title: Case T-402/14: Judgment of the General Court of 25 February 2016 — FCC Aqualia v OHIM — Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona (AQUALOGY) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark AQUALOGY — Earlier Community word mark AQUALIA and earlier national figurative mark aqualia — Relative grounds for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               4.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/25

         Judgment of the General Court of 25 February 2016 — FCC Aqualia v OHIM — Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona (AQUALOGY)
   (Case T-402/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark AQUALOGY - Earlier Community word mark AQUALIA and earlier national figurative mark aqualia - Relative grounds for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 118/27)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: FCC Aqualia, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. de Oliveira Vaz Miranda de Sousa, N. González-Alberto Rodríguez and C. Sueiras Villalobos, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Grau Mora, C. Viola Zendrera and A. Torrente Tomás, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 March 2014 (Case R 1209/2013-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, SA and FCC Aqualia, SA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders FCC Aqualia to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 261, 11.8.2014.


title: Case C-401/08: Action brought on 17 September 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria

text:
               20.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 327/9

         Action brought on 17 September 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-401/08)
   (2008/C 327/15)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Schima, A. Sipos, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Austria
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11(1)(c) of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances (1), because the competent authorities in Austria failed to draw up an external emergency plan for all establishments to which Article 9 of the directive applies;

               —

               order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Article 11(1)(c) of Directive 96/82/EC requires Member States to ensure that, for all establishments to which Article 9 applies, the authorities designated for that purpose by the Member State draw up an external emergency plan for the measures to be taken outside the establishment. Those external emergency plans must not only contain information on on-site and off-site mitigatory action, but must also contain arrangements for providing the public with information relating to the accident and the behaviour which it should adopt. Moreover, the external emergency plans must for example also contain information for the emergency services of other Member States in the event of a major accident with possible transboundary consequences.
   The objective of this application is to seek a declaration that by failing to draw up external emergency plans for all establishments to which Article 9 applies, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11(1)(c) of Directive 96/82/EC.

      (1)  OJ 1997 L 10, p. 13.


title: Case F-40/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 April 2016 — Sommier v Commission

text:
               20.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 222/46

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 April 2016 — Sommier v Commission
   (Case F-40/13) (1)

   (2016/C 222/63)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 207, 20/7/2013, p. 60.


title: Case T-369/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 June 2009 — Spain v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — Expenditure excluded from Community financing — Aids for restructuring and conversion in the wine sector — Aids for the improvement of the production and marketing of honey — Concept of loss of revenue due to implementation of the plan — Article 13(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 — Concept of intervention intended to stabilise the agricultural markets — Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999)

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/43

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 June 2009 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-369/05) (1)

   (EAGGF - Guarantee Section - Expenditure excluded from Community financing - Aids for restructuring and conversion in the wine sector - Aids for the improvement of the production and marketing of honey - Concept of loss of revenue due to implementation of the plan - Article 13(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 - Concept of intervention intended to stabilise the agricultural markets - Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999)
   2009/C 180/78
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: F. Díez Moreno, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Jimeno Fernández, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Application for the partial annulment of Commission Decision 2005/555/EC of 15 July 2005 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2005 L 188, p. 36), in so far as it excludes certain expenditure incurred by Spain in the wine and honey sectors.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 296, 26.11.2005.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 October 2004 in Case T-256/02, I v Court of Justice of the European Communities (Officials — Action for damages — Exposure to asbestos — Occupational disease — Damage)

text:
               18.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/16

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 14 October 2004
   in Case T-256/02, I v Court of Justice of the European Communities (1)

   (Officials - Action for damages - Exposure to asbestos - Occupational disease - Damage)
   (2004/C 314/41)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-256/02, I, an official of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, residing in Luxembourg (Luxembourg), represented by J. Iturriagagoitia Bassas, and K Delvolvé, lawyers, against Court of Justice of the European Communities (Agent: M. Schauss, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for damages for the physical harm and the non-material, professional and financial loss allegedly suffered by the applicant — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: H. Legal, President, V. Tiili and M. Vilaras, Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 October 2004, in which it:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 274 of 9.11.2002.


title: Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-321/94 and T-343/94

text:
7.10.2000             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 285/21
—     violation of the principles of equal treatment, non-            Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-321/94 and
      discrimination and legal certainty, and of the principles                                 T-343/94 (1)
      applying to the withdrawal of administrative acts.
                                                                                (2000/C 285/38)
The applicant points out that, by admitting her to the tests
in competitions EUR/A/123 and COM/A/12, the respective
selection boards implicitly recognised that she had since
20 December 1986 (on which date she was awarded a Bachelor                              (Language of the case: German)
of Arts degree by the University of New Mexico) possessed a
degree entitling her to classification in grade A. However,           By order of 10 April 2000 the President of the Fourth Chamber
according to Article 3 of the decision concerning the criteria        of the Court of First Instance of the European Communites
applicable to appointment in grade and classification in step         has ordered the removal from the register of Joined Cases
on recruitment and Annex II thereto, the applicant was thus           T-321/94 and T-343/94, Helmut Rodermann and Peter Bach
entitled to 48 months’ seniority by virtue of professional            v Council of the European Union and Commission of the
experience acquired by her prior to her entry into service as a       European Communities.
grade A official.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 351 of 10.12.1994.


title: Case C-380/03: Action brought on 10 September 2003 (by fax on 9 September 2003) by the Federal Republic of Germany against the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union

