title: Case C-48/06: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2002/90/EC — Facilitation of unauthorised entry, transit and residence — Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/18

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-48/06) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2002/90/EC - Facilitation of unauthorised entry, transit and residence - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)
   (2006/C 331/31)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. O'Reilly, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: S. Schreiner, acting as Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2002/90/EC of 28 November 2002 defining the facilitation of unauthorised entry, transit and residence (OJ 2002 L 328, p. 17)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2002/90/EC of 28 November 2002 defining the facilitation of unauthorised entry, transit and residence, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 60, 11.3.2006.


title: Case T-844/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — GRE v EUIPO (Mark1) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark Mark1 — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               27.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — GRE v EUIPO (Mark1)
   (Case T-844/14) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark Mark1 - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 232/21)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH (Kloster Lehnin, Germany) (represented by: I. Memmler and S. Schulz, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 October 2014 (Case R 648/2014-1) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign Mark1 as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

      (1)  OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.


title: References for preliminary rulings by Juzgado de lo Social No 1, Santiago de Compostela, by order of that court of 13 March 1995 in the cases of Manuel Eugenio Fernández Balado and José Paredes v. Instituto Nacional de Empleo and Instituto Nacional de Seguridad Social (Cases C-102/95 and C-103/95)

text:
3 . 6 . 95             EN |                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 137/ 13
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht                    amended by Royal Decree Law 3/89 of 31 March 1989
Bremen by order of that court of 7 March 1995 in the case of                 ( now Article 215 ( 3 ) of Royal Legislative Decree 1 /1994
            Brigitte Kording v. Senator fur Finanzen                         of 20 June 1994 ) be considered an unemployment
                         ( Case C-100/95 )                                   benefit within the meaning of Article 4 ( 1 ) of Regulation
                                                                             ( EEC ) No 1408/71 ?
                           ( 95/C 137/26 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        If the foregoing question is answered in the affirmative :
European Communities by an order of the Finanzgericht
( Finance Court ) Bremen, Second Senate, of 7 March 1995 ,              2 . Must Article 67 ( 1 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 ( in
which was received at the Court Registry on 30 March                         its present version ) be interpreted, as regards the
1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Brigitte Kording              particular facts to which it is to be applied , as meaning
v. Senator fur Finanzen on the following question :                          that periods of insurance or of employment completed
                                                                             under the legislation of any other Member State must be
Is there an infringement, in the form of ' indirect                          taken into account for the purposes of obtaining the
discrimination against women', of Article 3 ( 1 ) of Directive               unemployment allowance for persons over 52 years of
76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 (') or other Community                         age, provided for by Article 215 ( 3 ) of Royal Legislative
law, where, under domestic legislation ( Paragraph 38 ( 1 ),                 Decree 1 /1994 of 20 June 1994, which approves the
                                                                             consolidated version of the General Law on Social
No 4a , second subparagraph, in conjunction with
Paragraph 36 ( 3 ) of the Steuerberatungsgesetz ( Law on Tax                 Security, to the extent to which the right to a retirement
Consultancy ), the 15-year minimum period of employment                      pension may be obtained on the basis of such
as a case officer in the executive class of the revenue                      contributions, subject to age requirements , in a Member
administration, which is required for exemption from the                     State other than that of the competent institution ?
tax consultants ' examination, is proportionately extended
in the case of part-time employment involving working                   3 . Can that be the case even though the worker has not
hours of no less than one-half of the normal working hours ,                 paid contributions in Spain or has paid contributions for
and where, of the 119 part-time executive-class officers in                  less than one year, provided that he is entitled to a
the Bremen revenue administration, 110 are women                             retirement pension in any Member State ?
( 92,4% )?
                                                                        4 . Is the requirement that, for migrant workers to receive
(') OJ No L 39 , 14 . 2 . 1976 , p . 40 .                                    the unemployment allowance available for persons of
                                                                             more than 52 years of age, it must be shown that, subject
                                                                             to age requirements , they are entitled to a retirement
                                                                             pension payable by the Spanish social security scheme
                                                                              ( persons having such an entitlement in any other
                                                                             Member State being precluded from receiving such
                                                                             allowance ) contrary to Articles 48 ( 2 ) and 51 of the EC
                                                                             Treaty ?
References for preliminary rulings by Juzgado de lo Social
No 1 , Santiago de Compostela, by order of that court of
 13 March 1995 in the cases of Manuel Eugenio Fernandez
Balado and Jose Paredes v. Instituto Nacional de Empleo
           and Instituto Nacional de Seguridad Social
                ( Cases C-102/95 and C-103/95 )
                            ( 95 /C 137/27 )
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
                                                                        Bundesgerichtshof by order of that court of 6 March 1995
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  in the case of MSG, Mainschiffahrts-Genossenschaft e.G.
European Communities by an order of Juzgado de lo Social                                v. Les Gravieres Rhenanes Sari
 ( Social Court) No 1 , Santiago de Compostela, of 13 March                                      Case C-106/95 )
 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on                                               ( 95/C 137/28 )
 13 March 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the cases of
Manuel Eugenio Fernandez Balado and Jose Paredes against
Instituto Nacional de Empleo ( National Employment                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Institute ) and Instituto Nacional de Seguridad Social
                                                                        European Communities by an order of the
 ( National Social Security Institute ) on the following
                                                                        Bundesgerichtshof ( Federal Court of Justice ) — Second
 questions :                                                            Civil Senate — of 6 March 1995 , which was received at the
                                                                         Court Registry on 31 March 1995 , for a preliminary ruling
 1 . Must the unemployment allowance for persons over 52                in the case of MSG, Mainschiffahrts-Genossenschaft e.G.
      years of age applied for by the plaintiff, provided for by        v. Les Gravieres Rhenanes Sari on the following
      Article 13 ( 2 ) of Law 31 /84 of 2 August 1984, as                questions :


title: Case T-320/05: Action brought on 23 August 2005 — Maccanti v European Economic and Social Committee

text:
               12.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/25

         Action brought on 23 August 2005 — Maccanti v European Economic and Social Committee
   (Case T-320/05)
   (2005/C 281/47)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Sandra Maccanti (Woluwé-St-Pierre, Belgium) (represented by: L. Vogel, lawyer)

      Defendants: European Economic and Social Committee
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision adopted by the appointing authority on 11 May 2005 (notified on 13 May 2005) rejecting the applicant's complaint of 22 March 2005 challenging her grading when her contract as a member of the temporary staff, previously entered into on 7 July 2004, was renewed on 23 December 2004;

               —

               So far as may be necessary, also annul the decision setting the grade in the contract extending her employment as a member of the temporary staff, signed on 23 December 2004;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant was recruited as a member of the temporary staff of the European Economic and Social Committee for an initial period of six months beginning on 1 January 2004. That contract was then renewed for the period from 7 July 2004 to 31 December 2004. Upon that renewal she was graded at Grade B*4, step 2, passing then upon an advance in step in December 2004 to Grade B*4/3.
   On 23 December 2004, the applicant was invited to sign a new contract renewing her engagement until 31 December 2006. In the new contract, she was graded at Grade B*3/1.
   By the present action, the applicant challenges that less favourable grading. She alleges an infringement of Articles 8 and 15 of the conditions of employment of other servants of the European Communities. In her view, it is clear from those provisions that the renewal of a contract of a member of the temporary staff is merely an extension in time of its effects and that, therefore, the grading of that member cannot be changed on the occasion of that renewal.
   The applicant further alleges an infringement of the principle of non-discrimination, submitting that some of the members of the defendant's temporary staff had their contracts renewed keeping their original grading, and infringement of her legitimate expectations.


