treaty;
          contrary?
                                                                        — order TF1 to pay the costs of the proceedings before the
6. Does the exclusive right granted by Article 5(1 ) extend to               Court of Justice and give a new ruling on the costs of the
     enable the proprietor to prevent third parties using ident-             proceedings before the Court of First Instance, limiting the
     ical or similar signs in circumstances where that use was               order against the Commission so that it is commensurate
     not such as to indicate origin or is it limited so as to                with the outcome of the present appeal.
     prevent only use which wholly or in part does indicate
     origin?
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
7. Is use of an allegedly infringing shape of goods, which is
     and would be seen as an indication as to the kind of goods
     or the intended purpose thereof, nonetheless such as to            The Court of First Instance erred in its interpretation of Article
     indicate origin if a substantial proportion of the relevant        90 of the EC Treaty (now Article 86 EC): It was wrong of the
     trade and public believe that goods of the shape complai-          Court to lay down, somewhat dogmatically, the principle that
     ned of come from the trade mark proprietor absent a                the purpose of the power conferred upon the Commission by
     statement to the contrary?                                         Article 90 of the EC Treaty is to protect the rights of
                                                                        individuals. On that premise, the Court of First Instance
                                                                        adopted the general view that an individual must be entitled to
(1) First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to           bring an effective legal action against decisions which are
    approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade         capable of adversely effecting rights recognised by the Treaties.
    marks (OJ L 40, 11.2.1989, p. 1).                                   By implying that an action for failure to act must lie, so that
                                                                        the principle of effective legal action may be observed, when
                                                                        Article 90(1) of the EC Treaty is directly effective and can
                                                                        therefore be relied on in proceedings before national courts to
                                                                        set aside State measures falling within that provision, the Court
                                                                        of First Instance misinterpreted Article 90.
Appeal brought on 10 August 1999 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the judgment deliv-
ered on 3 June 1999 by the Third Chamber, Extended
Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the Euro-
pean Communities in Case T-17/96 between Télévision                     Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
Française 1 SA (TF1) and the Commission of the European                 Hamburg by order of that court of 15 July 1999 in the case
       Communities supported by the French Republic                     of OGT Fruchthandelsgesellschaft mbH v Hauptzollamt
                                                                                Hamburg-St Annen
                         (Case C-302/99 P)
                                                                                (Case C-307/99)
                          (1999/C 299/14)
                                                                                (1999/C 299/15)
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 3 June 1999 by
the Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-17/96              European Communities by an order of the Finanzgericht
between Télévision Française 1 SA (TF1) and the Commission              (Finance Court) Hamburg of 15 July 1999, which was received
of the European Communities supported by the French                     at the Court Registry on 13 August 1999, for a preliminary
Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the                 ruling in the case of OGT Fruchthandelsgesellschaft mbH v
European Communities on 10 August 1999 by the Com-                      Hauptzollamt Hamburg-St Annen on the following question:
mission of the European Communities, represented by Giulia-
no Marenco, Principal Legal Adviser, and Klaus Wiedner, of its
Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg at             Is the second subparagraph of Article 18(1) of Regulation
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                               (EEC) No 404/93 (1), as amended by Regulation (EC)
                                                                        No 1637/98 (2), inapplicable on the ground of breach of
                                                                        Articles I and XIII of GATT (1994), individuals being able to
The appellant claims that the Court should:                             rely thereon in court proceedings?
— set aside the judgment delivered on 3 June 1999 by the
     Court of First Instance in Case T-17/96 Télévision Française       (1) OJ 1993 L 47, p. 1.
     1 SA ‘TF1’ v Commission, in so far as it was held that             (2) OJ 1998 L 210, p. 28.
     TF1’s action was admissible in as much as it was directed
     against the Commission’s failure to act pursuant to Article
     90 of the EC Treaty (now Article 86);


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 April 2005 in Case C-157/03: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directives 68/360/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 64/221/EEC — Right of residence — Residence permit — Third-country national who is a member of the family of a Community national — Time-limit for issue of residence permit)

text:
               28.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 132/6

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 14 April 2005
   in Case C-157/03: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directives 68/360/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 64/221/EEC - Right of residence - Residence permit - Third-country national who is a member of the family of a Community national - Time-limit for issue of residence permit)
   (2005/C 132/11)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   In Case C-157/03, Commission of the European Communities (Agents: C. O'Reilly and L. Escobar Guerrero) v Kingdom of Spain (Agent: N. Díaz Abad) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 7 April 2003 — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, J. Makarczyk (Rapporteur), P. Kūris and J. Klučka, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 April 2005, in which it:

               1.

                           —

                           Declares that, by failing to transpose correctly into its national law Council Directive 68/360/EEC of 15 October 1968 on the abolition of restrictions on movement and residence within the Community for workers of Member States and their families, Council Directive 73/148/EEC of 21 May 1973 on the abolition of restrictions on movement and residence within the Community for nationals of Member States with regard to establishment and the provision of services and Council Directive 90/365/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the right of residence for employees and self-employed persons who have ceased their occupational activity, in particular, by requiring third-country nationals who are members of the family of a Community national who has exercised his right to freedom of movement to obtain a residence visa for the issue of a residence permit, and

                           —

                           by failing, in breach of the provisions of Council Directive 64/221/EEC of 25 February 1964 on the co-ordination of special measures concerning the movement and residence of foreign nationals which are justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health, to issue a residence permit as soon as possible and in any event not later than six months from the date on which the application for that permit was submitted,

                     the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 135 of 07.06.2003.


title: Case F-82/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 1 October 2013 — Loukakis and Others v Parliament (Civil Service — Parliament Staff Committee — Elections — Irregularities in the electoral process)

text:
               11.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/28

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 1 October 2013 — Loukakis and Others v Parliament
   (Case F-82/11) (1)

