title: Case C-307/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from The Appointed Person by the Lord Chancellor (United Kingdom) made on 28 June 2010 — The Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys v Registrar of Trade Marks

text:
               11.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/23

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from The Appointed Person by the Lord Chancellor (United Kingdom) made on 28 June 2010 — The Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys v Registrar of Trade Marks
   (Case C-307/10)
   ()
   2010/C 246/39
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   The Appointed Person by the Lord Chancellor

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: The Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys

      Defendant: Registrar of Trade Marks

      Questions referred

   Is it:

               1.

               necessary for the various goods or services covered by a trade mark application to be identified with any and if so what particular degree of clarity and precision?

               2.

               permissible to use the general words of the Class Headings of the International Classification of Goods and Services established under the Nice Agreement of June 15, 1957 (as revised and amended from time to time) for the purpose of identifying the various goods or services covered by a trade mark application?

               3.

               necessary or permissible for such use of the general words of the Class Headings of the said International Classification of Goods and Services to be interpreted in accordance with Communication No. 4/03 of the President of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 16 June 2003 (OJ OHIM 2003 p. 1647)?


title: Case T-59/02: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 September 2006 — Archer Daniels Midland v Commission (Competition — Cartels — Citric acid — Article 81 EC — Fine — Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 — Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Leniency Notice — Principles of legal certainty and non-retroactivity — Principle of proportionality — Equal treatment — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence)

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/42

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 September 2006 — Archer Daniels Midland v Commission
   (Case T-59/02) (1)

   (Competition - Cartels - Citric acid - Article 81 EC - Fine - Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 - Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Leniency Notice - Principles of legal certainty and non-retroactivity - Principle of proportionality - Equal treatment - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence)
   (2006/C 294/89)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Archer Daniels Midland Co. (Decatur, Illinois, United States) (represented by: C.O. Lenz, lawyer, L. Martin Alegi, M. Garcia, and E. Batchelor, Solicitors)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Oliver, Agent)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of Article 1 of Commission Decision 2002/742/EC of 5 December 2001 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/36.604 — Citric acid) (OJ 2002 L 239, p. 18) in so far as it finds that the applicant infringed Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement by agreeing to restrict capacity in the market in question and to designate a producer who was to lead price increases in each national segment of the said market, and for the annulment of Article 3 of the same decision in so far as it pertains to the applicant and, in the alternative, for the reduction of the fine imposed on it.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 1 of Commission Decision 2002/742/EC of 5 December 2001 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/36.604 — Citric acid), in so far as, read in conjunction with recital 158, it finds that Archer Daniels Midland Co. froze, restricted and closed down citric acid production capacity;

               2.

               Annuls Article 1 of Decision 2002/742 in so far as, read in conjunction with recital 158, it finds that Archer Daniels Midland Co. designated a producer who was to ‘lead’ price increases in each national segment of the relevant market;

               3.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               4.

               Orders the Commission to pay one tenth of the costs incurred by Archer Daniels Midland Co.;

               5.

               Orders Archer Daniels Midland Co. to pay the remainder of its own costs and the costs incurred by the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 144, 15.6.2002.


4.12.1999             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 352/39
       Removal from the register of Case T-322/94 (1)                          Removal from the register of Case T-181/98 (1)
                       (1999/C 352/72)
                                                                                (1999/C 352/73)
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
By order of 25 February 1999 the President of the Fifth
Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from                By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Third
the register of Case T-322/94: Union Carbide Corporation v              Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance
Commission of the European Communities.                                 of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                        the register of Case T-181/98: Georgsmarienhütte Holding
                                                                        GmbH v Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 380 of 31.12.1994.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 1 of 4.1.1999.