title: Case C-541/10 P: Appeal brought on 22 November 2010 by Quinta do Portal SA against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 8 September 2010 in Case T-369/09 Quinta do Portal v OHIM

text:
               5.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/4

         Appeal brought on 22 November 2010 by Quinta do Portal SA against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 8 September 2010 in Case T-369/09 Quinta do Portal v OHIM

   (Case C-541/10 P)
   2011/C 38/05
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Appellant: Quinta do Portal (represented by Bolota Belchior, advogado)

      Other parties to the proceedings: the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Vallegre — Vinhos do Porto, SA

      Form of order sought

               —

               Setting aside of the judgment of the General Court in its entirety;

               —

               a declaration allowing in full the appellant’s claims at first instance, namely, annulment of the decision of 18 June 2009 of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (‘the Office’), which dismissed the appeal brought against the decision of the Community trade marks Cancellation Division which, in its turn, declared invalid the Community trade mark No 004009908 PORTO ALEGRE registered on 16 May 2006, published in Community Trade Marks Bulletin No 30/2005 of 25 July 2005 (Case R 1012/2008-1);

               —

               an order that the respondent should pay the costs at both instances.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The words ‘Porto Alegre’ and ‘Vista Alegre’ are dissimilar conceptually, as regards the dominant element of the mark as a whole, and dissimilar graphically and phonetically, for the two words of the two trade marks are different.
   The decisive factor in the distinctiveness of the Community trade mark applied for is the combination of the words ‘Porto’ and ‘Alegre’, which form, together, a single logical and conceptual unit.
   The word ‘Alegre’ does not form the dominant element of the Community trade mark. Having regard to the effect of that issue in evaluating the similarity of signs, it must be noted that that is not so in the present case.
   The judgment under appeal misinterpreted Article 8(1)(b) of both Regulation No 40/94 (1) and Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (2) (the wording is the same in the two regulations), so infringing them.
   The judgment under appeal failed to take into account those arguments raised in the action before the General Court, for it did not assess them.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

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


title: Case C-540/14 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 June 2016 — DK Recycling und Roheisen GmbH v European Commission (Appeal — Environment — Directive 2003/87/EC — Article 10a — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading — Transitional rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances from 2013 — Decision 2011/278/EU — National implementation measures submitted by the Federal Republic of Germany — Rejection of the inscription of certain installations on the lists of installations receiving free allocations of emission allowances — Provision relating to cases of ‘undue hardship’ — Implementing powers of the Commission)

text:
               29.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/2

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 June 2016 — DK Recycling und Roheisen GmbH v European Commission
   (Case C-540/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Environment - Directive 2003/87/EC - Article 10a - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading - Transitional rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances from 2013 - Decision 2011/278/EU - National implementation measures submitted by the Federal Republic of Germany - Rejection of the inscription of certain installations on the lists of installations receiving free allocations of emission allowances - Provision relating to cases of ‘undue hardship’ - Implementing powers of the Commission))
   (2016/C 314/02)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: DK Recycling und Roheisen GmbH (represented by: S. Altenschmidt and P.-A. Schütter, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: E. White, C. Hermes and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders DK Recycling und Roheisen GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2015.


title: Case T-555/10: Action brought on 3 December 2010 — JBF RAK v Council

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/54

         Action brought on 3 December 2010 — JBF RAK v Council
   (Case T-555/10)
   ()
   2011/C 30/96
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: JBF RAK LLC, Al Jazeerah Al Hamra, Ras Al Khaimah, United Arab Emirates (represented by: B. Servais, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 857/2010 of 27 September 2010 imposing a definitive countervailing duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in Iran, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates (1);

               —

               order the Council to bear the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Council violated Article 15(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 (2) insofar as it disregarded the fact that imports of raw materials consigned from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia were not subject to import duties and, thus, erred in calculating the subsidy margin. The applicant submits that, in the present case, the Council failed:

                           —

                           to correctly establish the amount of countervailable subsidy since it did not take into consideration the existence of a customs union between the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members;

                           —

                           to take into consideration the impact of such customs union on the amount of countervailable subsidies.

                     Accordingly, the applicant submits that the countervailing duty exceeds the amount of countervailable subsidy established in the investigation.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Council violated Article 30(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 insofar as it refused to take into account the representations timely made by the applicant on 5 August 2010.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Council violated Article 11(8) of Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 insofar as it failed to examine the accuracy of the information presented by the applicant on 5 August 2010.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council violated the principle of sound administration insofar as it adopted the contested regulation without taking into consideration all the information that was available to it.

      (1)  OJ 2010 L 254, p. 10

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community, OJ 2009 L 188, p. 93


title: Case F-60/14: Action brought on 30 June 2014  — ZZ v Commission

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/60

         Action brought on 30 June 2014 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-60/14)
   2014/C 421/87
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the proposed crediting of pensionable years relating to the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights to the Union pension scheme applying the new GIP relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               declare illegal and inapplicable Article 9 of the general implementing provisions for Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations;

               —

               annul the decision of 4 November 2013 to quantify pension rights acquired prior to his entering the service, as part of the transfer of those rights to the pension scheme of the institutions of the European Union, pursuant to the general implementing provisions for Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-86/05: Action brought on 22 February 2005 by K & L Ruppert Stiftung & Co. Handels-KG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               25.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/22

         Action brought on 22 February 2005 by K & L Ruppert Stiftung & Co. Handels-KG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case T-86/05)
   (2005/C 155/45)
   Language in which the application was submitted: German
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 22 February 2005 by K & L Ruppert Stiftung & Co. Handels-KG, established in Weilheim (Germany), represented by D. Spohn, lawyer.
   Natália Cristina Lopes de Almeida Cunha, Cláudia Couto Simões and Marly Lima Jatobá, residing at Vila Nova de Gaia (Portugal), were also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 7 December 2004 in Case R 328/2004-1;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               Applicants for Community trade mark:

               Natália Cristina Lopes de Almeida Cunha, Cláudia Couto Simões and Marly Lima Jatobá

               Community trade mark concerned:

               Figurative mark ‘CORPO livre’ for goods in Classes 18 and 25 (Bags, clothing …) — Application No 1811470

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               The applicant

               Mark or sign cited in opposition:

               National and international word mark ‘LIVRE’ for goods in Class 25 (Clothing and shoes)

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               The opposition was rejected as the evidence of use submitted was regarded as having been submitted out of time, and use of the earlier mark was therefore deemed not to have been established.

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Dismissal of the applicant's appeal.