   (Civil Service - Parliament Staff Committee - Elections - Irregularities in the electoral process)
   2014/C 9/44
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Nicolaos Loukakis and Others (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: S. Seyr and M. Ecker, acting as Agents, and, initially, D. Waelbroeck, lawyer, and, subsequently, A. Duron, lawyer)

      Interveners: Solidarité pour les agents et fonctionnaires européens, Syndicat general du personnel des organismes européens, Fédération de la function publique européenne and Pluralist (represented by: J. Choucroun, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for a declaration that the elections to the Staff Committee of the Parliament, and the European Parliament’s failure to take action in respect of the various illegalities that affected the electoral process, are unlawful

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the implied decision of the European Parliament of 20 May 2011 not to censure the irregularities affecting the Staff Committee elections of November 2010;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action

               3.

               Orders the European Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the applicants;

               4.

               Orders the trade union organisations Solidarité pour les agents et fonctionnaires européens, Syndicat general du personnel des organismes européens, Fédération de la function publique européenne, on the one hand, and the trade union organisation Pluralist, on the other, to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 340, 19.11.2011, p. 41.


title: Case C-197/13 P: Appeal brought on 16 April 2013 by the Kingdom of Spain against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 31 January 2013 in Case T-540/10 Spain v Commission

text:
               22.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/5

         Appeal brought on 16 April 2013 by the Kingdom of Spain against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 31 January 2013 in Case T-540/10 Spain v Commission
   (Case C-197/13 P)
   2013/C 178/10
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, agent)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare, in any event, that the present appeal is well founded and set aside the judgment of the General Court of 31 January 2013 in Case T-540/10 Spain v Commission.

               —

               Annul Commission Decision C (2010) 6154 of 13 September 2010 reducing the assistance granted from the Cohesion Fund to the project stages: ‘High Speed Line Madrid-Zaragoza-Barcelona-French border. Section Lleida-Martorell (Platform). Subsection IX-A’ (CCI No 2001.ES.16.C.PT.005); ‘High Speed Line Madrid-Zaragoza-Barcelona-French border. Section Lleida-Martorell (Platform). Subsection X-B (Avinyonet del Penedés-Sant Sadurní d’Anoia)’ (CCI No 2001.ES.16.C.PT.008); ‘High Speed Line Madrid-Zaragoza-Barcelona-French border. Section Lleida-Martorell (Platform). Subsections XI-A and XI-B (Sant Sadurní d’Anoia-Gelida)’ (CCI No 2001.ES.16.C.PT.009) and ‘High Speed Line Madrid-Zaragoza-Barcelona-French border. Section Lleida-Martorell (Platform). Subsection IX-C’ (CCI No 2001.ES.16.C.PT.010);

               —

               Order, in any event, the respondent to bear the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

         Error of law with respect to the effects of the period of time referred to in Article H(2) of Annex II to Council Regulation (EC) No 1164/94

       (1)

         of 16 May 1994 establishing a Cohesion Fund
      . After the expiry of the period referred to, the Commission may no longer adopt any financial correction measures and, therefore, it is obliged to make payment and the correction applied is unlawful.

         Error of law in relation to the concept of an award of a contract within the meaning of Council Directive 93/38/EEC

       (2)

         of 14 June 1993 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors
      . Points (e) and (f) of Article 20(2) of Directive 93/38 do not apply generally to any amendments whatsoever to public contracts agreed during their execution stage, but to substantive amendments only. A substantive amendment such as to constitute a new award of a contract can be regarded as having arisen only when the conditions laid down in the judgment in Pressetext Nachrichtenagentur
       (3) are met.

      (1)  OJ 1994 L 130, p. 1

      (2)  OJ 1993 L 199, p. 84

      (3)  Case C-454/06 Pressetext Nachrichtenagentur [2008] ECR I-4401


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 April 2002 in Case T-353/99: N.V. Calberson Belgium v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Importation of television sets from Turkey — No need to adjudicate)