text:
15.11.2003            EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 275/31
     wide-ranging authority to transfer vehicles in category D           of the European Communities on 10 September 2003 (by fax
     with a category C driving licence is clearly contrary to the        on 9 September 2003) by the Federal Republic of Germany
     wording of Article 3(1), fifth indent, of the Directive.            represented by Wolf-Dieter Plessing and Moritz Lumma of
                                                                         the Federal Ministry for Finances and Jochim Sedemund,
—    Minimum age for access to categories C1 and C1E                     Rechtsanwalt, with an address for service at the Federal
                                                                         Ministry of Finances, Berlin.
     The FeV makes provision in paragraph 10.2.1 for access
     to categories C1 and C1E at the age of 17, in so far as the
     relevant persons are training to become professional
     drivers. That rule is contrary to the provisions of                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
     Article 6(1)(b), third indent, of the Directive, in conjunc-
     tion, as regards to access to vehicles in categories C1
     and C1E of over 7.5 tonnes, with Article 5(1)(b), second            1.     annul Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 2003/33/EC of the
     indent, of Regulation EC 3820/85.                                          European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003
                                                                                on the approximation of the laws, regulations and
—    Registration of driving licences issued in other Member                    administrative provisions of the Member States relating to
     States                                                                     the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products (1);
     The systematic registration procedure contained in para-
     graph 29.1 of FeV and the provision for a penalty
                                                                         2.     order the defendant to pay the costs.
     contained in paragraph 75.11 of the FeV infringe the
     principle of mutual recognition laid down in Article 1(2)
     of the Directive.
—    Exchange of driving licences issued in other Member
     States
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
     The exchange of driving licences for the purposes of
     registering what may be a shorter national period of
     validity in paragraph 29.3 of the FeV contravenes appli-
     cable Community law. Although an exchange of driving                By its action the Federal Government claims that the Parliament
     licence as provided for in paragraph 42 of the FeV in the           and the Council, by adopting the contested provisions in the
     event that it is not possible to enter limitations or               Directive, went beyond the boundaries of the jurisdiction of
     conditions because of the nature of the driving licence             the Community legislature laid down by the Court of Justice
     does amount to an exchange for the reasons laid down in             in its judgment in Case C-376/98 [2000] ECR I-8419 and failed
     Article 8(2) of the Directive (which also includes the entry        to have regard to the factual requirements for Community
     of medical limitations), the entry of other administrative          jurisdiction to exist established by the Court of Justice.
     observations (for example the applicability of the con-             The contested provisions almost exclusively govern factual
     ditions on probationary permission to drive) is not                 situations with no cross-border effect. Accordingly, there
     covered by Article 8(2) of the Directive, which is why              are neither actual impediments to trade or any discernible
     neither such entries nor exchanges are compatible with              distortion of competition which, under the judgment of the
     Community law.                                                      Court of Justice in Case C-376/98, are a necessary factual
                                                                         precondition in order for the Community to have jurisdiction
                                                                         under Article 95 EC. For that reason Article 95 does not
(1) OJ 1991 L 237, p. 1.                                                 provide a basis for jurisdiction on the part of the Community
                                                                         legislature to adopt the contested provisions. Since, given that
                                                                         there are no impediments to trade or discernible distortion of
                                                                         competition, the contested provisions do not in fact pursue
                                                                         the goal of improving the internal market but rather the
                                                                         protection of health, there is also an infringement of the
                                                                         prohibition on harmonisation in Article 152(4)(c) EC.
Action brought on 10 September 2003 (by fax on 9 Sep-
tember 2003) by the Federal Republic of Germany against
the European Parliament and the Council of the European
                              Union                                      In addition the Federal Government claims in the alternative
                                                                         that no statement of reasons was given. The Community
                                                                         legislature failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons
                         (Case C-380/03)                                 establishing that the factual requirements in Article 95 EC
                                                                         which confer jurisdiction were met, in particular in regard to
                         (2003/C 275/46)                                 the presence of impediments to trade, and failed to refer even
                                                                         once in the statement of reasons to the existence of any
                                                                         discernible distortion of competition with regard to press
                                                                         products and broadcasts, with the result that to that extent the
An action against the European Parliament and the Council of             Directive in any event infringes the obligation to give reasons
the European Union was brought before the Court of Justice               in Article 253 EC.
 ---pagebreak--- C 275/32               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                          15.11.2003
Furthermore, the substantive amendments made by the                      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzh-
Council following the Opinion of the Parliament give rise to a           of by order of that Court of 30 July 2003 in the case of
claim that the Parliament’s rights under the co-decision                 Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas against Käserei Champig-
procedure under Article 251 EC were infringed.                                           non Hofmeister GmbH & Co. KG
Finally the Federal Government claims in the alternative that                                       (Case C-385/03)
the principle of proportionality has been infringed since the
total bans provided for in Articles 3 and 4 on advertising in
the press and/or printed publications as well as on the radio                                      (2003/C 275/48)
and the internet deliberately and specifically target local or
regional situations with no cross-border element almost
exclusively, with the result that the extensive prohibitions,
within the meaning of Article 14(1) EC on the improvement                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
of the internal market, are not necessary and are therefore              European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof
disproportionate. The infringement of the principle of pro-              (Federal Finance Court) of 30 July 2003, received at the Court
portionality is all the more serious because the prohibitions            Registry on 12 September 2003, for a preliminary ruling in
have a significant adverse effect on the basic right of freedom          the case of Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas against Käserei
of thought and press freedom, owing to the excessively                   Champignon Hofmeister GmbH & Co. KG on the following
broad and unspecific definition of the terms ‘advertising’ in            question:
Article 2(b) and ‘the press and other printed publications’ in
Articles 1(a) and 3 of the Directive.
                                                                         Must the first and second subparagraphs of Article 11(1) of
(1) OJ L 152, p. 16.
                                                                         Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 (1), as amended by Regulation
                                                                         (EC) No 2945/94 (2), be interpreted — also in the light of
                                                                         the principle of proportionality — as meaning that false
                                                                         information relating to individual items listed in the export
                                                                         declaration, which could result in the exporter receiving a
                                                                         higher export refund than that to which it is entitled, is by
                                                                         itself sufficient to give rise to a punitive reduction in the export
                                                                         refund in the amount set out in those provisions, even though
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supreme Court,                 the exporter expressly stated in connection with the separate
Ireland, by order of that court dated 2 April 2003, in the               application for payment which must be submitted under
          case of Ryanair Ltd against Aer Rianta cpt                     national law that it would not be applying for an export refund
                                                                         in respect of the relevant items in the export declaration?
                         (Case C-382/03)
                                                                         (1) OJ L 351 of 14.12.1987, p. 1.
                         (2003/C 275/47)                                 (2) OJ L 310 of 3.12.1994, p. 57.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Supreme Court,
Ireland, dated 2 April 2003, which was received at the Court
Registry on 10 September 2003, for a preliminary ruling in
the case of Ryanair Ltd and Aer Rianta cpt on the following
questions:                                                               Action brought on 5 September 2003 by the Kingdom of
                                                                         the Netherlands against the Commission of the European
A.    Is an airport check-in desk an ‘airport installation’ within                                   Communities
      the meaning of Article 16 (3) of the Directive (1)?
B.    If the answer to A is in the affirmative, is a rent charged                                   (Case C-388/03)
      for the exclusive right to occupy a particular check-in
      desk for a period of one year or greater a fee for access to                                 (2003/C 275/49)
      airport installations within the meaning of Article 16 (3)
      of the Directive?
(1) Council Directive 96/67/EC of 15 October 1996 on access to           An action against the Commission was brought before the
    the groundhandling market at Community airports OJ L 272,            Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 September
    25.10.1996, p. 36-45.                                                2003 by the Kingdom of the Netherlands, represented by
                                                                         H.G. Sevenster, Head of the European Law Division of the
                                                                         Ministry of Foreign Affairs in The Hague.