               Pleas in law:

               Incorrect application of Rule 71, in conjunction with Rule 22, of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (1) and Article 74(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94.
               Those provisions afford a margin of discretion in relation to consideration of evidence in inter partes proceedings too. However, the defendant did not exercise that discretion.

      (1)  OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1.


title: Case F-24/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 18 March 2015 — Rajala v OHIM (Civil service — Officials — Reports procedure — Appraisal report — General assessment of performance — Consistency)

text:
               4.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 146/44

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 18 March 2015 — Rajala v OHIM
   (Case F-24/14) (1)

   ((Civil service - Officials - Reports procedure - Appraisal report - General assessment of performance - Consistency))
   (2015/C 146/59)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Tuula Rajala (El Campello, Spain) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the applicant’s appraisal report in respect of the period from 1 October 2011 to 31 December 2012.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Declares that Ms Rajala is to bear half of her own costs;

               3.

               Declares that the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay half of the costs incurred by Ms Rajala.

      (1)  OJ C 175, 10.6.2014, p. 55.


title: Case T-227/12: Action brought on 30 May 2012 — Saobraćajni institut CIP v Commission

text:
               28.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 227/26

         Action brought on 30 May 2012 — Saobraćajni institut CIP v Commission
   (Case T-227/12)
   2012/C 227/45
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Saobraćajni institut CIP d.o.o. (Belgrade, Serbia) (represented by: A. Lojpur, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul a call for tender published on 3 April 2012, concerning preparation of technical documentation for the rail modernization project ‘Construction of new single track railway bypass of Niš, from Robna station to Sicevo station’ in accordance with EU interoperability standards, AGC, AGTC and the SEECP Agreement (OJ 2012/S 65-104847), excluding the applicant from participating in it;

               —

               Award damages for the alleged pecuniary loss;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that there was no legal ground for a priori exclusion of the applicant in participating in a call for tender in question since there was no conflict of interest;

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that the applicant’s exclusion from tender is contrary to IPA Regulation (1);

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that the conditions for awarding the contract were unlawful.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1085/2006 of 17.7.2006 establishing an Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) (OJ L 210, p. 82)


title: Case C-305/05: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 June 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle (formerly Cour d'arbitrage) (Belgium)) — Ordre des barreaux francophones and germanophone, Ordre français des avocats du barreau de Bruxelles, Ordre des barreaux flamands, Ordre néerlandais des avocats du barreau de Bruxelles v Conseil des Ministres (Directive 91/308/EEC — Prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering — Obligation on lawyers to inform the competent authorities of any fact which might be an indication of money laundering — Right to a fair trial — Professional secrecy and the independence of lawyers)

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/6

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 June 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle (formerly Cour d'arbitrage) (Belgium)) — Ordre des barreaux francophones and germanophone, Ordre français des avocats du barreau de Bruxelles, Ordre des barreaux flamands, Ordre néerlandais des avocats du barreau de Bruxelles v Conseil des Ministres
   (Case C-305/05) (1)

   (Directive 91/308/EEC - Prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering - Obligation on lawyers to inform the competent authorities of any fact which might be an indication of money laundering - Right to a fair trial - Professional secrecy and the independence of lawyers)
   (2007/C 199/08)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Cour constitutionnelle (formerly Cour d'arbitrage)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone, Ordre français des avocats du barreau de Bruxelles, Ordre des barreaux flamands, Ordre néerlandais des avocats du barreau de Bruxelles

      Defendant: Conseil des Ministres

      Intervening parties: Conseil des barreaux de l'Union européenne, Ordre des avocats du barreau de Liège
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour constitutionnelle (formerly Cour d'arbitrage) — Validity of Article 1(2) of Directive 2001/97/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 December 2001 amending Council Directive 91/308/EEC on prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering (OJ 2001 L 344, p. 76) — Right to a fair trial as guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union — Principles of professional secrecy and the independence of lawyers — Obligation on lawyers to inform the authorities responsible for the fight against money laundering of any fact which might be an indication of such laundering
   Operative part of the judgment
   The obligations of information and of cooperation with the authorities responsible for combating money laundering, laid down in Article 6(1) of Council Directive 91/308/EEC of 10 June 1991 on prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering, as amended by Directive 2001/97/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 December 2001, and imposed on lawyers by Article 2a(5) of Directive 91/308, account being taken of the second subparagraph of Article 6(3) thereof, do not infringe the right to a fair trial as guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 6(2) EU.

      (1)  OJ C 243, 1.10.2005.


title: Case C-214/09 P: Appeal brought on 12 June 2009 by Anheuser-Busch, Inc. against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) delivered on 25 March 2009 in Case T-191/07: Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik

text:
               15.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/13

         Appeal brought on 12 June 2009 by Anheuser-Busch, Inc. against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) delivered on 25 March 2009 in Case T-191/07: Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik
   (Case C-214/09 P)
   2009/C 193/18
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (represented by: V. von Bomhard, Rechtsanwältin, B. Goebel, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 25 March 2009 in Case T-191/07 and

               —

               order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the applicant at first instance.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Anheuser-Busch advances three grounds of appeal, namely, first, a violation of Article 41(2) 3rd sentence Regulation No. 207/2009 (1) in connection with Rules 16(1), (3) and 20(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No. 2868/95 (2) of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No. 40/94 (3) on the Community trade mark, second, a violation of Article 76(2) Regulation No. 207/2009, and third, a violation of Article 42(2), (3) Regulation No. 207/2009.
   The first two pleas concern procedural matters. Anheuser-Busch submits that these are of importance here. Only by taking into account the earlier registration IR 238 203 could the Board of Appeal decide the opposition based on Article 8(a) Regulation 207/2009, inasmuch as it concerned beers. This also meant that the arguments made previously in the course of the opposition proceedings as to whether the word ‘Budweiser’ dominated Budvar's figurative marks were disregarded.
   The Court of First Instrance erred when considering that Budvar had been under no legal obligation to submit evidence of the continued validity (i.e. renewal) of its registration IR 238 203. This obligation resulted from Article 41(2) 3rd sentence Regulation No. 207/2009 read in conjunction with Rules 16(1), (3) and 20(2) Implementing Regulation 1995, and the notification issued by OHIM on 18 January 2002, reiterating the invitation for Budvar to submit ‘any further facts, evidence and arguments in support of his opposition’. The obligation was to submit such evidence by the deadline set in this notification, i.e. by 26 February 2002. Nevertheless, it was not submitted until 21 January 2004.
   As a consequence, the finding of the Court of First Instance that Article 76(2) Regulation No. 207/2009 did not apply with respect to the submission of the renewal certificate, as there was no ‘due time’ for this submission, was also erroneous, and resulted in a violation of this provision. In fact there was a ‘due time’ and the Board of Appeal would have had to at least exercise its discretion under Article 76(2) as to whether it was going to take the evidence into account. The Court of First Instance has read the Board of Appeal decision as saying that the renewal certificate was filed in good time. As a result, the violation of Article 76(2) lay in the non-use of discretion by the Board of Appeal, and its confirmation by the Court of First Instance.
   The Court of First Instance also failed to recognise that the evidence of use submitted by Budvar in support of its opposition was insufficient and referred, moreover, to trade marks other than the one on which the contested decision and the underlying Board of Appeal decision were based, thereby violating Article 42(2), (3) Regulation No. 207/2009.