title: Case C-412/99: Action brought on 28 October 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

text:
C 79/4                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     18.3.2000
                   ORDER OF THE COURT                                                         ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                (First Chamber)
                        (Fourth Chamber)
                                                                                of 16 December 1999
                     of 16 December 1999                                  in Case C-259/99 P: Karola Gluiber v Council of the
                                                                          European Union and Commission of the European Com-
                                                                                munities (1)
in Case C-104/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling                      (Appeal manifestly inadmissible and manifestly unfounded)
from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Brindisi):
Oleifici Italiani SpA v Direzione Regionale delle Entrate
                          per la Puglia (1)                                                         (2000/C 79/08)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Manifestly
                        identical question)                               In Case C-259/99 P: Karola Gluiber, residing at Staudernheim
                                                                          (Germany), represented by J-C Schöninger, Rechtsanwalt, Lahr
                                                                          — appeal against the Order of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                          the European Communities, First Chamber, of 5 May 1999 in
                          (2000/C 79/07)
                                                                          Case T-190/08, Karola Gluiber v Council and Commission
                                                                          (not published in the Court Reports), seeking to have that
                                                                          order set aside, the other party to the proceedings being
                                                                          Council of the European Union and Commission of the
                                                                          European Communities — the Court (First Chamber), compo-
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                        sed of L. Sevón, President of the Chamber, P. Jann (Rapporteur)
                                                                          and M. Wathelet, Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate General;
                                                                          R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 16 December 1999, the
                                                                          operative part of which is as follows:
In Case C-104/99: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Brindisi                   1. The appeal is dismissed.
(Provincial Tax Court Brindisi), Italy, for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings pending before that court between Oleifici             2. Ms Gluiber shall bear her own costs.
Italiani SpA and Direzione Regionale delle Entrate per la Puglia
— on the interpretation of Council Directive 69/335/EEC on
indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ, English special             (1) OJ C 299 of 16.10.1999.
edition, 1969 (II), p. 412), as amended by Council Directive
85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985 (OJ 1985 L 156, p. 23) —
the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward,
President of the Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn and H. Ragnemalm
(Rapporteur), Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate General; R. Grass,
Registrar, has made an order on 16 December 1999, in which
it has ruled:
                                                                          Action brought on 28 October 1999 by the Commission
                                                                          of the European Communities against the Republic of
Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect                                        Austria
taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Council Directive
85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985 does not preclude the levying on                                        (Case C-412/99)
capital companies of a tax such as the tax on companies’ net assets.
                                                                                (2000/C 79/09)
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.                                                 An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
                                                                          before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                          on 28 October 1999 by the Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities, represented by Josef Christian Schieferer, of its
                                                                          Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                          the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,
                                                                          Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
 ---pagebreak--- 18.3.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 79/5
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              2. If the answer to question 1 is that consent may be implied,
                                                                            is consent to be implied from the fact that the goods have
1. Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations                  been sold by the proprietor or on his behalf without
    and administrative provisions necessary to comply with                  contractual restrictions prohibiting re-sale within the EEA
    Directive 96/70/EC of the European Parliament and of the                binding the first and all subsequent purchasers?
    Council of 28 October 1996 amending Council Directive
    80/777/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the
    Member States relating to the exploitation and marketing             3. Where goods bearing a registered trade mark have been
    of natural mineral waters (1), and by failing to notify them            placed on the market in a non-EEA country by the trade
    to the Commission, the Republic of Austria has failed to                mark proprietor:
    fulfil its obligations under that directive;
                                                                            A. to what extent is it relevant to or determinative of the
2. Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.                               issue of whether or not there was consent by the
                                                                                proprietor to the placing of those goods on the market
                                                                                within the EEA, within the meaning of the Directive,
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                  that:
The pleas in law and main arguments correspond to those in                       (a) the person placing the goods on the market (not
Case C-386/99 (2); the period prescribed in Article 2 of the                         being an authorised retailer) does so with the
directive expired on 28 October 1997.                                                knowledge that he is the lawful owner of the goods
                                                                                and the goods bear no indication that they may
                                                                                not be placed on the market in the EEA; and/or
(1) OJ L 299 of 23.11.1996, p. 26.
(2) OJ C 366, 18.12.1999, p. 20.
                                                                                (b) the person placing the goods on the market
                                                                                (not being an authorised retailer) does so with
                                                                                knowledge that the trade mark proprietor objects
                                                                                to those goods being placed on the market within
                                                                                the EEA, and/or
                                                                                (c) the person placing the goods on the market (not
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of                              being an authorised retailer) does so with the
Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division (Patent                                 knowledge that the trade mark proprietor objects
Court), by order of that court of 22 July 1999, in the case                          to them being placed on the market by anyone
of 1) Levi Strauss & Co. (a US corporation existing under                            otherwise than an authorised retailer; and/or
the laws of the State of Delaware) and 2) Levi Strauss
   (UK) Ltd against 1) Tesco Stores Ltd and 2) Tesco plc                         (d) the goods have been purchased from authorised
                                                                                retailers in a non-EEA country who have been
                         (Case C-415/99)                                             informed by the proprietor that the proprietor
                                                                                objects to the sale of the goods by them for the
                                                                                purposes of resale, but who have not imposed
                          (2000/C 79/10)                                             upon purchasers from them any contractual restric-
                                                                                tions on the manner in which the goods may be
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                               disposed of; and/or
European Communities by an order of the High Court of
Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division (Patent Court),                     (e) the goods have been purchased from authorised
of 22 July 1999, which was received at the Court Registry on                         wholesalers in non-EEA country, who have been
29 October 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of 1)                          informed by the proprietor that the goods were to
Levi Strauss & Co. (a US corporation existing under the laws                         be sold to retailers in that non-EEA country and
of the State of Delaware) and 2) Levi Strauss (UK) Ltd against                       were not to be sold for export, but who have
1) Tesco Stores Ltd and 2) Tesco plc, on the following                               not imposed upon purchasers from them any
questions:                                                                           contractual restrictions on the manner in which
                                                                                the goods may be disposed of; and/or
1. Where goods bearing a registered trade mark have been
    placed on the market in a non-EEA country by the trade
    mark proprietor or with his consent and those goods have                     (f) there has or has not been communication by the
    been imported into or sold in the EEA by a third party, is                       proprietor to all subsequent purchasers of its goods
    the effect of Directive 89/104/EEC(1) (‘the Directive’) that                     (i.e. those between the first purchaser from the
    the trade mark proprietor is entitled to prohibit such                           proprietor and the person placing the goods on the
    importation or sale unless he has expressly and explicitly                       market in the EEA) of its objection to the sale of
    consented to it, or may such consent be implied?                                 the goods for the purposes of resale; and/or