title: Case T-215/10: Action brought on 11 May 2010 — Hellenic Republic v Commission

text:
               17.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/23

         Action brought on 11 May 2010 — Hellenic Republic v Commission
   (Case T-215/10)
   2010/C 195/38
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: I. Khalkias, G. Skiani and E. Leftheriotou)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               uphold the action and annul the contested Commission decision in its entirety;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its action, the Hellenic Republic seeks the annulment of the Commission decision of 11 March 2010 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF), notified as C(2010) 1317 final and published on 12 March 2010 (OJ 2010 L 63, p. 7) as Decision 2001/152/EU, in so far as it concerns financial corrections imposed on the Hellenic Republic in the fields of (a) cotton, (b) rural development measures and (c) distribution of food to the most deprived.
   With regard to the correction for cotton, the applicant submits, first, that the Commission assessed the facts incorrectly and the reasons stated for the contested decision are defective so far as concerns the control environment and the compatibility of the cotton aid scheme with the IACS (Integrated Administration and Control System) and so far as concerns on-the-spot checks of areas and risk analysis.
   Second, the applicant states that the Commission assessed the facts wrongly and misinterpreted and misapplied Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1591/2001 (1) and Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1051/2001 (2) as regards environmental measures and the inadequate control system and as regards the action taken following the controls which were effected in respect of cotton crops and environmental measures. More specifically, the accusation of a lack of sanctions that the Commission levels against the Hellenic Republic is unfounded in law and in substance, is not based on the provisions of Regulations No 1051/2001 and No 1591/2001, finds no support in any provision in force in the period in question and cannot constitute a lawful factor in the reasoning for the correction imposed by the contested decision.
   Third, the applicant pleads incorrect interpretation and application of the guidelines for flat-rate corrections and infringement of the principle of proportionality given that the risk run by the EAGF was non-existent; also the state of the control system was not the same in the three periods under examination, 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06, in which case the correction should also be graduated.
   Fourth, the applicant maintains that the Commission misinterpreted Article 7(4) of Regulation No 1051/2001 and Article 1 of each of Regulations No 1123/2004, (3) No 905/2005, (4) No 871/2006 (5) and No 1486/2002 (6) which defined the annual actual and eligible quantity of cotton in relation to the one-off corrections in the periods 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06 for the alleged overshooting of the eligible quantity and for the consequent wrongful payment.
   Fifth, the applicant submits that the contested decision contains contradictory reasoning for the corrections and incorrect calculations within the corrections, given the existence of discrepancies and conflicting corrections in the financial years at issue.
   With regard to rural development measures, the applicant submits, first, that the procedure for clearance of the accounts is invalid because of infringement of an essential procedural requirement provided for in subparagraph (a) of the third subparagraph of Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 (7) regarding the failure to engage in bilateral discussion so far as concerns the imposition of a correction for the environmental development measures.
   Second, the applicant contends that the Commission erred as to the facts, assessed the facts incorrectly, gave deficient reasoning and infringed the principle of proportionality, so far as concerns the alleged weaknesses in the IACS, in the basic controls and in the additional controls.
   With regard to the field of distribution of food to the most deprived, the applicant submits, first, that the Commission’s position caused it to entertain legitimate expectations that it would not be burdened with the entire expenditure on the programme for the free distribution of rice; the change in the Commission’s position after the event constitutes an infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and the principle of legal certainty and, in the alternative, amounts to exceeding of the limits of its discretion, if not misuse of powers.
   Second, the applicant pleads that the transport costs that were ascribed to it were calculated incorrectly.
   Third, the applicant maintains that the Commission interpreted and applied Community provisions incorrectly, in particular Article 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 3149/92, (8) infringed the principle of proportionality and exceeded the limits of its discretion.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1591/2001 of 2 August 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying the cotton aid scheme (OJ 2001 L 210, p. 10).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1051/2001 of 22 May 2001 on production aid for cotton (OJ 2001 L 148, p. 3).

      (3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1123/2004 of 17 June 2004 fixing, for the 2003/04 marketing year, the actual production of unginned cotton and the amount by which the guide price is to be reduced as a result (OJ 2004 L 218, p. 3).

      (4)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 905/2005 of 16 June 2005 determining for the 2004/2005 marketing year actual production of unginned cotton and the ensuing guide price reduction (OJ 2005 L 154, p. 3).

      (5)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 871/2006 of 15 June 2006 determining for the 2005/06 marketing year actual production of unginned cotton and the ensuing guide price reduction (OJ 2006 L 164, p. 3).

      (6)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1486/2002 of 19 August 2002 amending Regulation (EC) No 1591/2001 laying down detailed rules for applying the cotton aid scheme (OJ 2002 L 223, p. 3).

      (7)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 of 7 July 1995 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 regarding the procedure for the clearance of the accounts of the EAGGF Guarantee Section (OJ 1995 L 158, p. 6).

      (8)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3149/92 of 29 October 1992 laying down detailed rules for the supply of food from intervention stocks for the benefit of the most deprived persons in the Community (OJ 1992 L 313, p. 50).


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 8 December 1995 in the case of Van Uden Africa Line v. (1) Kommanditgesellschaft in Firma Deco-Line, Peter Determann KG and (2) Peter Determann (Case C-391/95)

text:
17 . 2 . 96              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       No C 46/7
      decisions it wrongly accorded decisive importance to a                   arbitration clause and, if so, what the place of
      measure adopted by the Netherlands Antilles .                            arbitration is according to that clause ?
— Breach and/or misapplication of Article 190 and/or
                                                                           3 . If the answer to Question 1 is that, in order for the court
      Article 215 of the Treaty, and at least of generally
      applicable principles of Community law, in what the                      hearing the interlocutory application to have
      Court of First Instance considered and decided in                        jurisdiction, the relief sought from it must also take
      paragraph 207 of the judgment under appeal, in                           effect, or be capable of taking effect, in the Contracting
                                                                               State concerned, does that mean that the order applied
      particular in drawing from its finding that the damage in
                                                                               for must be capable of enforcement in that State, and is it
      question was in no way unforeseeable the conclusion
                                                                               then necessary for this condition to be fulfilled when the
      that the damage suffered by the applicants did not go
                                                                               interlocutory application is made, or is it sufficient that
      beyond the economic risks inherent in activity in that
      sector .
                                                                               it can be reasonably expected to be fulfilled in the
                                                                               future ?
(') OJ No C 286 , 28 . 10 . 1995 , p . 10 .
( 2 ) OJ No C 171 , 22 . 6 . 1993 , pp . 11 and 12 .                       4 . Does the possibility, provided for in Article 289 et seq.
( 3 ) Council Decision 91 /482/EEC of 25 July 1991 ( OJ 1 991 L 263 ,          of the Netherlands Code of Civil Procedure, of applying
      p. 1 ).                                                                  on grounds of pressing urgency to the President of the
                                                                               Arondissementsrechtbank              ( District  Court )    for
                                                                               immediate anticipatory relief constitute a 'provisional '
                                                                               or 'protective' measure within the meaning of Article 24
                                                                               of the Brussels Convention ?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der                  5 . Does it make any difference to the answer to Question 4
Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 8 December 1995                       whether substantive proceedings on the main issue are,
in      the    case  of     Van     Uden      Africa   Line   v.   (1)         or may become, pending and, if so, is it material that
Kommanditgesellschaft             in  Firma       Deco-Line,     Peter         arbitration proceedings had started in the same case ?
              Determann KG and ( 2 ) Peter Determann
                           ( Case C-391/95 )
                                                                           6 . Does it make any difference to the answer to Question 4
                              ( 96/C 46/ 11 )                                  whether the interim relief sought is an order requiring
                                                                               performance of a payment obligation, as referred to in
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         Question 1 ?
European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden ( Supreme Court of the Netherlands ) of
                                                                           7. If Question 4 must be answered in the affirmative, and
8 December 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry
on 14 December 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of                  'the courts of another Contracting State have
                                                                               jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter', must
Van Uden Maritime BV, trading as Van Uden Africa Line, v.
 ( 1 ) Kommanditgesellschaft in Firma Deco-Line, Peter                         Article 24, and in particular the reference therein to
                                                                                ' such provisional . . . measures as may be available
Determann KG and ( 2 ) Peter Determann on the following
                                                                               under the law of [a Contracting] State', be interpreted as
questions :
                                                                               meaning that the court hearing the application for
                                                                                interim measures ( automatically ) has jurisdiction if it
 1 . Where an obligation to pay a sum or sums due under a                      has jurisdiction under its national jurisdictional rules,
       contract must be performed in a Contracting State — so                  even where the rules in question are those referred to in
       that, under Article 5(1 ) of the Brussels Convention, the               the second paragraph of Article 3 of the Brussels
       creditor is entitled to sue his defaulting debtor before the             Convention, or is its jurisdiction in the latter case
       courts of that State with a view to obtaining                           conditional on the fulfilment of more specific
       performance, even though the debtor is domiciled in the                 conditions, for example that the interim relief sought
       territory of another Contracting State —, do the courts                  from that court must take effect, or be capable of taking
       of the first-mentioned State ( automatically ) have                      effect, in the Contracting State concerned ?
       jurisdiction also to hear and determine a claim brought
       by the creditor against his debtor in interim proceedings
       for an order requiring the debtor, as immediate                     8 . If the answer to Question 7 must be that, in order for the
       provisional relief, to pay a sum which, in the view of the               court hearing the application for interim relief to have
       court hearing the interlocutory application, is very                     jurisdiction, it is also required that the relief sought from
       probably due to the creditor, or do more specific                        it must take effect, or be capable of taking effect, in the
       conditions apply in relation to the jurisdiction of the                  Contracting State concerned, does that mean that the
       court hearing the interlocutory application, for example                 order applied for must be capable of enforcement in that
       the condition that the relief sought from that court must                State, and is it then necessary for this condition to be
       take effect, or be capable of taking effect, in the                      fulfilled when the application for interim relief is made,
       Contracting State concerned ?                                             or is it sufficient that it can reasonably be expected to be
                                                                                fulfilled in the future ?
 2 . Does it make any difference to the answer to Question 1
       whether the contract between the parties contains an