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

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark OJ L 303, p. 1

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


title: Case C-98/17 P: Appeal brought on 24 February 2017 by Koninklijke Philips NV, Philips France against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2016 in Case T-762/14: Koninklijke Philips NV, Philips France v Commission

text:
               18.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/18

         Appeal brought on 24 February 2017 by Koninklijke Philips NV, Philips France against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2016 in Case T-762/14: Koninklijke Philips NV, Philips France v Commission
   (Case C-98/17 P)
   (2017/C 121/26)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Koninklijke Philips NV, Philips France (represented by: J.K. de Pree, advocaat, T.M. Snoep, advocaat, A.M. ter Haar, advocaat)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal;

               —

               annul the decision in so far as it concerns Koninklijke Philips NV and Philips France; and/or

               —

               annul or reduce the fines imposed on Koninklijke Philips NV and Philips France; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs in first instance and on appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on the following main pleas in law and arguments:

               —

               The General Court erred in law by applying a wrong legal standard in establishing a restriction of competition by object.

               —

               In establishing a restriction of competition by object, the General Court erred in law by exceeding its unlimited jurisdiction.

               —

               In establishing a restriction of competition by object, the General Court erred in law by breaching its obligation to state reasons.

               —

               The General Court applied a clearly and manifestly incorrect assessment of the existing evidence in the file, resulting in a distortion of the clear sense of the evidence, in finding that the alleged common object finds support in other evidence.

               —

               The General Court erred in law by applying the wrong legal standard and by distorting the clear sense of the evidence by considering that Philips participated in a single and continuous infringement as a whole and, as such, could be held liable for it.

               —

               The General Court erred in law by misapplying the principle of proportionality and by failing to exercise its unlimited jurisdiction by rejecting Philips' plea that the gravity factor applied was disproportionate to the infringement and Philips' role therein.


title: Joined Cases C-587/13 P and C-588/13 P: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 15 January 2015 — Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, SA, Telefónica SA v European Commission (Appeals — Aid scheme provided for under Spanish tax legislation — Corporate tax provision which enables undertakings established in Spanish territory to write off the goodwill resulting from the acquisition of a shareholding in undertakings which are not established in that territory — Decision declaring the State aid scheme incompatible with the internal market)

text:
               4.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 146/8

         Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 15 January 2015 — Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, SA, Telefónica SA v European Commission
   (Joined Cases C-587/13 P and C-588/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeals - Aid scheme provided for under Spanish tax legislation - Corporate tax provision which enables undertakings established in Spanish territory to write off the goodwill resulting from the acquisition of a shareholding in undertakings which are not established in that territory - Decision declaring the State aid scheme incompatible with the internal market))
   (2015/C 146/11)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellants: Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, SA, Telefónica SA (represented by: J. Ruiz Calzado and J. Domínguez Pérez, abogados, and M. Núñez Müller, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Urraca Caviedes and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeals are dismissed.

               2.

               Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, SA and Telefónica SA shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 15, 18.1.2014.

      OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.


title: Case T-248/07: Action brought on 12 July 2007 — Czech Republic v Commission

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/48

         Action brought on 12 July 2007 — Czech Republic v Commission
   (Case T-248/07)
   (2007/C 211/89)
   Language of the case: Czech
   Parties

      Applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: T. Boček, Agent)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the contested decision in its entirety;

               —

               alternatively, annul the contested decision inasmuch as it relates to the Czech Republic;

               —

               order the Commission to repay the sums already paid;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant seeks annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 1979 final version of 4 May 2007 on the determination of surplus stocks of agricultural products other than sugar and the financial consequences of their elimination in relation to the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (1). By that decision, the Commission fixed the quantities of meat, fruits and rice in free circulation in the Czech Republic at the date of accession exceeding the quantities which could be regarded as constituting a normal carryover of stock at 1 May 2004. At the same time, it charged the applicant EUR 12 287 000 in consequence of the expense of elimination of those quantities.
   The applicant submits that the Commission exceeded its power and thus infringed paragraph 4 of Chapter 4 of Annex IV to the Act concerning the conditions of Accession (2) by, in the contested decision based on that provision, fixing the financial amounts which the new Member States are to pay to the Community budget in respect of the total quantity of stocks of agricultural products.
   In addition, the applicant states that even if the Commission were to have the power to adopt the contested measure on the basis of paragraph 4 of Chapter 4 of Annex IV to the Act concerning the conditions of Accession, by its adoption, the Commission infringed the principle of proportionality, in that that measure was not necessary, or more precisely was not appropriate, having regard to the objective which the obligation to eliminate excess stocks pursues.
   Moreover, the applicant submits that the defendant infringed paragraph 2 of Chapter 4 of Annex IV to the Act concerning the conditions of Accession in conjunction with Article 10 EC, as well as the principle of legal certainly and legitimate expectation, by failing to define the concept of normal carryover of stock and by adopting the contested decision in an manner which lacked transparency.
   The applicant states that the Commission infringed paragraph 2, Chapter 4 of Annex IV to the Act concerning the conditions of Accession in that the contested decision fails to have regard to all the relevant circumstances.
   Finally, the applicant submits that the defendant infringed paragraph 4 of Chapter 4 of Annex IV to Act concerning the conditions of Accession by failing to sufficiently state reasons for its decision.

      (1)  OJ 2007 L 138, p. 14.

      (2)  Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded (OJ 2003 L 236, p. 33).


title: Case T-255/09: Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2012 — Caixa Geral de Depósitos v OHIM — Caixa d’Estalvis i Pensions de Barcelona ( ‘la Caixa’ ) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark la caixa — Earlier Portuguese word mark CAIXA — Earlier national word and figurative marks — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               25.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 258/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2012 — Caixa Geral de Depósitos v OHIM — Caixa d’Estalvis i Pensions de Barcelona (‘la Caixa’)
   (Case T-255/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark la caixa - Earlier Portuguese word mark CAIXA - Earlier national word and figurative marks - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2012/C 258/25
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Caixa Geral de Depósitos, SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: F. Porcuna de la Rosa and M. Lobato García-Miján, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Caixa d’Estalvis i Pensions de Barcelona (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina and J. Manresa Medina, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 March 2009 (Case R 556/2008-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Caixa d’Estalvis i Pensions de Barcelona and Caixa Geral de Depósitos, SA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 24 March 2009 (Case R 556/2008-2) as regards the goods covered by the mark applied for in Class 16;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders Caixa Geral de Depósitos, SA to bear two thirds of its own costs and to pay two thirds of the costs incurred by OHIM and two thirds of the costs incurred by Caixa d’Estalvis i Pensions de Barcelona.

               4.

               Orders OHIM to bear one third of its own costs and to pay one third of the costs incurred by Caixa Geral de Depósitos and one third of the costs incurred by Caixa d’Estalvis i Pensions de Barcelona.