title: Case T-83/12: Action brought on 20 February 2012 — Chico's Brands Investments v OHIM — Artsana (CHICO'S)

text:
               21.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/30

         Action brought on 20 February 2012 — Chico's Brands Investments v OHIM — Artsana (CHICO'S)
   (Case T-83/12)
   2012/C 118/51
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Chico's Brands Investments, Inc. (Fort Myers, United States) (represented by: T. Holman, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Artsana SpA (Grandate, Italy)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 October 2011 in case R 2084/2010-1;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay to the applicant, the applicant’s costs of and occasioned by this appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘CHICO’S’, for goods and services in classes 25 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 1585579

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Italian trade mark registration No 420865 of the figurative mark ‘chicco’, for among others goods in class 25; Italian trade mark registration No 846672/380042 of the figurative mark ‘chicco’, for among others goods in class 25; International trade mark registration No 763084 of the figurative mark ‘chicco’, for among others goods in class 25

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition and rejected the Community trade mark application in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 15(1)(a), 42(2) and (3) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in concluding that the opponent’s evidence proved genuine use of the earlier mark in Italy. Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in concluding that there was a likelihood of confusion between the CTM application and the earlier mark.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 February 2000 in Case C-50/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Hamburg): Deutsche Telekom AG v Lilli Schröder (Equal pay for men and women — Article 119 of the EC Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have been replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC)— Protocol concerning Article 119 of the EC Treaty — Occupational social security schemes — Exclusion of part-time workers from a supplementary occupational retirement pension scheme — Retroactive membership — Entitlement to a pension — Relationship between national law and Community law)