title: Case T-179/16: Action brought on 22 April 2016 — L’Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER SMOKY)

text:
               20.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 222/26

         Action brought on 22 April 2016 — L’Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER SMOKY)
   (Case T-179/16)
   (2016/C 222/32)
   Language in which the application was lodged: French

      Parties

      Applicant: L’Oréal (Paris, France) (represented by: T. de Haan and P. Péters, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Guinot SAS (Paris, France)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘MASTER SMOKY’ — Application for registration No 11 567 104

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 February 2016 in Case R 2905/2014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred by the applicant for the purposes of the proceedings before the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) read in conjunction with Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-84/17 P: Appeal brought on 15 February 2017 by Société des produits Nestlé SA against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2016 in Case T-112/13: Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office

text:
               6.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/4

         Appeal brought on 15 February 2017 by Société des produits Nestlé SA against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2016 in Case T-112/13: Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office
   (Case C-84/17 P)
   (2017/C 178/04)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Société des produits Nestlé SA (represented by: G.S.P. Vos, advocaat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd, European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 15 December 2016, case T-112/13, on that basis that the General Court infringed article 7(3) and 52(2) of the European Union Trade Mark Regulation (‘EUTMR’) (1); and

               —

               order the respondent, applicant before the General Court, Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd, to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Nestlé appeals the General Court’s judgment on the ground that the General Court infringed article 7(3) and article 52(2) of Regulation (EU) No. 207/2009 amended by Regulation (EU) No. 2015/2424 (2), also known as EUTMR.
   More specifically, Nestlé’s appeal is directed against the decision of the General Court that concerning the extent of the territory in which it is necessary to establish distinctive character acquired through use of a mark, the distinctive character acquired through use of that mark must be shown throughout the territory of the European Union, that is, in all the Member States concerned.

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

      (2)  Regulation (EU) 2015/2424 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark and Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 2869/95 on the fees payable to the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OJ 2015, L 341, p. 21).


title: Case F-7/13: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 18 September 2014  — Radelet v European Commission (Civil Service — Officials posted to a third country — Articles 5 and 23 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations — Provision of accommodation by the institution — Authorisation given to the official to rent accommodation — Action for compensation — Non-pecuniary loss — Allocation of uncomfortable and insalubrious accommodation — Lack of proof)

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/50

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 18 September 2014 — Radelet v European Commission
   (Case F-7/13) (1)

   ((Civil Service - Officials posted to a third country - Articles 5 and 23 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations - Provision of accommodation by the institution - Authorisation given to the official to rent accommodation - Action for compensation - Non-pecuniary loss - Allocation of uncomfortable and insalubrious accommodation - Lack of proof))
   2014/C 421/69
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Luc Radelet (Antananarivo, Madagascar) (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Eggers and C. Ehrbar, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Civil Service — Application for annulment of the decision rejecting the claim against the decision taken in response to the request of the applicant, posted to the Commission Delegation in Antananarivo, Madagascar, for compensation for the difficulties encountered when taking up his residence in that city.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Radelet to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 114, 20.4.2013, p. 47.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Civile e Penale di Firenze by order of that court of 8 October 1997 in the criminal proceedings against Massimo and Paolo Romanelli (Case C-366/97)