text:
C 156/24                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         29.6.2002
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 supported by Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents: A. Fierstra
                                                                           and J. van Bakel) against Commission of the European
                        of 10 January 2002                                 Communities (Agents: R. Tricot and J. Stuyck) — application
                                                                           for annulment of the decisions of the Commission
                                                                           C(1999)2140 final (REC 8/98) and C(1999)2143 final (REC 9/
in Case T-87/97 DEP, Starway SA v Council of the                           98), of 19 July 1999, finding that it was appropriate, first, to
                        European Union (1)                                 make post clearance recovery and, secondly, to refuse to
                                                                           refund duties in respect of the importation of television sets
                        (Taxation of Costs)                                from Turkey — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber),
                                                                           composed of M. Jaeger, President, K. Lenaerts, and J. Azizi,
                                                                           Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 9 April 2002, the
                          (2002/C 156/45)                                  operative part of which is as follows:
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           1.    There is no need to adjudicate on the present case.
                                                                           2.    The Commission shall pay all the costs.
In Case T-87/97 DEP, Starway SA, established in Luynes
(France), represented by J.-F. Bellis and P. De Baere, lawyers,
with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Council of
the European Union (Agents: R. Tanca and S. Marquardt),                    (1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.
supported by Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: V. Kreuschitz and S. Meany) — application for
taxation of the costs to be paid to the applicant by the
defendent following the judgment of the Court of First Instance
of 26 September 2000 in Case T-80/97 Starway v Council
[2000] ECR II-3099 — the Court of First Instance (Third
Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of M. Jaeger,
President, R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas, K. Lenaerts, P. Lindh and
J. Azizi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on                       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
10 January 2002, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                                of 14 January 2002
The total costs payable to the applicant by the Council in Case T-80/
97 are fixed at EUR 58 031,87.
                                                                           in Case T-84/01, Association contre l’heure d’été (ACHE),
                                                                           formerly Association contre l’horaire d’été (ACHE) v
                                                                           European Parliament and Council of the European
(1) OJ C 212 of 12.7.1997.                                                                               Union (1)
                                                                           (Action for annulment — Directive 2000/84/EC — Summer-
                                                                           time arrangements — Locus standi — Association —
                                                                                Inadmissibility)
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                          (2002/C 156/47)
                          of 9 April 2002                                                      (Language of the case: French)
in Case T-353/99: N.V. Calberson Belgium v Commission
                of the European Communities (1)
                                                                           In Case T-84/01, Association contre l’heure d’été (ACHE),
(Action for annulment — Importation of television sets from                formerly Association contre l’horaire d’été (ACHE), established
                Turkey — No need to adjudicate)                            at Marly-le-Roy (France), represented by C. Lepage, lawyer,
                                                                           against European Parliament (Agents: C. Pennera and
                                                                           M. Goméz-Leal) and Council of the European Union (Agent:
                          (2002/C 156/46)                                  A. Lopes Sabino) — application for annulment of Directive
                                                                           2000/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                          19 January 2001 on summer-time arrangements (OJ 2001
                                                                           L 31, p. 21) — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),
                                                                           composed of R.M. Moura Ramos, President of the Chamber,
                                                                           J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has
In Case T-353/99: N.V. Calberson Belgium, represented by                   made an order on 14 January 2002, the operative part of
L. Gheysen, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg,             which is as follows:


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 February 1999 in Case T-86/96, Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher Luftfahrt-Unternehmen v. Commission of the European Communities (State aid - Air transport - Tax measure - Action for annulment - Inadmissible)

text:
10.4.1999             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 100/17
     potential risk to public health involved in the event of       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal
     their proving to be unreliable, of a registration              Administratif de Paris by decision of 9 December 1998 in
     procedure which necessitates the compilation of a              the case of Gascogne Limousin Viandes SA v. Office
     substantial amount of documentation by the                     National Interprofessionnel des Viandes, de l'EÂlevage et de
     manufacturer, the importer or the distributor and                                  l'Aviculture (OFIVAL)
     which delays the placing of the reagent on the market,
     constitutes a measure having equivalent effect to a                                    (Case C-56/99)
     quantitative restriction on imports which, having                                     (1999/C 100/32)
     regard to its disproportionate nature, is not justified
     on grounds of the protection of health and life of
     humans under Article 36 of the EC Treaty.                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                    European Communities by decision of 9 December 1998
                                                                    by the Tribunal Administratif de Paris (Administrative
2. Article 5 of the Decree provides that the
                                                                    Court, Paris), which was received at the Court Registry
     accompanying notice, the primary packaging and the
                                                                    on 19 February 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case
     external packaging of each reagent are to state the
                                                                    of Gascogne Limousin Viandes SA v. Office National
     registration with the medicinal products agency. The
                                                                    Interprofessionel des Viandes, de l'EÂlevage et de
     Commission       considers   that    that    requirement
                                                                    l'Aviculture (OFIVAL) on the following question:
     constitutes an unjustified restriction on intra-
     Community trade within the meaning of Article 30 of
     the EC Treaty.                                                 Do the provisions in Article 40 of the Treaty of 25 March
                                                                    1957 preclude the adoption of aid measures benefiting
(1) JORF of 26.4.1996, p. 6386.                                     products distinguished according to criteria established at
                                                                    national level where those products may be marketed in
                                                                    all of the Community Member States?
                                                   COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                           Rechtsanwalt, Hamburg, with an address for service in
                                                                    Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Baden, 34b Rue
                     of 11 February 1999                            Philippe II, v. Commission of the European Communities
in Case T-86/96, Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher Luft-                (Agents: Anders Jessen, Paul Nemitz, Hans-Jürgen Rabe
fahrt-Unternehmen v. Commission of the European                     and Georg M. Berrisch) Ð application for annulment of
                        Communities (1)                             Commission Decision 96/369/EC of 13 March 1996
                                                                    concerning fiscal aid given to German airlines in the form
(State aid Ð Air transport Ð Tax measure Ð Action for               of a depreciation facility (OJ L 146, 20.6.1996, p. 42) Ð
                  annulment Ð Inadmissible)                         the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended
                                                                    Composition), composed of: J. D. Cooke, President, R.
                       (1999/C 100/33)
                                                                    García-Valdecasas, P. Lindh, J. Pirrung and M. Vilaras,
                                                                    Judges; J. Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for the
                                                                    Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 February 1999, in
                (Language of the case: German)                      which it:
In Case T-86/96: Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher Luftfahrt-           1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible.
Unternehmen, established in Bonn and comprising the
following members: Aero Lloyd Flugreisen GmbH & Co.
Luftverkehrs-KG, established in Oberursel (Germany), Air
Berlin GmbH & Co. Luftverkehrs KG, established in                   2. Orders the applicants jointly and severally to pay the
Berlin, Condor Flugdienst GmbH, established in                           costs.
Kelsterbach (Germany), Germania Fluggesellschaft mbH,
established in Berlin, Hapag-Lloyd Fluggesellschaft mbH,
                                                                    (1) OJ C 233, 10.8.1996.
established in Langenhagen (Germany), LTU Lufttransport
Unternehmen GmbH & Co. KG, established in Düsseldorf
(Germany), and Hapag-Lloyd Fluggesellschaft mbH,
established in Langenhagen, represented by Gerrit Schohe,


title: Case T-16/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 December 2008 — Torres v OHIM — Sociedad Cooperativa del Campo San Ginés (TORRE DE BENÍTEZ) (Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Application for Community word mark TORRE DE BENÍTEZ — Earlier national, Community and international word and figurative marks evoking a number of towers — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion)