text:
8.4.2000                   EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 102/5
The question whether the reception by a hotel establishment of                 2. Interim measures vis-à-vis a non-Community authority can be
satellite or terrestrial television signals and their distribution by cable        ordered by a national court in the event of an infringement of
to the various rooms of that hotel is an ‘act of communication to the              Community law being imminent only:
public’ or ‘reception by the public’ is not governed by Council
Directive 93/83/EEC of 27 September 1993 on the coordination of                    — if that court entertains serious doubts as to the validity of the
certain rules concerning copyright and rights related to copyright                      Community measure implemented by that authority and,
applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission, and                      should the question of the validity of the contested measure
must consequently be decided in accordance with national law.                           not already have been brought before the Court of Justice,
                                                                                itself refers that question to the Court of Justice;
(1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.                                                         — if there is urgency and a threat of serious and irreparable
                                                                                damage to the applicant;
                                                                                — and if the national court takes due account of the Com-
                                                                                munity’s interests.
                                                                                The fact that such interim measures would be ordered vis-à-vis
                                                                                an authority of an overseas country or territory (OCT) by a court
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                           of a Member State, in accordance with its domestic law, is not
                                                                                such as to affect the conditions under which the temporary
                           of 8 February 2000                                      protection of individuals must be ensured in proceedings before
                                                                                the national courts when the dispute concerns a matter of
                                                                                Community law.
in Case C-17/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Arrondissementsrechtbank te ’s-Gravenhage): Emesa
                 Sugar (Free Zone) NV v Amba (1)                               (1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.
(Conditions governing association of overseas countries and
territories — Decision 97/803/EC — Sugar imports —
ACP/OCT cumulation of origin — Assessment of validity
              — National court — Interim measures)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                             (2000/C 102/07)
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                       (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                                of 10 February 2000
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published         in Case C-50/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                      in the European Court Reports)                           the Landesarbeitsgericht Hamburg): Deutsche Telekom
                                                                                AG v Lilli Schröder (1)
In Case C-17/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Arrondissements-                   (Equal pay for men and women — Article 119 of the EC
rechtbank te ’s-Gravenhage (Netherlands) for a preliminary                     Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have been
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                    replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC) — Protocol
Emesa Sugar (Free Zone) NV and Aruba — on the validity of                      concerning Article 119 of the EC Treaty — Occupational
Council Decision 97/803/EC of 24 November 1997 amending                        social security schemes — Exclusion of part-time workers
at mid-term Decision 91/482/EEC on the association of the                      from a supplementary occupational retirement pension
overseas countries and territories with the European Economic                  scheme — Retroactive membership — Entitlement to a
Community (OJ 1997 L 329, p. 50) — the Court, composed                         pension — Relationship between national law and Com-
of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida                                             munity law)
and D.A.O. Edward (Presidents of Chambers), P.J.G. Kapteyn,
J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and                                                      (2000/C 102/08)
M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,
Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 February 2000, in which                                        (Language of the case: German)
it has ruled:
1. Examination of the first ten questions submitted has disclosed no           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
     factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Council Decision                             in the European Court Reports)
     97/803/EC of 24 November 1997 amending at mid-term
     Decision 91/482/EEC on the association of the overseas                    In Case C-50/96: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
     countries and territories with the European Economic Com-                 the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Landesarbeitsge-
     munity.                                                                   richt Hamburg (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the
 ---pagebreak--- C 102/6                  EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                           8.4.2000
proceedings pending before that court between Deutsche                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Telekom AG, formerly Deutsche Bundespost Telekom, and
Lilli Schröder — on the interpretation of 119 of the EC Treaty
(Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have been replaced by                                            (Sixth Chamber)