text:
C 370/4             I EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   6 . 12 . 97
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Centrale Raad                      23 November 1993 concerning the minimum health
van Beroep by judgment of that court of 24 September                         and safety requirements for work on board fishing
1997 in the case of H. Nijhuis v. Landelijk Instituut                        vessels and/or by failing to inform the Commission
                     Sociale Verzekeringen                                   thereof; and
                        ( Case C-360/97 )
                                                                        b ) condemn Ireland to bear the costs of the procedure .
                           ( 97/C 370/07 )
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Centrale Raad                   Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive shall
van Beroep (Higher Social Security Court ) of 24 September              be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each
1997, received at the Court Registry on 22 October 1997,                Member State, carries by implication an obligation on the
for a preliminary ruling in the case of H. Nijhuis v.                   Member States to observe the period for compliance laid
Landelijk Instituut Sociale Verzekeringen on the following              down in the directive. That period expired on
questions .                                                             23 November 1995 without Ireland having enacted the
                                                                        provisions necessary to comply with the directive referred
                                                                        to in the conclusions of the Commission .
1 . When applying Article 46 ( 2 ) in conjunction with
     Article 45 (4 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 , and
     on the basis of Articles 48 and 51 of the EC Treaty, is            (') OJ L 307, 13 . 12 . 1993 , p . 1 .
     point 4 ( a ) of section J of Annex VI to Regulation
     ( EEC ) No 1408/71 ( in the version in force at the
     material time ) to be interpreted as meaning that, in the
     case of a person who has worked exclusively in the
     Netherlands in the period from 15 October 1968 to
     1 April 1974 and who was insured throughout that                   Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Civile
     period against invalidity under a special scheme for               e Penale di Firenze by order of that court of 8 October
     civil servants, that period should also be taken into              1997 in the criminal proceedings against Massimo and
     account in accordance with that section of the annex                                          Paolo Romanelli
     when determining invalidity benefits ?                                                        ( Case C-366/97 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 370/09 )
2 . If so, is the competent institution for the
     determination of benefits on the basis of those periods
     the institution referred to in point 2 ( b ) of section J of       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     Annex 2 to Regulation ( EEC ) No 574/72 or is it the               European Communities by order of the Tribunale Civile e
     competent institution under national law in regard to              Penale di Firenze ( Civil and Criminal District Court,
     invalidity insurance for civil servants, notwithstanding           Florence ) of 8 October 1997, received at the Court
     the fact that the latter institution is not referred to in         Registry on 24 October 1997, for a preliminary ruling in
     the said annex ?                                                   the criminal proceedings against Massimo and Paolo
                                                                        Romanelli on the following question :
                                                                        whether the expression 'repayable funds' contained in
                                                                        Directive 89/646/EEC (') of 15 December 1989 refers only
                                                                        to financial instruments which possess the intrinsic
Action brought on 22 October 1997 by the Commission                     characteristic of repayability or whether that expression
         of the European Communities against Ireland                    refers also to those financial instruments which, although
                                                                        not possessing that intrinsic characteristic, are the subject
                         ( Case C-364/97 )                              of a contractual agreement to repay the amount paid ?
                            ( 97/C 370/08 )
                                                                         (») OJ L 386 , 30 . 12 . 1989, p . 1 .
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 22 October 1997
 by the Commission of the European Communities,
 represented by Mr Pieter Jan Kuijper, legal adviser, acting
 as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                  Action brought on 24 October 1997 by the Commission
 the office of Mr Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, a member of                   of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the
 its Legal Service, Centre Wagner, Luxembourg.                                                          Netherlands
                                                                                Case C-367/97 )
 The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                                ( 97/C 370/ 10 )
 a ) find that Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations
      under the EC Treaty by failing to adopt the laws,                  An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was
      regulations or administrative provisions necessary to              brought before the Court of Justice of the European
      comply     with     Council     Directive    93/103 (')   of       Communities on 24 October 1997 by the Commission of


title: Case C-257/15: Order of the President of the Court of 8 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover — Germany) — Michael Ihden, Gisela Brinkmann v TUIfly GmbH

text:
               26.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 354/28

         Order of the President of the Court of 8 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover — Germany) — Michael Ihden, Gisela Brinkmann v TUIfly GmbH
   (Case C-257/15) (1)

   (2015/C 354/30)
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2015.


title: Case F-22/10: Action brought on 1 April 2010 — Bombín Bombín v Commission

text:
               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/54

         Action brought on 1 April 2010 — Bombín Bombín v Commission
   (Case F-22/10)
   2010/C 148/96
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Luis María Bombín Bombín (Rome, Italy) (represented by: R. Pardo Pedernera, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of the European Commission, in response to the applicant’s complaint, to grant financial compensation in respect of only 12 rather than 29 days of accrued leave which he had not yet taken at the time he began his leave of absence.

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission, issued on 4 January 2010, to grant and pay to the applicant financial compensation for only 12 days;

               —

               grant to the applicant (for calculation purposes and in respect of the financial compensation) all the days of leave (in total 29 days) which he had accrued and had not yet taken at the time he began his leave of absence;

               —

               as to costs, the applicant submits no claim, since he considers that the resolution of the present case by the Tribunal is important for the parties, both being in good faith, and the case does not justify claims in respect thereof.


title: Case C-627/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romania) lodged on 6 December 2011 — S.C. ‘Augustus’ Srl Iași v Agenția de Plăți pentru Dezvoltare Rurală și Pescuit

text:
               3.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/5

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romania) lodged on 6 December 2011 — S.C. ‘Augustus’ Srl Iași v Agenția de Plăți pentru Dezvoltare Rurală și Pescuit
   (Case C-627/11)
   2012/C 65/09
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: S.C. ‘Augustus’ Srl Iași

      Defendant: Agenția de Plăți pentru Dezvoltare Rurală și Pescuit

      Question referred

   Are Council Regulations No 1260/1999 (1) and No 1268/1999 (2) to be interpreted as meaning that the business activity engaged in by the beneficiaries of the SAPARD funds granted in the period preceding the accession of Romania to the European Union must be conducted in compliance with the conditions for the grant of those funds, in accordance with the principle of the economic efficiency and profitability of the beneficiary, given also the specific circumstances relied upon, namely the natural disasters which occurred in the area?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (OJ 1999 L 161, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1268/1999 of 21 June 1999 on Community support for pre-accession measures for agriculture and rural development in the applicant countries of central and eastern Europe in the pre- accession period (OJ 1999 L 161, p. 87).


title: Case C-499/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 16 September 2013 — Marian Macikowski — acting as court enforcement officer for Section I at the Sąd Rejonowy w Chojnicach v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Gdańsku

text:
               14.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 367/22

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 16 September 2013 — Marian Macikowski — acting as court enforcement officer for Section I at the Sąd Rejonowy w Chojnicach v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Gdańsku
   (Case C-499/13)
   2013/C 367/38
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Marian Macikowski — acting as court enforcement officer for Section I at the Sąd Rejonowy w Chojnicach

      Respondent: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Gdańsku

      Questions referred

               1.

               In the light of the system of value added tax resulting from Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (‘the directive’), (1) in particular Articles 9 and 193, in conjunction with Article 199(1)(g) thereof, is a provision of national law permissible, such as that established in Article 18 of the Ustawa o podatku od towarów i usług (Law on the tax on goods and services) of 11 March 2004 (Dziennik Ustaw of 2011, No 177, item 1054, as amended; ‘the VAT Law’), which introduces derogations from the general rules on that tax, in particular with regard to the persons required to calculate and collect the tax, by establishing the concept of paying agent, that is to say, a person who is required, on behalf of the taxable person, to calculate the amount of tax, collect it from the taxable person, and pay it to the tax authority in good time?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative:

                           (a)

                           In the light of the principle of proportionality, which is a general principle of European Union law, is a provision of national law permissible, such as that established in Article 18 of the VAT Law, under which, inter alia, tax on the supply of immovable property effected through enforcement in respect of goods owned by the debtor or in his possession in breach of existing law is calculated, collected and paid by a court enforcement officer carrying out an enforcement action who, as paying agent, bears liability in the event of failure to fulfil that obligation?