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/45

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 December 2008 — Torres v OHIM — Sociedad Cooperativa del Campo San Ginés (TORRE DE BENÍTEZ)
   (Case T-16/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition procedure - Application for Community word mark TORRE DE BENÍTEZ - Earlier national, Community and international word and figurative marks evoking a number of towers - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion)
   (2009/C 44/77)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Miguel Torres, SA (Vilafranca del Penedés, Spain) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri, M. Baz de San Ceferino and A. Castán Pérez-Gómez, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Sociedad Cooperativa del Campo San Ginés (Cuenca, Spain) (represented by: C. Hernández Hernández, lawyer)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 November 2006 (Case R-36/2006-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Miguel Torres, SA and Sociedad Cooperativa del Campo San Ginés.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Miguel Torres, SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 14.4.2007.


title: Case T-226/16: Order of the General Court of 24 April 2017 — Ipuri v EUIPO — van Graaf (IPURI)

text:
               24.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/72

         Order of the General Court of 24 April 2017 — Ipuri v EUIPO — van Graaf (IPURI)
   (Case T-226/16) (1)

   (2017/C 239/84)
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 232, 27.6.2016.


title: Case C-14/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italia) lodged on 11 January 2017 — VAR Srl v Iveco Orecchia SpA

text:
               29.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 168/19

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italia) lodged on 11 January 2017 — VAR Srl v Iveco Orecchia SpA
   (Case C-14/17)
   (2017/C 168/25)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: VAR Srl

      Defendant: Iveco Orecchia SpA

      Questions referred

               1

               Must Article 34(8) of Directive 2004/17/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that it requires that proof that the products to be supplied are equivalent to the original products be presented at the stage of submission of the tender?

               2

               In the alternative, in the event that Question (a) on interpretation is to be answered in the negative: which steps are required to ensure that there is respect for the principles of equal treatment and impartiality, of open competition and sound administration, and for other tenderers’ rights of defence and right to be heard?

      (1)  Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 1).


title: Case C-444/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Veneto (Italy) lodged on 17 August 2015 — Associazione Italia Nostra Onlus v Comune di Venezia and Others

text:
               16.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/14

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Veneto (Italy) lodged on 17 August 2015 — Associazione Italia Nostra Onlus v Comune di Venezia and Others
   (Case C-444/15)
   (2015/C 381/17)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Veneto

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Associazione Italia Nostra Onlus

      Defendants: Comune di Venezia, Ministero per i beni e le attività culturali, Regione del Veneto, Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Ministero della Difesa Capitaneria di Porto di Venezia, Agenzia del Demanio

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 3(3) of Directive 2001/42/EC (1), in so far as it also concerns the situation referred to in Article 3(2)(b), valid, in the light of the environmental rules laid down by the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the Charter of Fundamental Rights, to the extent that it removes the systematic requirement to perform a Strategic Environmental Assessment in respect of plans and programmes which were deemed to require an implications assessment pursuant to Articles 6 and 7 of Directive 92/43/EEC (2)?

               2.

               In the event that the Court finds that the above measure is valid, must Article 3(2) and (3) of Directive 2001/42/EC, read in conjunction with recital 10 of that Directive, which states that ‘all plans and programmes which have been determined to require assessment pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna are likely to have significant effects on the environment, and should as a rule be made subject to systematic environmental assessment’ be interpreted as precluding legislation, such as the national legislation in question, which, in defining ‘small areas at local level’ in Article 3(3) of Directive 2001/42/EC, only refers to quantitative criteria?

               3.

               If the above question is answered in the negative, must Article 3(2) and (3) of Directive 2001/42/EC, read in conjunction with recital 10 of that Directive, which states that ‘all plans and programmes which have been determined to require assessment pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna are likely to have significant effects on the environment, and should as a rule be made subject to systematic environmental assessment’, be interpreted as precluding legislation, such as the national legislation in question, which removes the automatic and compulsory requirement for all new and expansion-related development projects in urban areas covering up to forty hectares or urban-area regeneration or development projects in existing urban areas covering up to ten hectares to undergo the Strategic Environmental Assessment procedure, even where, in view of the potential effects on the sites, they had formerly been deemed to require an implications assessment pursuant to Articles 6 and 7 of Directive 92/43/EEC?

      (1)  Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (OJ 2001 L 197, p. 30).

      (2)  Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7).


title: Case T-220/11: Action brought on 18 April 2011 — TeamBank v OHIM — Fercredit Servizi Finanziari (f@ir Credit)

text:
               2.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/16

         Action brought on 18 April 2011 — TeamBank v OHIM — Fercredit Servizi Finanziari (f@ir Credit)
   (Case T-220/11)
   2011/C 194/26
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: TeamBank AG Nürnberg (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: T. Kiphuth, H. Lindner and D. Terheggen, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fercredit Servizi Finanziari SpA (Rome, Italy)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 February 2011 in Appeal R 719/2010-1;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘f@ir Credit’ for services in Class 36 (Registration No 6 947 766).

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Fercredit Servizi Finanziari SpA.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative mark ‘FERCREDIT’ for goods and services in Classes 6, 7, 12, 14, 16, 18, 25, 35, 36, 39, 41, 42, 43 and 44 (Community trade mark Nr 3 749 801), the opposition being brought against the registration of services in Class 36.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld.