      (1)  OJ C 193, 15.8.2009.


title: Case C-301/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 24 June 2014  — Pfotenhilfe-Ungarn e.V. v Ministry of Energy Transition, Agriculture, Environment and Rural Areas of the Land Schleswig-Holstein

text:
               8.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/25

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 24 June 2014 — Pfotenhilfe-Ungarn e.V. v Ministry of Energy Transition, Agriculture, Environment and Rural Areas of the Land Schleswig-Holstein
   (Case C-301/14)
   2014/C 303/32
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesverwaltungsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Pfotenhilfe-Ungarn e.V.

      Defendant: Ministry of Energy Transition, Agriculture, Environment and Rural Areas of the Land Schleswig-Holstein

      Joined party: The Representative of the Federal interest before the Bundesverwaltungsgericht

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is there a transport of animals which does not take place in connection with an economic activity within the meaning of Article 1(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 (1) where that transport is effected by an animal protection association recognised as charitable and serves to re-home stray dogs with third parties for a remuneration (‘nominal fee’) which:

                           (a)

                           is less than the costs which the association incurs in connection with the animal, the transport and the re-homing, or just covers these; or

                           (b)

                           is greater than those costs but the profit serves to finance the outstanding costs of re-homing other stray animals and the costs connected with stray animals or other animal protection projects?

               2.

               Is it a case of a dealer engaging in intra-Community trade within the meaning of Article 12 of Directive 90/425/EEC (2) where an animal protection association recognised as charitable transports stray dogs to Germany and re-homes them with third parties for a remuneration (‘nominal fee’) which:

                           (a)

                           is less than the costs which the association incurs in connection with the animal, the transport and the re-homing, or just covers these; or

                           (b)

                           is greater than those costs but the profit serves to finance the outstanding costs of re-homing other stray animals and the costs connected with stray animals or other animal protection projects?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations and amending Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1255/97 (OJ 2005 L 3, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra- Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internal market (OJ 1990 L 224, p. 29).


title: Case F-51/09: Action brought on 19 May 2009 — Petrilli v Commission

text:
               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/48

         Action brought on 19 May 2009 — Petrilli v Commission
   (Case F-51/09)
   2009/C 205/89
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Alessandro Petrilli (Grottammare, Italy) (represented by: J.-L. Lodomez, J. Lodomez, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the appointing authority’s decision concerning the fixing of the applicant’s main place of residence.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decision of 19 February 2009 by which the appointing authority refused to fix the applicant’s main residence in Italy;

               —

               order the Commission to pay, on the sums due by virtue of the retroactive application of the correction coefficient for Italy on his pension, the resettlement allowance and the doubling of the family allowance, from 1 July 2007, interest on the basis of the rate fixed by the European Central Bank for its principal refinancing operations applicable for the period in question, increased by two points;

               —

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


title: Case C-181/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 18 April 2012 — Yvon Welte v Finanzamt Velbert

text:
               16.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 174/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 18 April 2012 — Yvon Welte v Finanzamt Velbert
   (Case C-181/12)
   2012/C 174/31
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Yvon Welte

      Defendant: Finanzamt Velbert

      Question referred

   Are Articles 56 and 58 of the Treaty establishing the European Community to be interpreted as precluding national legislation of a Member State on the charging of inheritance tax which, where land situated within the country is acquired through inheritance by a non-resident person, provides for a tax-free amount of only EUR 2 000 for the non-resident acquirer, whereas on the acquisition through inheritance a tax-free amount of EUR 500 000 would apply if at the time of the inheritance the deceased person or acquirer had a permanent residence in the Member State concerned?


title: Case C-425/07 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 April 2009 — AEPI Elliniki Etaireia pros Prostasian tis Pnevmatikis Idioktisias AE v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Competition — Commission rejecting a complaint — Serious impediments to the proper functioning of the common market — Lack of Community interest)

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/11

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 April 2009 — AEPI Elliniki Etaireia pros Prostasian tis Pnevmatikis Idioktisias AE v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-425/07 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Competition - Commission rejecting a complaint - Serious impediments to the proper functioning of the common market - Lack of Community interest)
   2009/C 141/17
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Appellant: AEPI Elliniki Etaireia pros Prostasian tis Pnevmatikis Idioktisias AE (represented by: T. Asprogerakas Grivas, dikigoros)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and T. Christoforou, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 12 July 2007 in Case T-229/05 AEPI v Commission, by which the Court dismissed as unfounded an action for the annulment of the Commission’s decision of 18 April 2005 to reject the applicant’s complaint concerning an alleged infringement of Articles 81 and/or 82 of the EC Treaty by the related-rights collective management bodies ERATO, APOLLON and GRAMMO which charged radio and television stations unreasonable amounts in respect of the related rights of singers, musicians and producers of music media

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal.

               2.

               Orders AEPI Elliniki Etaireia pros Prostasian tis Pnevmatikis Idioktisias AE to pay the costs

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.


title: Case C-280/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 November 2013 — Council of the European Union v Fulmen, Fereydoun Mahmoudian, European Commission (Appeal — Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Obligation to substantiate the measure)

text:
               15.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/10

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 November 2013 — Council of the European Union v Fulmen, Fereydoun Mahmoudian, European Commission
   (Case C-280/12 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Obligation to substantiate the measure)
   2014/C 45/17
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro, Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Fulmen, Fereydoun Mahmoudian (represented by: A. Kronshagen and C. Hirtzberger, avocats), European Commission (represented by: M. Konstantinidis, Agent)

      Interveners in support of the appellant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: J. Beeko and A. Robinson, Agents, and by S. Lee, Barrister), French Republic (represented by: E. Ranaivoson and D. Colas, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 March 2012 in Joined Cases T-439/10 and T-440/10 Fulmen and Mahmoudian v Council, by which that Court dismissed an application for annulment of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39), of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 of 26 July 2010 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 25), of Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 81), and of Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1) — Specific restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Error of law — Error of assessment — Burden of proof

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the French Republic, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 235, 4.8.2012.


title: Case C-516/08: Action brought on 25 November 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/20

         Action brought on 25 November 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-516/08)
   (2009/C 32/33)
   Language of the case: Polish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Kaduczak and P. Dejmek, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement Commission Directive 2006/70/EC of 1 August 2006 laying down implementing measures for Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the definition of politically exposed person and the technical criteria for simplified customer due diligence procedures and for exemption on grounds of a financial activity conducted on an occasional or very limited basis (1), and in any event by not informing the Commission of the adoption of those provisions, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for transposition of Directive 2006/70/EC expired on 15 December 2007.