                           (b)

                           In the light of Articles 206, 250 and 252 of the directive and of the principle of neutrality arising therefrom, is a provision of national law permissible, such as that established in Article 18 of the VAT Law, under which a paying agent as referred to in that provision is required to calculate, collect and pay, within the tax period of the taxable person, an amount of value added tax on a supply, effected through enforcement, of goods owned by that taxable person or in his possession in breach of the law in force, in an amount comprising the product of the proceeds from the sale of the goods, minus value added tax and the applicable rate of that tax, with no reduction of that amount by the amount of input tax from the beginning of the tax period to the date of the collection of that tax from the taxable person?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case T-443/09 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 20 January 2010 — Agriconsulting Europe v Commission (Application for interim measures — Public procurement — Tendering procedure — Rejection of a tender — Application for suspension of operation and for interim measures — Loss of opportunity — Absence of serious and irreparable damage — No urgency)

text:
               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/47

         Order of the President of the General Court of 20 January 2010 — Agriconsulting Europe v Commission
   (Case T-443/09 R)
   (Application for interim measures - Public procurement - Tendering procedure - Rejection of a tender - Application for suspension of operation and for interim measures - Loss of opportunity - Absence of serious and irreparable damage - No urgency)
   2010/C 63/83
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Agriconsulting Europe SA (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: F. Sciaudone, R. Sciaudone and A. Neri, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bordes and L. Prete, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for interim relief concerning the tendering procedure EuropeAid/127054/C/SER/Multi relating to short-term services in the exclusive interest of third countries benefiting from European Commission external aid.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case C-450/13 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 June 2014  — Donaldson Filtration Deutschland GmbH v ultra air GmbH, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Word mark ultrafilter international — Application for a declaration of invalidity — Abuse of rights)

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/29

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 June 2014 — Donaldson Filtration Deutschland GmbH v ultra air GmbH, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-450/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Community trade mark - Word mark ultrafilter international - Application for a declaration of invalidity - Abuse of rights))
   2014/C 315/45
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Donaldson Filtration Deutschland GmbH (represented by: N. Siebertz, M. Teworte-Vey and A. Renvert, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other parties to the proceedings: ultra air GmbH (represented by: C. König, Rechtsanwalt), Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, acting as Agent)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Donaldson Filtration Deutschland GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 313, 26.10.2013.


title: Case C-191/10: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Rastelli Davide e C. Snc v Jean-Charles Hidoux, in his capacity as liquidator appointed by the court for the company Médiasucre international (Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 — Insolvency proceedings — International jurisdiction — Extension of insolvency proceedings opened in respect of a company established in one Member State to a company whose registered office is in another Member State because the property of the two companies has been intermixed)

text:
               11.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/3

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Rastelli Davide e C. Snc v Jean-Charles Hidoux, in his capacity as liquidator appointed by the court for the company Médiasucre international
   (Case C-191/10) (1)

   (Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 - Insolvency proceedings - International jurisdiction - Extension of insolvency proceedings opened in respect of a company established in one Member State to a company whose registered office is in another Member State because the property of the two companies has been intermixed)
   2012/C 39/04
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Rastelli Davide e C. Snc

      Defendant: Jean-Charles Hidoux, in his capacity as liquidator appointed by the court for the company Médiasucre international

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation — Interpretation of Article 3(1) and (2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1) — International jurisdiction of the French courts to join to insolvency proceedings, opened in respect of a company established on the national territory, a company whose seat is in another Member State, because the property of the two companies has been intermixed — Notions of ‘opening’ and of ‘joinder’ in relation to insolvability proceedings — Determination of the centre of main interests

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings is to be interpreted as meaning that a court of a Member State that has opened main insolvency proceedings against a company, on the view that the centre of the debtor’s main interests is situated in the territory of that Member State, can, under a rule of its national law, join to those proceedings a second company whose registered office is in another Member State only if it is established that the centre of that second company’s main interests is situated in the first Member State.

               2.

               Regulation No 1346/2000 is to be interpreted as meaning that, where a company, whose registered office is situated within the territory of a Member State, is subject to an action that seeks to extend to it the effects of insolvency proceedings opened in another Member State against another company established within the territory of that other Member State, the mere finding that the property of those companies has been intermixed is not sufficient to establish that the centre of the main interests of the company concerned by the action is also situated in that other Member State. In order to reverse the presumption that this centre is the place of the registered office, it is necessary that an overall assessment of all the relevant factors allows it to be established, in a manner ascertainable by third parties, that the actual centre of management and supervision of the company concerned by the joinder action is situated in the Member State where the initial insolvency proceedings were opened.

      (1)  OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.


title: Case T-491/13: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Perfetti Van Melle Benelux v OHIM — Intercontinental Great Brands (TRIDENT PURE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark TRIDENT PURE — Earlier Community, national, international and Benelux figurative and word marks PURE WHITE, mentos PURE FRESH PURE BREATH, PURE, PURE FRESH, mentos PURE FRESH and mentos PURE WHITE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/46

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Perfetti Van Melle Benelux v OHIM — Intercontinental Great Brands (TRIDENT PURE)
   (Case T-491/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark TRIDENT PURE - Earlier Community, national, international and Benelux figurative and word marks PURE WHITE, mentos PURE FRESH PURE BREATH, PURE, PURE FRESH, mentos PURE FRESH and mentos PURE WHITE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 048/51)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Perfetti Van Melle Benelux BV (Breda, Netherlands) (represented by: P. Perani, G. Ghisletti and F. Braga, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Intercontinental Great Brands LLC (East Hanover, New Jersey, United States) (represented by: M. Haak, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 July 2013 (Case R 706/2012-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Perfetti Van Melle Benelux BV and Kraft Foods Global Brands LLC.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Perfetti Van Melle Benelux BV to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 344, 23.11.2013.


title: Judgment of the Court of 31 March 2015 in Case E-21/14 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Failure by an EEA/EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2010/30/EU on product information of energy consumption)

text:
               22.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 350/7

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 31 March 2015
   in Case E-21/14
   EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland
   (Failure by an EEA/EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2010/30/EU on product information of energy consumption)
   (2015/C 350/10)
   In Case E-21/14, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — application for a declaration that by failing, within the time prescribed, to adopt and/or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority forthwith of, the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 4 of Chapter IV of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the indication by labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources by energy-related products), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 31 March 2015, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at point 4 of Chapter IV of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the indication by labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources by energy-related products), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.

               2.

               Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 11 July 1996 in Case C-306/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour Administrative d'Appel de Lyon); Régie Dauphinoise - Cabinet A. Forest Sarl v. Ministre du Budget (Value added tax - Interpretation of Article 19 (2) of the sixth Directive 77/388/EEC - Deduction of input tax - Incidental financial transactions - Calculation of the deductible proportion)