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

      Pleas in law: Breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) as there is no likelihood of confusion between the opposing marks.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (codified version), (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).


title: Case T-303/08: Action brought on 30 July 2008 — Tresplain Investments v OHIM — Hoo Hing (Golden Elephant Brand)

text:
               11.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/14

         Action brought on 30 July 2008 — Tresplain Investments v OHIM — Hoo Hing (Golden Elephant Brand)
   (Case T-303/08)
   (2008/C 260/26)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Tresplain Investments Ltd (Hong Kong, China) (represented by: D. McFarland, Barrister)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hoo Hing Holdings Ltd (Romford, United Kingdom)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 May 2008 in case R 889/2007-1; and

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The figurative mark ‘Golden Elephant Brand’ for goods in class 30 — Community trade mark registration No 241 810

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark right of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity: The unregistered figurative mark ‘GOLDEN ELEPHANT’, which had been in use in the United Kingdom

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the decision of the Cancellation Division

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 73 and 74(1) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal erred by taking into account alleged facts, as well as legal presumptions and assumptions that had not been introduced or substantiated by the parties, while at the same time it refused to take into account other facts, evidence and arguments advanced by the applicant; infringement of Article 8(4) of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal erred in its finding that there was a likelihood of relevant confusion between the trade marks concerned and, as a result, a likelihood of damage.


title: Case C-424/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 31 July 2015 — Xabier Ormaetxea Garai and Bernardo Lorenzo Almendros v Administración del Estado

text:
               3.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 363/21

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 31 July 2015 — Xabier Ormaetxea Garai and Bernardo Lorenzo Almendros v Administración del Estado
   (Case C-424/15)
   (2015/C 363/26)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Xabier Ormaetxea Garai and Bernardo Lorenzo Almendros

      Defendant: Administración del Estado

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 (1) on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services to be interpreted to the effect that, from the perspective of the effective protection of the public interest for which the relevant national regulatory body is responsible, the creation by the national legislature of a regulatory and supervisory body of an unspecialised institutional model, which merges into a single body the pre-existing supervisory bodies in the energy, telecommunications and competition fields, may be considered compatible with the directive?

               2.

               Must the conditions of ‘independence’ of national regulatory authorities for electronic communications networks and services, referred to in Article 3(2) and (3a) of Directive 2002/21/EC, as amended by Directive 2009/140/EC (2), be the same as those required for national supervisory authorities for data protection under Article 28 of Directive 95/46/EC (3)?

               3.

               Is the decision in the judgment in Commission v Hungary, C-288/12 (4), applicable to a situation in which the officers of a national telecommunications regulatory authority are dismissed before their term of office has expired owing to the requirements of the new legal framework which creates a supervisory body grouping together various national regulatory authorities for regulated sectors? May that early dismissal, due only to the entry into force of a new national law and not to an unforeseen change in the circumstances of the office-holders as previously established in national law, be considered compatible with the provisions of Article 3 (3a) of Directive 2002/21/EC?

      (1)  OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33.

      (2)  OJ 2009 L 337, p. 37.

      (3)  Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31).

      (4)  EU:C:2014:237.


title: Case C-597/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 October 2013 — Isdin, SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Bial-Portela & Ca SA (Appeal — Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark ZEBEXIR — Earlier word mark ZEBINIX — Relative grounds for refusal — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(1)(b) — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               14.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 367/20

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 October 2013 — Isdin, SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Bial-Portela & Ca SA
   (Case C-597/12 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark ZEBEXIR - Earlier word mark ZEBINIX - Relative grounds for refusal - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(1)(b) - Obligation to state reasons)
   2013/C 367/35
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Isdin, SA (represented by: G. Marín Raigal and P. López Ronda, abogados)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Geroulakos, Agent), Bial-Portela & Ca, SA

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 October 2012 in Case T-366/11 Bial-Portela & Ca
       v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) by which the General Court annulled Decision R 1212/2009-1 of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 6 April 2011, dismissing the action brought against the Opposition Division’s decision which rejected the opposition brought by the owner of the Community word mark ‘ZEBENIX’ in respect of goods and services classified in Classes 3, 5 and 42, against the application for registration of the word mark ‘ZEBEXIR’ in respect of goods classified in Classes 3 and 5 — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Likelihood of confusion

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 9 October 2012 in Case T-366/11 Bial-Portela v OHIM — Isdin (ZEBEXIR);

               2.

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

               3.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 86, 23.3.2013.


title: Case T-79/14: Action brought on 5 February 2014 — Secop v Commission

text:
               22.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 85/23

         Action brought on 5 February 2014 — Secop v Commission
   (Case T-79/14)
   2014/C 85/40
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Secop GmbH (Flensburg, Germany) (represented by: U. Schnelle and C. Aufdermauer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Decision Aiuto di Stato SA.37640, C(2013) 9119 final — Aiuti per il salvataggio a favore di ACC Compressors S.p.A., Italia (State aid SA.37640 C(2013) 9119 final; Rescue aid in favour of ACC Compressors S.p.A., Italy) of 18 December 2013 in accordance with Article 264(1) TFEU;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings in accordance with Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 296 TFEU

                           —

                           The applicant alleges a failure to sufficiently state the reasons for the contested decision. It claims that, despite having knowledge of the circumstances of the case, obtained during concurrent merger control proceedings brought by the applicant concerning the purchase of assets belonging to a subsidiary of the State aid recipient, the Commission failed to take account of the consequences of situation for the eligibility for State aid of the State aid recipient and the particular consequences of the positive State aid decision for the applicant.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the Treaties

                           —

                           The applicant alleges an infringement of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU. In that regard, it claims, inter alia, that the State aid recipient is not competitive and is a new undertaking which resulted from restructuring measures. As a result of the purchase of assets belonging to one of companies within its group of undertakings by the applicant, the State aid recipient was deprived of necessary assets for the continuation of its business, without which it could not either continue or recommence its business activities.