      (1)  OJ L 214 of 4.8.2006, p. 29.


title: Case T-410/10: Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2013 — Bottega Veneta International v OHIM (Shape of a bag) (Community trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark — Shape of a bag — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Lack of distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Failure to take account of an element of the trade mark applied for — Rule No 9 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)

text:
               4.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2013 — Bottega Veneta International v OHIM (Shape of a bag)
   (Case T-410/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark - Shape of a bag - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Lack of distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Failure to take account of an element of the trade mark applied for - Rule No 9 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)
   2013/C 129/29
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Bottega Veneta International Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: P. Roncaglia, G. Lazzeretti, M. Boletto and E. Gavuzzi, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 June 2010 (Case R 1539/2009-1), concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign in the shape of a bag as a Community trade mark

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Bottega Veneta International Sàrl to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.


title: Case C-251/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kecskeméti Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 26 May 2014  — György Balázs v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-alföldi Regionális Vám- és Pénzügyőri Főigazgatósága

text:
               8.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kecskeméti Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 26 May 2014 — György Balázs v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-alföldi Regionális Vám- és Pénzügyőri Főigazgatósága
   (Case C-251/14)
   2014/C 303/14
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Kecskeméti Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: György Balázs

      Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-alföldi Regionális Vám- és Pénzügyőri Főigazgatósága

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 4(1) and Article 5 of Directive 98/70/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels and amending Council Directive 93/12/EEC be interpreted as meaning that, in addition to the quality requirements laid down in the national legislation adopted on the basis of that directive, other national legislation may not impose on a fuel supplier quality requirements set out in a national standard that go beyond those provided in the Directive?

               2.

               Must Article 1(6) and (11) of Directive 98/34/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations [and of rules on Information Society services], be interpreted as meaning that, if a technical regulation is in force (in this case, a ministerial order adopted on the basis of enabling legislation), the application of a national standard adopted in the same field can only be voluntary, that is to say, the legislation may not prescribe the mandatory application thereof?

               3.

               Is the criterion of availability to the public of the national standard laid down in [Article 1](6) of Directive 98/34/EC met by a rule that, at the time at which it should have been applied according to the administrative authority, was not available in the national language?

      (1)  OJ 1998 L 350, p. 58.

      (2)  OJ 1998 L 204, p. 37.


title: Case C-522/06: Action brought on 22 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               24.2.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/16

         Action brought on 22 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-522/06)
   (2007/C 42/27)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro, B. Stromsky, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium
   Form of order sought
   The Court is asked to:

               —

               Declare that, by failing to define the minimum qualification requirements for certain members of personnel working in recovery, recycling, reclamation and destruction of controlled substances in accordance with Article 16(5) of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer (1) and, in respect of the Walloon Region, by failing to take all precautionary measures practicable to prevent and minimise leakages of controlled substances and by failing to carry out annual checks to establish the presence or not of leakages in accordance with Article 17(1) of that regulation, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 16(5) and 17(1) of that regulation.

               —

               Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of its action, the applicant asserts that the Kingdom of Belgium, first, has failed to define the minimum qualification requirements for personnel responsible for recovery, recycling, reclamation and destruction of controlled substances referred to in Article 2 of the Regulation and contained in refrigeration, air-conditioning and heat pump equipment, fire protection systems and fire extinguishers — except, in respect of extinguishers containing halons, the Region of Brussels-Capital — and, secondly, in respect of the Walloon Region, has failed to take all precautionary measures practicable to prevent and minimise leakages of controlled substances and to carry out annual checks to establish the possible presence or not of such leakages.

      (1)  OJ 2000 L 244, p. 1.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of  10 January 2006  in Case C-98/03: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats — Wild fauna and flora — Assessment of the implications of certain projects on a protected site — Protection of species)

text:
               25.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/2

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 10 January 2006
   in Case C-98/03: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 92/43/EEC - Conservation of natural habitats - Wild fauna and flora - Assessment of the implications of certain projects on a protected site - Protection of species)
   (2006/C 48/04)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-98/03 Commission of the European Communities (Agent: U. Wölker) v Federal Republic of Germany (Agents: M. Lumma and C. Schulze-Bahr) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 28 February 2003 — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), R. Silva de Lapuerta, P. Kūris and G. Arestis, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; M. Ferreira, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 10 January 2006, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               By failing, in respect of certain projects carried out outside special areas of conservation within the meaning of Article 4(1) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, to require compulsory assessment of the impact on the site, in accordance with Article 6(3) and (4) of that directive, whether or not such projects are capable of significantly affecting a special area of conservation;

                           —

                           by authorising emissions in a special area of conservation, irrespective of whether they are likely to have a significant effect on that area;

                           —

                           by derogating from the scope of the provisions concerning the protection of species in the case of certain non-deliberate effects on protected animals;

                           —

                           by failing to ensure compliance with the criteria for derogation set out in Article 16 of Directive 92/43 in the case of certain activities compatible with the conservation of the area;

                           —

                           by retaining provisions on the application of pesticides which do not take sufficient account of the protection of species;

                           —

                           by failing to ensure that legislation on fishing contains adequate bans on catches,

                     the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(3) and Articles 12, 13 and 16 of Directive 92/43.

               2.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 146 of 21.06.2003.


title: Case C-108/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Baranya Megyei Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 23 March 2009 — Ker-Optika Bt. v ÁNTSZ Dél-dunátúli Regionális Intézete

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/24

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Baranya Megyei Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 23 March 2009 — Ker-Optika Bt. v ÁNTSZ Dél-dunátúli Regionális Intézete
   (Case C-108/09)
   2009/C 141/43
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Baranya Megyei Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ker-Optika Bt.

      Defendant: ÁNTSZ Dél-dunátúli Regionális Intézete

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the sale of contact lenses constitute medical advice requiring the physical examination of a patient and thus not fall with the scope of Directive 2000/31/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market?

               2.

               If the sale of contact lenses does not constitute medical advice requiring the physical examination of a patient, must Article 30 EC be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which contact lenses may be sold only in specialist medical accessory shops?

               3.

               Does the principle of the freedom of movement of goods laid down in Article 28 EC preclude the provision of Hungarian law which makes it possible to sell contact lenses solely in specialist medical accessory shops?

      (1)  Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’); OJ L 178, 17.7.2000, p. 1-16 (ES, DA, DE, EL, EN, FR, IT, NL, PT, FI, SV) Hungarian Special Edition, Chapter 13, Volume 25, p. 399-414.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 5 March 1997 in Case T-105/95: WWF UK (World Wide Fund for Nature) v. Commission of the European Communities (Transparency - Access to information - Commission Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom on public access to Commission documents - Decision refusing access to documents on the grounds that they relate to the examination by the Commission of a possible infringement of Community law by a Member State - Exceptions relating to the public interest and to the institution's interest in the confidentiality of its proceedings - Extent of the obligation to give reasons)