Articles 136 EC to 143 EC) and of the Protocol concerning
Article 119 of the Treaty establishing the European Com-
munity, annexed to the EC Treaty — the Court (Sixth                                                  of 10 February 2000
Chamber), composed of. R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), President
of the Second Chamber, acting for the President of the Sixth
Chamber, G. Hirsch and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; G. Cosmas,                      in Joined Cases C-234/96 and C-235/96 (references for
Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the                preliminary rulings from the Landesarbeitsgericht Ham-
Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 February 2000, in                      burg): Deutsche Telekom AG v Agnes Vick (C-234/96),
which it has ruled:                                                                               Ute Conze (C-235/96) (1)
1. The exclusion of part-time workers from an occupational pension           (Equal pay for men and women — Article 119 of the EC
     scheme such as that at issue in the main proceedings constitutes        Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have been
     discrimination prohibited by Article 119 of the EC Treaty               replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC ) — Protocol
     (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have been replaced by             concerning Article 119 of the EC Treaty — Occupational
     Articles 136 EC to 143 EC) if that measure affects a considerably       social security schemes — Exclusion of part-time workers
     higher percentage of female workers than male workers and is            affiliated to a supplementary occupational retirement pen-
     not justified on objective grounds unrelated to any discrimination      sion scheme — Retroactive membership — Entitlement to a
     based on sex.                                                           pension — Relationship between national law and Com-
                                                                                munity law)
2. Where the exclusion of part-time workers from an occupational
     pension scheme constitutes indirect discrimination prohibited by
     Article 119 of the Treaty, the possibility of relying on the direct                                (2000/C 102/09)
     effect of that article is subject to a limitation in time whereby
     periods of service of such workers are to be taken into account
     only from 8 April 1976, the date of the judgment in Case
     43/75 Defrenne II [1976] ECR 455, for the purposes of their                                 (Language of the case: German)
     retroactive membership of such a scheme and calculation of the
     benefits to which they are entitled, except in the case of workers
     or those claiming under them who have before that date initiated
     legal proceedings or introduced an equivalent claim.                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
3. The limitation in time of the possibility of relying on the direct
     effect of Article 119 of the Treaty, resulting from the judgment        In Joined Cases C-234/96 and C-235/96: references to the
     in Defrenne II, does not preclude national provisions which lay         Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234
     down a principle of equal treatment by virtue of which, in              EC) from the Landesarbeitsgericht Hamburg (Germany) for
     circumstances like those of the main proceedings, part-time             preliminary rulings in the proceedings pending before that
     workers are entitled to retroactive membership of an occupational       court between Deutsche Telekom AG and Agnes Vick
     pension scheme and to receive a pension under that scheme.              (C-234/96), Ute Conze (C-235/96) — on the interpretation of
                                                                             Article 119 of the EC Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC
                                                                             Treaty have been replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC) and
4. Community law, in particular the principle of non-discrimination          of the Protocol on Article 119 of the Treaty establishing the
     on grounds of nationality and Article 119 of the Treaty, does           European Community, annexed to the EC Treaty — the Court
     not preclude provisions of a Member State which lay down a              (Sixth Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen (Rapporteur),
     principle of equal treatment by virtue of which, in circumstances       President of the Second Chamber, acting for the President of
     like those of the main proceedings, part-time workers are entitled      the Sixth Chamber, G. Hirsch and H. Ragnemalm, Judges;
     to retroactive membership of an occupational pension scheme             G. Cosmas, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Adminis-
     and to receive a pension under that scheme, notwithstanding the         trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 February
     risk of distortions of competition between economic operators of        2000, in which it has ruled:
     the various Member States to the detriment of employers
     established in the first Member State.
                                                                             1. The limitation in time of the possibility of relying on the direct
                                                                                effect of Article 119 of the EC Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of
                                                                                the EC Treaty have been replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143
                                                                                EC), resulting from the judgment in Case 43/75 Defrenne v
(1) OJ C 133 of 4.5.1996.
                                                                                Sabena [1976] ECR 455, does not preclude national provisions
                                                                                which lay down a principle of equal treatment by virtue of which,
                                                                                in circumstances like those of the main proceedings, all part-time
                                                                                workers are entitled to retroactive membership of an occupational
                                                                                pension scheme and to receive a pension under that scheme.