                           —

                           Next, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 108(2) and (3) TFEU. The applicant claims that the Commission should have taken account of the serious difficulties with regard to the compatibility of the State aid with the single market and initiated the main investigation procedure.

                           —

                           Finally, the applicant alleges in the context of the second plea in law infringement of the principle of equal treatment.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging an error of assessment

                           —

                           The applicant claims that the Commission made an error of assessment in so far as it failed to take account of the circumstances of the case essential to the review and assessment and thus made its decision on the basis insufficient facts.


title: Case T-339/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 28 October 2009 — Juwel Aquarium v OHIM — Potschak (Panorama) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark Panorama — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               5.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/20

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 28 October 2009 — Juwel Aquarium v OHIM — Potschak (Panorama)
   (Case T-339/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark Panorama - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2009/C 297/27
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Juwel Aquarium GmbH & Co. KG (Rotenburg, Germany) (represented by: P. Mes, C. Graf von der Groeben, G. Rother, J. Bühling, A. Verhauwen, J. Künzel, D. Jestaedt and M. Bergermann, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court of First Instance: Christian Potschak (Bobingen, Germany) (represented by: D. Donath, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 June 2007 (Case R 214/2006-1) relating to invalidity proceedings between Christian Potschak and Juwel Aquarium GmbH & Co. KG.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Juwel Aquarium GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.


title: Case T-784/14: Action brought on 28 November 2014  — Romania v Commission

text:
               23.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/36

         Action brought on 28 November 2014 — Romania v Commission
   (Case T-784/14)
   (2015/C 065/51)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Parties

      Applicant: Romania (represented by: R. Radu, R. Haţieganu and A. Buzoianu, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission’s decision, adopted by letter BUDG/B3/MV D(2014) 3 079 038 of 19 September 2014, in which the Commission asks Romania to make available to the EU budget the gross amount of EUR 14  883,79, corresponding to losses of traditional own resources;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission lacked competence to adopt the contested decision

                           —

                           There is no provision of EU legislation which confers on the Commission the power to compel a Member State to pay a sum of money corresponding to a loss of EU traditional own resources which occurred following the remission of customs duties decided by another Member State which was responsible for the valuation, collection and payment of those duties, as traditional own resources, to the EU budget.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision contained an inadequate and insufficient statement of reasons

                           —

                           The contested decision does not contain a sufficient and adequate statement of reasons as required under Article 296 TFEU. First, the contested decision does not state the legal basis for its adoption; nor can that basis be inferred from the other elements of the Commission’s letter. Second, the Commission did not set out, in the contested decision, the legal reasoning which led to Romania being obliged to pay compensation for damage resulting from a loss of EU traditional own resources owing to the remission of certain customs debts notified by another Member State.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging — in the event that the Court finds that the Commission acted within the limits of the powers conferred upon it by the Treaties — that the Commission failed to observe the principle of sound administration and breached Romania’s rights of the defence

                           —

                           The Commission breached its duty to exercise due diligence and the duty of sound administration in so far as it did not carefully examine all the relevant information available to it and ask for other necessary information before adopting the contested decision. The Commission did not establish a direct causal link between the acts imputed to Romania and the loss of EU traditional own resources. Nor did the Commission justify the sum asked of Romania by reference to the amount of customs duty corresponding to the value of the transit in question, on the sufficient basis of the value remitted by the Federal Republic of Germany.

                           —

                           The Commission’s actions were unforeseeable and did not allow Romania to exercise its rights of the defence.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a failure to observe the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations

                           —

                           The legal rules on the basis of which the Commission, through the contested decision, imposed the obligation to make payment were not identified or specified in that decision. Nor was their application foreseeable for Romania. It was not possible for the Romanian State to foresee or to be aware, prior to receiving the Commission’s letter, of the obligation to make available to that institution the sum of money requested, corresponding to the loss of EU traditional own resources. By the same token, by adopting the contested decision and obliging Romania to make payment, four years after the occurrence of the events in question and in spite of the conclusions reached by the Commission in the dialogue between that institution and the Romanian authorities during that four-year period, the Commission breached Romania’s legitimate expectations that there would be no financial obligations regarding the payment of the customs debts in question and, accordingly, no obligations in respect of the EU budget.


title: Case T-101/11: Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2012 — Mizuno v OHIM — Golfino (G) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark G — Earlier Community figurative mark G+ — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               23.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/12

         Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2012 — Mizuno v OHIM — Golfino (G)
   (Case T-101/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark G - Earlier Community figurative mark G+ - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2012/C 184/20
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Mizuno KK (Osaka, Japan) (represented by: T. Raab and H.R. Lauf, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Golfino AG (Glinde, Germany)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 December 2010 (Case R 821/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Golfino AG and Mizuno KK