text:
26 . 4 . 97             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 131 / 13
21 February 1995 , relating to a procedure implementing                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Article 93 of the EC Treaty ( State aid NN 135/92 :                                               of 5 March 1997
competitive activities of the French Post Office ), published
in the Official Journal of the European Communities ( OJ                in Case T-105/95 : WWF UK (World Wide Fund for
No C 262, 7. 10 . 1995 , p. 11 ) — the Court of First                      Nature ) v. Commission of the European Communities H
Instance (Third Chamber, Extended Composition ),
composed of : B. Vesterdorf, President, C. P. Briët, P.                 (Transparency — Access to information — Commission
Lindh, A. Potocki and J. D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio                   Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom on public access to
Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a                 Commission documents — Decision refusing access to
judgment on 27 February 1997, in which it:                              documents on the grounds that they relate to the
                                                                        examination by the Commission of a possible
                                                                        infringement of Community law by a Member State —
1 . dismisses the application;                                          Exceptions relating to the public interest and to the
                                                                        institution 's interest in the confidentiality of its
2 . orders the applicants to pay the costs of the                           proceedings — Extent of the obligation to give reasons)
       proceedings, including the costs incurred by the
       intervener La Poste;                                                                         ( 97/C 131/33 )
3 . orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
(') OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .
                                                                        In Case T-105/95 : WWF UK (World Wide Fund for
                                                                        Nature ), whose head office is at Godalming, Surrey
                                                                        (United Kingdom ), represented by Georg M. Berrisch,
                                                                        Rechtsanwalt in Hamburg and Brussels, with an address
                                                                        for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Turk and
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              Prüm, 13B Avenue Guillaume, supported by the Kingdom
                         ( Fourth Chamber)                              of Sweden ( Agent: Erik Brattgård ), against Commission of
                                                                        the European Communities ( Agents : Carmel O'Reilly and
                          of 5 March 1997
                                                                        Ulrich Wölker ), supported by the French Republic
in      Case    T-96/95 :      Sébastien   Rozand-Lambiotte     v.       ( Agents: Catherine de Salins and Denys Wibaux) and the
          Commission of the European Communities ( 1 )                  United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
                                                                         ( Agents : John E. Collins, Stephen Richards and Jessica
 (Probationary officials — Not established at the end of the            Simor) — application for the annulment of the
probationary period — Articles 26, 34 and 43 of the Staff                Commission Decision of 2 February 1995 refusing the
Regulations — Right to a fair hearing — Inadequate                      applicant access to Commission documents relating to the
statement of reasons — Duty to have regard for the                      examination of a project to build an interpretative centre
      interests of officials — Manifest error of assessment)
                                                                         at Mullaghmore ( Ireland) and, in particular, to those
                            ( 971C 131 /32 )                             documents relating to the question as to whether
                                                                         structural funds could be used for that project — the
                  (Language of the case: French)                         Court of First Instance ( Fourth Chamber, Extended
                                                                         Composition ), composed of: K. Lenaerts, President, R.
In Case T-96/95 , Sébastien Rozand-Lambiotte, former                     García-Valdecasas, P. Lindh, J. Azizi and J. D. Cooke,
probationary official of the Commission of the European                 Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on
 Communities, residing at La Javie ( France ), represented by            5 March 1997, in which it:
Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
 Luxembourg at the office of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue                1 . annuls the decision of the Commission of 2 February
 de Cessange, v. Commission of the European Communities                        1995 refusing the applicant access to Commission
 ( Agents : Gianluigi Valsesia and Julian Currall ) —                          documents relating to the examination of a project to
 application for annulment of the Commission's decision of                     build an interpretative centre at Mullaghmore
                                                                               (Ireland);
 12 July 1994 to dismiss the applicant at the end of his
 probationary period — the Court of First Instance ( Fourth
 Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President of the
                                                                         2 . orders the Commission to pay the costs of the
 Chamber, and P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges; M. A.
                                                                               applicant;
 Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
 judgment on 5 March 1997, in which it:
                                                                          3 . orders the Kingdom of Sweden, the French Republic
  1 . dismisses the application;                                               and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
                                                                               Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.
 2 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                          (') OJ No C 174, 8 . 7 . 1995 .
 H OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 .


title: Case T-250/09: Action brought on 23 June 2009 — Cesea Group Srl v OHIM — Mangini & C. (mangiami)

text:
               15.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/31

         Action brought on 23 June 2009 — Cesea Group Srl v OHIM — Mangini & C. (mangiami)
   (Case T-250/09)
   2009/C 193/49
   Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Cesea Group Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: D. De Simone, lawyer, D. Demarinis, lawyer, J. Wrede, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Mangini & C. Srl (Sestri Levante, Italy)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Cesea Group Srl seeks the annulment — or, in the alternative, the amendment and limitation, in accordance with its pleas in law — of the decision taken on 20 April 2009 and notified on 24 April 2009 by the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM, by which it decided Case No R 982/2008-2, which had been brought following the outcome of invalidity proceedings No 2063 C brought by Mangini & C. Srl.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Figurative mark containing the term ‘mangiami’ (application for registration No 3 113 933) for goods in Classes 29, 30 and 32.

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant.

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: Mangini & C. Srl.

      Trade mark right of applicant for the declaration: Italian registration No 819 926 of the word mark ‘MANGINI’ for goods and services in Classes 30 and 42; Italian figurative mark No 668 388, which contains the term ‘Mangini’, for goods and services in Classes 30 and 42; Italian figurative mark No 648 507, which contains the term ‘Mangini’, for goods in Class 30; international registration No 738 072 of the word mark ‘MANGINI’ for goods and services in Classes 30 and 42; word mark ‘MANGINI’ which, in Italy, is well known within the meaning of Article 6bis of the Paris Convention, for ‘production of pastries, confectionery, coffee, ices and sweet goods in general, bar, cafeteria and catering services’; and the trade name ‘MANGINI’, used in Italy by way of normal commercial practice, for ‘production of pastries, confectionery, coffee, ices and sweet products in general, bar, cafeteria and catering services’.

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Dismissed the application for a declaration of invalidity.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and upheld in part the application for a declaration of invalidity.
   Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of Rule 40(6) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, (1) in that the Board of Appeal based the decision on an examination of documents which had not been produced before the Cancellation Division, even though the documents in question had not been available and had not been produced within the period specified by the Cancellation Division;

               —

               Unlawfulness of the declaration of invalidity in relation to the goods in Class 29, which is not covered by the international trade mark of Mangini & C. Srl, and to the goods in Class 30, which are not similar to sweets.

      (1)  OJ L 303 of 15.12.1995, p. 1.


title: Case T-363/15: Judgment of the General Court of 16 March 2016 — Työhönvalmennus Valma v OHIM (Shape of game chest containing wooden blocks) (Community trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark — Shape of game chest containing wooden blocks — Absolute ground for refusal — Absence of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Lack of distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               2.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/42

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 March 2016 — Työhönvalmennus Valma v OHIM (Shape of game chest containing wooden blocks)
   (Case T-363/15) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark - Shape of game chest containing wooden blocks - Absolute ground for refusal - Absence of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Lack of distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 156/55)
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Parties

      Applicant: Työhönvalmennus Valma Oy (Lahti, Finland) (represented by: S. Salonen and K. Parviainen, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 May 2015 (Case R 1690/2014-2) concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign in the shape of a game chest containing wooden blocks as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Työhönvalmennus Valma Oy to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.


title: Case C-285/04: Order of the President of the Court of  4 May 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale civile di Oristano (Italy)) — Ignazio Medda v Banco di Napoli SpA, Regione autonoma della Sardegna

text:
               29.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/29

         Order of the President of the Court of 4 May 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale civile di Oristano (Italy)) — Ignazio Medda v Banco di Napoli SpA, Regione autonoma della Sardegna
   (Case C-285/04) (1)

   (2006/C 178/49)

      Language of the case: Italian

   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 217, 28.8.2004.