text:
23 . 11 . 96           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 354/ 1
                                                                   I
                                                            (Information)
                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                         COURT OF JUSTICE
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                   owners or lessees is to be included in the denominator of the
                         ( Fifth Chamber )                            fraction used to calculate the deductible proportion.
                         of 11 July 1996
                                                                      (') OJ No C 380 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .
in Case C-306/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Cour Administrative d'Appel de Lyon ); Régie
Dauphinoise — Cabinet A. Forest Sari v. Ministre du
                              Budget (')
( Value added tax — Interpretation of Article 19 (2) of the
sixth Directive 77/388/EEC — Deduction of input tax —
Incidental financial transactions — Calculation of the
                     deductible proportion)                                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           ( 96/C 354/01 )                                                  of 10 September 1996
                                                                      in     Case   C-61/94 : Commission of the               European
                                                                             Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany ( ] )
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                      (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                                International Dairy Arrangement)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                                      ( 96/C 354/02 )
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
In Case C-306/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Cour Administrative d'Appel de
Lyon Administrative Court of Appeal, Lyon ( France ) for a             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                       published in the European Court Reports)
court between Regie Dauphinoise — Cabinet A. Forest Sari
and Ministre du Budget — on the interpretation of
Article 19 ( 2 ) of the sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of         In Case C-61 /94 : Commission of the European
 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the                  Communities ( Agent: Jorn Sack ) v. Federal Republic of
 Member States relating to turnover taxes — common                    Germany ( Agent: Bernd Kloke ) — application for a
 system of value added tax; uniform basis of assessment ( OJ          declaration that the Federal Republic of Germany has failed
 No L 145 , 1977, p. 1 ) — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ),               to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty by authorizing
 composed of: D. A. O. Edward, President of the Chamber,              the importation under inward processing relief
J. P. Puissochet, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida ( Rapporteur ), C.        arrangements of dairy products whose customs value was
 Gulmann and M. Wathelet, Judges; C. O. Lenz,                          lower than the minimum prices set under the International
 Advocate-General ; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the                 Dairy Arrangement, approved on behalf of the Community
 Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 July 1996 , the                 by Council Decision 80/271 /EEC of 10 December 1979
 operative part of which is as follows :                               concerning the conclusion of the Multilateral Agreements
                                                                       resulting from the 1973 to 1979 trade negotiations ( OJ No
                                                                       L 71 , 1980, p. 1 ), and by thus failing to have regard to 1 . the
 Article 19 (2) of the sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of           duty of cooperation laid down in Article 6 ( 1 ) ( a ) of Annex I
 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the                   and in Article 6 ( a ) of Annexes II and III to the Arrangement,
 Member States relating to turnover taxes — common system              2 . the obligation under Article 3 ( 1 ) of each of those
 of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, must be              Annexes and 3 . the economic conditions for the granting of
 interpreted as meaning that the interest realized by a                authorizations for inward processing relief, laid down by
 company managing immovable property on treasury                       Articles 5 to 8 of Council Regulation (EEC ) No 1999/85 on
 placements made for its own account of funds paid by the              inward processing relief arrangements ( OJ No L 188 , 1985,


title: Case C-455/02 P: Appeal brought on 13 December 2002 by Sgaravatti Mediterranea S.r.l. against the judgment delivered on 26 September 2002 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-199/99 between Sgaravatti Mediterranea S.r.l and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
22.2.2003              EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 44/13
(3) Is Directive 90/605/EEC compatible with the general                     of certain alleged irregularities in its conduct. According to the
      principle of equality in so far as it places at a disadvantage        applicant, the Customs Service merely has jurisdiction to
      those Kommanditgesellschaften whose personally liable                 record in its statements facts gathered during the course of its
      partner is a private limited company as compared with                 investigations. It is not competent to evaluate those facts and
      Kommanditgesellschaften whose personally liable partner               the Commission ought to have conducted its own investigation
      is a natural person, even though creditors of a GmbH &                of the matter. The applicant says that, in finding the Customs
      Co. KG (a limited partnership in which the unlimited                  Service’s statement to be sufficient proof, the Court of First
      partner is a private company) are better protected by the             Instance erred in law and its judgment is thereby vitiated.
      duty of disclosure imposed on private limited companies
      than are creditors of a Kommanditgesellschaft whose
      personally liable partner, as a natural person, is not under
      any duties of disclosure?                                             The applicant maintains that the judgment is also vitiated by
                                                                            the fact that the Court failed to give consideration to the
                                                                            subjective element as a decisive factor in determining whether
( 1) OJ L 317 of 16.11.1990, p. 60.                                         a decision to withdraw a certain grant was permissible. The
( 2) OJ L 222 of 14.8.1978, p. 11.
                                                                            Court should have distinguished between the possible case of a
                                                                            culpable, but not fraudulent, breach of the financial conditions,
                                                                            such as would justify no more than the reduction or suspension
                                                                            of the grant, and a fraudulent breach of the financial conditions,
                                                                            entitling the Commission to withdraw the grant in its entirety.
Appeal brought on 13 December 2002 by Sgaravatti
Mediterranea S.r.l. against the judgment delivered on
                                                                            Lastly, the applicant maintains that the Court’s finding that
26 September 2002 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of
                                                                            there is no possibility of a breach of the principle of ne bis in
First Instance of the European Communities in Case
                                                                            idem is questionable, given that the sanction imposed by means
T-199/99 between Sgaravatti Mediterranea S.r.l and the
                                                                            of the injunction issued in Italy came after the Community
          Commission of the European Communities
                                                                            decision. According to the applicant, when the Commission
                                                                            decided to withdraw the grant which was due it knew or ought
                        (Case C-455/02 P)                                   to have known that an administrative sanction would be
                                                                            handed down in Italy.
                         (2003/C 44/25)
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 26 September
2002 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities in Case T-199/99 between
Sgaravatti Mediterranea S.r.l and the Commission of the
European Communities was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 13 December 2002
by Sgaravatti Mediterranea S.r.l., a company with registered
offices in Capoterra (CA), Italy, represented by Massimo Merola             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal du
and Piero A.M. Ferrari, Lawyers.                                            Travail de Bruxelles by judgment of that Court of 21 No-
                                                                            vember 2002 in the proceedings between Michel Trojani
                                                                                and Le Centre Public d’Aide Sociale de Bruxelles
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance delivered
      on 26 September 2002 in Case T-199/99;                                                        (Case C-456/02)
—     annul Commission Decision C(1999) 1502 of 4 June
      1990 or, in the alternative, refer the case back to the                                        (2003/C 44/26)
      Court of First Instance in accordance with Article 54 of
      the EC Statute of the Court of Justice;
—     in any event, order the Commission to pay the costs of
      both sets of proceedings.
                                                                            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                            European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal du Travail
Pleas in law and main arguments                                             de Bruxelles (Labour Court, Brussels) of 21 November 2002,
                                                                            received at the Court Registry on 18 December 2002, for a
                                                                            preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Michel Trojani
The applicant takes issue with the improper use of a statement              and Le Centre Public d’Aide Sociale de Bruxelles on the
made by the Customs Service as evidence, sufficient in itself,              following questions:


title: Case C-61/12: Action brought on 6 February 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Lithuania

text:
               21.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/12

         Action brought on 6 February 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Lithuania
   (Case C-61/12)
   2012/C 118/20
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Steiblytė, G. Wilms and G. Zavvos)

      Defendant: Republic of Lithuania

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by prohibiting the registration of passenger cars whose steering wheel is mounted on the right-hand side and/or requiring prior to registration that a steering wheel mounted on the right-hand side of a new passenger car or of a passenger car previously registered in another Member State be transferred to the left-hand side, the Republic of Lithuania has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 70/311/EEC (1) of 8 June 1970 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the steering equipment for motor vehicles and their trailers, Directive 2007/46/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles, and Article 34 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

               —

               order the Republic of Lithuania to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               Under legal measures of the Republic of Lithuania it is not permitted to register new passenger cars with the steering equipment on the right-hand side, although such cars satisfy all the requirements laid down in Framework Directive 2007/46/EC and in the separate directives specified in Annex IV thereto. On 29 April 2009 Directive 2007/46/EC repealed and amended Directive 70/156/EEC. (3) The Member States had to transpose the provisions of Directive 2007/46/EC into national law before 29 April 2009.