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mizuno KK to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 120, 16.4.2011.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 24 September 1998 in the case of Laszlo Bakcsi against Finanzamt Fürstenfeldbruck (Case C-415/98)

text:
23.1.1999             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 20/19
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                             on the basis that the settlement which the Commission
Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 24 September                  agreed to is considered to be invalid as achieved by
1998 in the case of Laszlo Bakcsi against Finanzamt                     fraudulent means, that is to say the Court should
                       Fürstenfeldbruck                                 order the defendant to refund the entire amount of the
                                                                        principal debt of GRD 13 800 000, together with
                       (Case C-415/98)
                                                                        interest under the provisions of the agreement
                        (1999/C 20/30)                                  amounting to GRD 24 382 218 up until service of
                                                                        this application, namely a total amount of
                                                                        GRD 38 182 218, and additionally legal interest for
                                                                        late payment under Greek legislation from service of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  this application on the defendant until the full
European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof                    discharge of its debt, or otherwise interest on the basis
(Federal Finance Court) of 24 September 1998, received at               of the rate set by the European Investment Bank in
the Court Registry on 20 November 1998, for a                           respect of the period from the lodging of this
preliminary ruling in the case of Laszlo Bakcsi against                 application until the defendant has fully discharged the
Finanzamt Fürstenfeldbruck on the following questions:                  debt;
(1) May a trader allocate goods used for mixed purposes
     (business and non-business) wholly to his private              Ð in the alternative, order the defendant to refund to
     assets, regardless of the extent to which they are used            the Commission the amount arising under the
     in his business?                                                   abovementioned settlement, namely GRD 9 498 551,
                                                                        together with interest owed on the principal sum of
                                                                        GRD 9 257 051, which under the provisions of the
(2) Where a person has acquired goods from a private                    agreement amounts to interest of GRD 14 643 006 up
     individual for the purposes of his business with no                until service of this application, that is to say a total
     right to deduct tax and subsequently disposes of                   amount of GRD 24 141 557, and also the legal
     them, is that disposal fully liable to turnover tax in             interest provided for by Greek legislation from service
     accordance with Articles 2(1) and 11A(1)(a) of                     of this application until the full discharge of the
     Directive 77/388/EEC (1)?                                          defendant's debt, or otherwise interest on the basis of
                                                                        the rate set by the European Investment Bank in
                                                                        respect of the period from the lodging of this
(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.                                          application until the defendant has fully discharged the
                                                                        debt;
                                                                    Ð order the defendant in each case to pay the
                                                                        Commission's general legal costs together with the fees
Action brought on 20 November 1998 by the Commission                    of its authorised lawyers.
of the European Communities against Nea Energiaki
                       Tekhnologia EPE
                       (Case C-416/98)                              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                        (1999/C 20/31)
                                                                    The objects of the defendant company are the study and
An action against Nea Energiaki Tekhnologia EPE was                 construction of alternative energy systems and its
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                 participation in public tenders. In 1985 the Commission
Communities on 20 November 1998 by the Commission                   entered into an agreement with the defendant under which
of the European Communities, represented by Richard                 the latter undertook, in return for Community financial
Wainwright, Principal Legal Adviser, and Olivier                    assistance, to carry out the project Kea Island', whose
Couvert-CasteÂra, a civil servant on secondment to its              objective was the installation of a wind generator on a
Legal Service, assisted by Maria Bra, of the Brussels Bar,          Greek island and a two-year demonstration that the
and Kiriaki Kapoutzidou, of the Athens Bar, with an                 system worked before being handed over to the users.
address for service in Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos           Under that agreement the Commission made an advance
Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,              payment to the defendant of GRD 13 800 000. However,
Kirchberg.                                                          the defendant did not take any steps at all to implement
                                                                    the project. The Commission subsequently terminated the
                                                                    agreement. The defendant never repaid the sum received
                                                                    in advance or even the sum arising under the settlement
The Commission claims that the Court should:
                                                                    reached in the meantime.
Ð order the defendant to refund to the Commission all
    the financing which it received from the Community,


title: Case T-372/17: Action brought on 12 June 2017 — Louis Vuitton Malletier v EUIPO — Bee Fee Group (LV POWER ENERGY DRINK)

text:
               7.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/36

         Action brought on 12 June 2017 — Louis Vuitton Malletier v EUIPO — Bee Fee Group (LV POWER ENERGY DRINK)
   (Case T-372/17)
   (2017/C 256/40)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Louis Vuitton Malletier (Paris, France) (represented by: P. Roncaglia, G. Lazzeretti, F. Rossi and N. Parrotta, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bee Fee Group LTD (Nicosia, Cyprus)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark in black, red and white containing the word elements ‘LV POWER ENERGY DRINK’ — EU trade mark No 12 898 219

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 March 2017 in Case R 906/2016-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision and thus declare invalid the contested mark;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant during these proceedings;

               —

               order the proprietor to pay the costs incurred by the applicant during these proceedings.

      Pleas in law

               —

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

               —

               Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 and of the principle of legal certainty.


title: Case T-390/12: Order of the General Court of 7 January 2014 — Lifted Research and LRG Europe v OHIM — Fei Liangchen (Lr geans)

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/52

         Order of the General Court of 7 January 2014 — Lifted Research and LRG Europe v OHIM — Fei Liangchen (Lr geans)
   (Case T-390/12) (1)

   2014/C 52/101
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 355, 17.11.12.


title: Judgment of the Court of 22 November 2001 in Case C-301/97: Kingdom of the Netherlands v Council of the European Union (Arrangements for association of overseas countries and territories — Imports of rice originating in the overseas countries and territories — Safeguard measures — Regulation (EC) No 1036/97 — Action for annulment)