title: Case T-464/10: Action brought on 27 September 2010 — Fitzpatrick v Commission

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/45

         Action brought on 27 September 2010 — Fitzpatrick v Commission
   (Case T-464/10)
   ()
   2010/C 328/73
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Patrick Fitzpatrick (Kileany, Ireland), (represented by: A. Collins SC, N. Travers, Barrister and D. Barry, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Decision notified under document C(2010) 4761 of 13 July 2010 as a letter to Ireland, and which was notified to the applicant on 16 July 2010, to reject a safety capacity application for a proposed new pelagic trawler to replace the MFV Shauna Ann, and taken to replace the decision regarding the said application contained in Commission Decision No 2003/245 of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the Commission to increase in MAGP IV objectives to take into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea, hygiene, product quality and working conditions for vessels of more than 12m in length overall (OJ 2003 L 90, p. 48), which was annulled, in so far as the applicant is concerned, by judgment of the General Court delivered on 13 June 2006 in Joined Cases T-218/03 to T-240/03 Boyle and Others v Commission [2006] ECR II-1699; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By means of the present application, the applicant seeks, pursuant to Article 263 TFUE, the annulment of Commission Decision notified under document C(2010) 4761 of 13 July 2010 as a letter to Ireland, and which was notified to the applicant on 16 July 2010, to reject a safety capacity application for a proposed new pelagic trawler to replace the MFV Shauna Ann, and taken to replace the decision regarding the said application contained in Commission Decision No 2003/245 of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the Commission to increase in MAGP IV objectives to take into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea, hygiene, product quality and working conditions for vessels of more than 12m in length overall (OJ 2003 L 90, p. 48), which was annulled, in so far as the applicant is concerned, by judgment of the General Court delivered on 13 June 2006 in Joined Cases T-218/03 to T-240/03 Boyle and Others v Commission [2006] ECR II-1699.
   In support of his application, the applicant submits the following pleas in law:

               Firstly, the applicant submits that the defendant acted without a legal basis. Article 4(2) of Council Decision No 97/413/EC of 26 June 1997 concerning the objectives and detailed rules for restructering the Community fisheries sector for the period from 1 January 1997 to 31 December 2001 with the view to achieving a balance on a sustainable basis between resources and exploitation (OJ 1997 L 175, p. 27) continues to provide the appropriate legal basis for the impugned decision and, thus, the Commission lacked a legal basis purportedly to adopt the decision as an ad hoc decision.

               Secondly, the applicant sumits that the Commission breached an esential procedural requirement. The applicant submits that the impugned decision, under Council Decision No 97/413/EC, should have been adopted pursunat to the management committee procedure and that, in choosing to adopt the decision on an ad hoc basis, the Commission acted in breach of essential procedural requirements.

               Thirdly, the applicant submits that by misinterpreting Article 4(2) of Council Decision No 97/413/EC, the Commission exceded its powers, in particular in relying upon irrelevant criteria and ignoring the definition of ‘fishing effort’ provided in Council Decision No 97/413/EC and in Community fisheries legislation applicable at the time of the applicant’s application for safety tonnage in December 2001.

               In addition, it is submitted that the impugned decision contains a number of manifest errors in the assessment of the applicant’s application for safety tonnage. It particular, the applicant claims that the Commission’s decision to refuse the applicant’s application on that basis is unfounded, since the use of replacement capacity from a number of smaller vessels for the Shauna Ann meant that there was no increase in the total capacity of the polyvalent segment of the Irish fleet when that vessel was registered.

               Finally, the applicant alleges that the Commission breached the applicant’s right to good administration. It is submitted that Commission’s refusal to assess the merits of its application constitutes a breach of its obligations under Article 41 of Charter of Fundamnetal Rights of the European Union (OJ 2010 C 83, p. 389), and in particulr, of his right to have its application, under Article 4(2) of Council Decision No 97/413/EC, assessed ‘fairly and within a reasonable time’.


title: Case C-536/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Upravno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Republic of Slovenia) lodged on 21 December 2009 — Marija Omejc v Republika Slovenije

text:
               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/28

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Upravno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Republic of Slovenia) lodged on 21 December 2009 — Marija Omejc v Republika Slovenije
   (Case C-536/09)
   2010/C 63/47
   Language of the case: Slovene

      Referring court

   Upravno sodišče Republike Slovenije

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Marija Omejc

      Defendant: Republika Slovenije

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the expression ‘prevents an on-the-spot check [from being carried out]’ be interpreted in accordance with national law, which links the concept of prevention to deliberate conduct or negligence on the part of a particular person?

               2.

               If the first question is answered in the negative: must the expression ‘prevents an on-the-spot check [from being carried out]’ be interpreted as including, as well as deliberate acts or situations deliberately brought about that make it impossible to carry out that check, any act or omission that can be ascribed to the negligence of the farmer or of his representative if, as a result, it was not possible to carry out the check in its entirety?

               3.

               If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative: is the imposition of the sanction under Article 23(2) of Regulation No 796/2004/EC (1) conditional upon the farmer’s having been adequately informed of that part of the check which requires his cooperation?

               4.

               When the holder does not live on the agricultural holding, must the issue of the definition of ‘representative’ for the purpose of Article 23(2) of Regulation No 796/2004/EC be considered in the light of national law or of Community/Union law?

               5.

               If the issue in Question 4 has to be considered in the light of Community/Union law: must Article 23(2) of Regulation No 796/2004/EC be interpreted as meaning that any adult, having proper capacity, who lives on the holding and to whom the farmer entrusts at least part of the management of that agricultural holding must be considered to be the farmer’s representative when an on-the-spot check is carried out?

               6.

               If question 4 must be considered in the light of Community law and if the answer to question 5 is negative: is a person who runs an agricultural holding (the farmer for the purpose of Article 23(2) of Regulation No 796/2004/EC) but who does not live there required to appoint a representative who may, as a rule, be found on the agricultural holding at any time?

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system provided for in of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers (OJ L 141, 30.4.2004, p. 18).


title: Case T-462/14: Order of the General Court of 12 May 2015 — EEB v Commission

text:
               13.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/26

         Order of the General Court of 12 May 2015 — EEB v Commission
   (Case T-462/14) (1)

   (2015/C 228/37)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 315, 15.9.2014.


title: Case T-29/16: Action brought on 25 January 2016 — Caffè Nero Group v OHIM (CAFFÈ NERO)

text:
               21.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/39

         Action brought on 25 January 2016 — Caffè Nero Group v OHIM (CAFFÈ NERO)
   (Case T-29/16)
   (2016/C 106/46)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Caffè Nero Group Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: L. Cassidy, Solicitor)

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

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘CAFFÈ NERO’ — Application for registration No 13 238 019

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 November 2015 in Case R 410/2015-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               allow Community trade mark application No. 13238019 to proceed to registration;

               —

               waive the objections to the CTM Application under Articles 7(1)(b), (c) and (g) and Article 7(2);

               —

               allows the CTM Application to proceed to acceptance and advertisement for all covered goods and services;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the Applicant’s costs in this matter.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (g) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.