               2.

               Under Article 4(3) of Framework Directive 2007/46/EC, the competent institutions of a Member State must register a new passenger car if it satisfies the technical requirements laid down in that directive and the separate directives. Directive 2007/46/EC does not provide for the possibility to refuse to register a new passenger car by having regard to the side on which the steering equipment is mounted. This conclusion is also confirmed by the provisions of the separate Directive 70/311/EEC which are specified in Annex IV to the Framework Directive. Article 2a of Directive 70/311/EEC prohibits a Member State from refusing registration of a passenger car on grounds relating to its steering equipment if this equipment satisfies the requirements set out in that directive. It is not specified in the annexes to Directive 70/311/EEC on what side the steering equipment, including the steering wheel, has to be mounted, nor, all the more, is it specified that the side of the road on which the car is to be driven determines the side of the steering equipment in the car.

               3.

               Where a passenger car satisfies all the requirements of the directives referred to, there is no reason that could enable Member States in which the traffic drives on the right-hand side of the road to demand that the steering wheel be transferred to the left-hand side in order for the car to be registered. With a view to ensuring road safety, adaptation, pursuant to the Framework Directive and the separate directives, of a car with the steering wheel on the right-hand side to traffic on the right-hand side of the road does not require transfer of the steering wheel to the left-hand side.

               4.

               It is also not permitted under the legal measures of the Republic of Lithuania to register passenger cars previously registered in another Member State whose steering equipment is on the right-hand side. It is to be noted that in the legal measures of the Republic of Lithuania no distinction is drawn according to whether previously such a car was registered in a Member State in which the traffic drives on the left-hand side of the road or in a Member State where the traffic drives on the right-hand side of the road.

               5.

               Article 34 TFEU, which prohibits quantitative restrictions on trade and all measures having equivalent effect, is applicable to such prohibitions. On the basis of settled case-law of the Court of Justice, legal measures of the Member States which are capable of hindering, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, trade within the European Union are to be considered measures having an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions on trade.

               6.

               The prohibition applied in the Republic of Lithuania preventing the registration of passenger cars with the steering equipment on the right-hand side, where those cars were previously registered in another Member State, has an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions under Article 34 TFEU, because goods of another State (passenger cars manufactured and registered in another Member State) cannot be exploited in the Lithuanian market unless their steering equipment is transferred to the other side. The refusal to register cars with the steering wheel on the right-hand side compels the owners of such cars to carry out the comparatively expensive transfer of the steering equipment and discourages the import of such cars into the Republic of Lithuania.

               7.

               The refusal in the Republic of Lithuania to register passenger cars with the steering wheel on the right-hand side is not an appropriate means of ensuring road safety. In the Commission’s view, a car with the steering wheel on the right-hand side does not give rise to road-safety problems, but the driver must get accustomed to driving a car with the steering equipment on the right-hand side on the right-hand side of the road so that the driving of such a car does not give rise to danger for other road users. The Commission would wish to draw the Court of Justice’s attention to the incoherence of the Republic of Lithuania’s position: persons on occasion driving passenger cars with the steering wheel on the right-hand side (for example tourists), who are not accustomed to the particular circumstances of traffic on the right-hand side of the road, give rise to a greater threat to road safety than drivers permanently driving such cars on the right-hand side of the road. Over time, drivers permanently driving passenger cars with the steering wheel on the right-hand side get accustomed to traffic driving on the right-hand side of the road and do not give rise to any threat to road safety.

      (1)  Council Directive 70/311/EEC of 8 June 1970 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the steering equipment for motor vehicles and their trailers (OJ, English Special Edition 1970 (II), p. 375).

      (2)  Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (Framework Directive) (OJ 2007 L 263, p. 1).

      (3)  Council Directive 70/156/EEC of 6 February 1970 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the type-approval of motor vehicles and their trailers (OJ, English Special Edition 1970 (I), p. 96).


title: Case F-70/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 2 August 2016 — Polizzi v Commission (Civil service — Contract staff — Pensions — Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Transfer to the EU pension scheme of pension rights acquired under a national pension scheme — Decision recognising the crediting of pensionable years applying the new GIP relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

text:
               3.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 364/55

      Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 2 August 2016 — Polizzi v Commission
      (Case F-70/15) (1)

      ((Civil service - Contract staff - Pensions - Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Transfer to the EU pension scheme of pension rights acquired under a national pension scheme - Decision recognising the crediting of pensionable years applying the new GIP relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded))
      (2016/C 364/72)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Rosalba Polizzi (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially J. Currall and G. Gattinara, Agents, then G. Gattinara, Agent)

         Subject-matter of the case

      Action for annulment of the final decision transferring the applicant’s pension rights to the EU pension scheme, which applies the new general implementing provisions (GIP) of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII of the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011.

         Operative part of the order

                  1)

                  The action is dismissed as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded.

                  2)

                  The parties shall bear their own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 245, 27.7.2015, p 49.


title: Case C-220/13 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 July 2014  — Kalliopi Nikolaou v Court of Auditors of the European Union (Appeal — Non-contractual liability — Omissions on the part of the Court of Auditors — Claim for compensation for harm caused — Principle of the presumption of innocence — Principle of sincere cooperation — Powers — Conduct of preliminary investigations)

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/15

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 July 2014 — Kalliopi Nikolaou v Court of Auditors of the European Union
   (Case C-220/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Non-contractual liability - Omissions on the part of the Court of Auditors - Claim for compensation for harm caused - Principle of the presumption of innocence - Principle of sincere cooperation - Powers - Conduct of preliminary investigations))
   2014/C 315/21
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Appellant: Kalliopi Nikolaou (represented by: V. Christianos and S. Paliou, dikigoroi)

      Other party to the proceedings: Court of Auditors of the European Union (represented by: T. Kennedy and I. Ní Riagáin Düro, Agents, and P. Tridimas, Barrister)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2)

               Orders Ms Kalliopi Nikolaou to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 189, 29.6.2013.


title: Case T-389/15: Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2017 — J & Joy v EUIPO — Joy-Sportswear (J&JOY) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — EU figurative mark J&JOY — Earlier national figurative mark joy SPORTSWEAR — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the goods — Similarity of the signs — Assessment criteria — Composite mark — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               15.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/31

         Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2017 — J & Joy v EUIPO — Joy-Sportswear (J&JOY)
   (Case T-389/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - EU figurative mark J&JOY - Earlier national figurative mark joy SPORTSWEAR - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the goods - Similarity of the signs - Assessment criteria - Composite mark - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 151/39)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: J & Joy SA (Waremme, Belgium) (represented by: A. Maqua, C. Pirenne and C. Smits, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: H. O’Neill, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Joy-Sportswear GmbH (Ottensoos, Germany) (represented by: T. Kiphuth, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 April 2015 (Case R 1355/2014-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Joy-Sportswear and J & Joy.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders J & Joy SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 381, 16.11.2015.