text:
19.1.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                               C 17/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar,
                                                                             has given a judgment on 22 November 2001, in which it:
                      of 22 November 2001                                    1.    Dismisses the action as unfounded.
                                                                             2.    Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
in Case C-110/97: Kingdom of the Netherlands v Council
                    of the European Union (1)                                3.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian
                                                                                Republic, and the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                to bear their own costs.
(Arrangements for association of overseas countries and
territories — Imports of rice originating in the overseas                    (1) OJ C 181 of 14.6.1997.
countries and territories — Safeguard measures — Regu-
       lation (EC) No 304/97 — Action for annulment)
                          (2002/C 17/01)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                                of 22 November 2001
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                             in Case C-301/97: Kingdom of the Netherlands v Council
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                of the European Union (1)
                                                                             (Arrangements for association of overseas countries and
                                                                             territories — Imports of rice originating in the overseas
                                                                             countries and territories — Safeguard measures — Regu-
In Case C-110/97: Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agent:
                                                                                lation (EC) No 1036/97 — Action for annulment)
M.A. Fierstra) v Council of the European Union (Agents:
R. Torrent, J. Huber and G. Houttuin), supported by Kingdom
of Spain (Agent: L. Pérez de Ayala Becerril), French Republic                                           (2002/C 17/02)
(Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger and C. Chavance), Italian Republic
(Agent: by U. Leanza and F. Quadri), and Commission of the                                        (Language of the case: Dutch)
European Communities (Agent: T. van Rijn) — application
for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 304/97 of                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
17 February 1997 introducing safeguard measures in respect                                       in the European Court Reports)
of imports of rice originating in the overseas countries and
territories (OJ 1997 L 51, p. 1) — the Court, composed of:
G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P. Jann and F. Macken
(Rapporteur) (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann,                           In Case C-301/97: Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents:
D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, J.P. Puissochet, L. Sevón,                    J.S. van den Oosterkamp and M.A. Fierstra) v Council of the
M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen and V. Skouris, Judges; P. Léger,                  European Union (Agents: R. Torrent, J. Huber and G. Houttuin),
 ---pagebreak--- C 17/2                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                             19.1.2002
supported by Kingdom of Spain (Agent: N. Dı́az Abad), French              (Civil Division) (United Kingdom), for a preliminary ruling in
Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger and C. Chavance), Italian           the proceedings pending before that court between H.J. Banks
Republic (Agents: U. Leanza, assisted by F. Quadri) and the               & Co. Ltd v The Coal Authority, Secretary of State for Trade
Commission of the European Communities (Agents P.J. Kuijper               and Industry — on the interpretation of Article 4(b) and (c) of
and T. van Rijn) — application for the annulment of Council               the ECSC Treaty and of Commission Decision
Regulation (EC) No 1036/97 of 2 June 1997 introducing                     No 3632/93/ECSC of 28 December 1993 establishing Com-
safeguard measures in respect of imports of rice originating in           munity rules for State aid to the coal industry (OJ 1993 L 329,
the overseas countries and territories (OJ 1997 L 151, p. 8) —            p. 12) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodriguez Iglesias,
the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President,              President, C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet and
P. Jann, F. Macken (Rapporteur) (Presidents of Chambers),                 V. Skouris (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward,
C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, J.P. Puissochet,                J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), P. Jann, L. Sevón, R. Schintgen
L. Sevón, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen and V. Skouris, Judges;              and F. Macken, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate General; L. Hew-
P. Léger, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar,            lett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 November 2001,              20 September 2001, in which it has ruled:
in which it:
1.    Dismisses the action as unfounded.
2.    Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
                                                                          1.    A situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings from
                                                                                the restructuring date until the transfer to the successful private
3.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian             tendering undertakings of the shares of the Crown-owned
      Republic and the Commission of the European Communities to                companies which succeeded British Coal Corporation as operator
      bear their own costs.                                                     implies the existence of aid, within the meaning of Article 4(c)
                                                                                of the ECSC Treaty, but not of special charges within the
                                                                                meaning of that provision. The same situation may constitute
(1) OJ C 318 of 18.10.1997.                                                     discrimination between producers, within the meaning of
                                                                                Article 4(b) of the same Treaty. That would be the case if
                                                                                significant objective differences in situation between, on the one
                                                                                hand, British Coal Corporation and the Crown companies
                                                                                which succeeded it as operator, and, on the other hand, the
                                                                                other operators, did not justify the differentiated treatment
                                                                                applied to the two categories of producers.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                A situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, as
                                                                                from the time of the transfer of the shares of the Crown-owned
                      of 20 September 2001                                      companies which succeeded British Coal Corporation as operator
                                                                                to the successful private tendering undertakings, does not reveal
in Case C-390/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                       the existence of aid or special charges within the meaning of
the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division)):                        Article 4(c) of the Treaty, or discrimination between producers,
H.J. Banks & Co. Ltd v The Coal Authority, Secretary of                         within the meaning of Article 4(b) of the Treaty, since access to
                 State for Trade and Industry (1)                               the various means of acquiring the lease and licence rights was
                                                                                not, and is not, discriminatory.
(ECSC Treaty — Licences to extract raw coal — Discrimi-
nation between producers — Special charges — State aid —
Article 4(b) and (c) of the Treaty — Decision
No 3632/93/ECSC — Code on aid to the coal industry —
Direct effect — Respective powers of the Commission and                   2.    Article 4(b) of the Treaty, in so far as it concerns discrimination
                        the national courts)                                    between producers, and the first sentence of Article 9(4) of
                                                                                Commission Decision No 3632/93/ECSC of 28 December
                                                                                1993 establishing Community rules for State aid to the coal
                          (2002/C 17/03)                                        industry directly confer rights upon individuals which the
                                                                                national courts must protect. On the other hand, Article 4(c) of
                    (Language of the case: English)                             the Treaty, in so far as it concerns the compatibility of aid with
                                                                                the common market, does not itself create such rights. However,
                                                                                the national courts have jurisdiction to interpret the concept of
                                                                                aid for the purposes of Article 4(c) of the Treaty and Article 1
                                                                                of Decision No 3632/93, with a view to drawing the
In Case C-390/98: reference to the Court under Article 41 of                    consequences from any infringement of the first sentence of
the ECSC Treaty from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales)                      Article 9(4) of that decision.