title: Case T-260/06: Action brought on 15 September 2006 — Arktouros v Commission

text:
               18.11.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/40

         Action brought on 15 September 2006 — Arktouros v Commission
   (Case T-260/06)
   (2006/C 281/71)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Arktouros (Association for the Protection and Management of the Natural Environment and Wildlife) (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and N. Keramidas, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul Commission Decision C (2006)3181 final of 7 July 2006, notified to the applicant on 10 July 2006, concerning the ending of the programme ‘Conservation actions in the Northern Pindos National Park’ — Ellas — LIFE03 NAT/GR/000089 and relating to the reimbursement of assistance amounting to EUR 264 684,00 together with default interest amounting to EUR 4 659,53;

               —

               exclude a sum amounting to EUR 55 658,28 from the sum to be repaid, in respect of eligible expenditure incurred in connection with the programme;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant submits, first, that the infringement by the Commission of a provision contained in the LIFE Standard Administrative Provisions constitutes an infringement of a rule of law under Article 230 EC, rendering Commission Decision C (2006)3181 final invalid.
   Second, the applicant submits that the Commission made a material error of assessment regarding the applicant's ability to complete the programme despite the departure of two of its members, an error which justifies annulment of the Commission decision concerning termination of the agreement and recovery of the assistance granted.
   In the alternative, the applicant seeks the exclusion of the sum of EUR 55 658,28 from the sum to be repaid, in respect of eligible expenditure incurred in connection with the programme.


title: Case C-279/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 13 June 2007 — Vion Trading GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/15

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 13 June 2007 — Vion Trading GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
   (Case C-279/07)
   (2007/C 211/29)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesfinanzhof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Vion Trading GmbH

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
   Question(s) referred

               1.

               Must the limitation period prescribed in the first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC, EURATOM) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities' financial interests (1) be applied even if an irregularity was committed or ceased before Regulation (EC, EURATOM) No 2988/95 entered into force?

               2.

               Is the limitation period prescribed in that provision applicable in general to administrative measures such as the recovery of export refunds granted as a result of irregularities?

         If the answers to those questions are in the affirmative:

               3.

               May a longer period pursuant to Article 3(3) of Regulation (EC, EURATOM) No 2988/95 be applied by a Member State even if such a longer period was already provided for in the law of the Member State before the abovementioned regulation was adopted? May such a longer period be applied even if it was not prescribed in a specific provision for the recovery of export refunds or for administrative measures in general, but resulted from a general rule of the Member State concerned covering all limitation cases not specifically regulated (‘catch-all’ provision)?

      (1)  OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1.


title: Case C-305/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 4 July 2008 — CoNISMa (Consorzio Nazionale Interuniversitario per le Scienze del Mare) v Regione Marche

text:
               27.9.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 4 July 2008 — CoNISMa (Consorzio Nazionale Interuniversitario per le Scienze del Mare) v Regione Marche
   (Case C-305/08)
   (2008/C 247/11)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Consiglio di Stato
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: CoNISMa (Consorzio Nazionale Interuniversitario per le Scienze del Mare)

      Defendant: Regione Marche
   Questions referred

               1.

               Must the provisions of Directive 2004/18/EC (1) on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts that are referred to in section 1 above be interpreted as precluding a consortium made up solely of Italian universities and state bodies, as described in section 8 above, from taking part in a tendering procedure for the award of a service contract such as that for the acquisition of geophysical data and marine samples?

               2.

               Are the provisions of Italian law contained in Article 3(22) and (19) and Article 34 of the Public Contracts Code, enacted by Legislative Decree No 163/2006, which provide, respectively: that ‘the term “economic operator” shall include a contractor, supplier, service provider or a group or consortium of these’ and ‘the terms “contractor”, “supplier” and “service provider” shall mean any natural or legal person, or body without legal personality, including a European Economic Interest Group (EEIG) formed pursuant to Legislative Decree No 240 of 23 July 1991, which “offers on the market”, respectively, the execution of works or a work, the supply of products or the provision of services’, contrary to Directive 2004/18/EC if interpreted as restricting participation in tendering procedures to professional providers of such services and excluding entities whose primary objects are not-for-profit, such as research?

      (1)  OJ L 2004 134, p. 114.


title: Case T-13/08: Action brought on 4 January 2008 — Kinotita Grammatikou v Commission

text:
               29.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/29

         Action brought on 4 January 2008 — Kinotita Grammatikou v Commission
   (Case T-13/08)
   (2008/C 79/57)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Kinotita Grammatikou (Community of Grammatiko) (Athens, Greece) (represented by: A. Papakonstantinou and M. Khaïntarlis, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul Commission Decision C(2004) 5509 of 21 December 2004 relating to the grant of assistance from the Cohesion Fund for the project ‘Construction of a Landfill Site at the Integrated Waste Management Facility of North-East Attica at the location “Mavro Vouno Grammatikou”, in the Hellenic Republic’;

               —

               in the event of doubt, order an on-the-spot inspection in the project area and seek independent technical opinions to corroborate the applicant's submissions;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   As regards its locus standi to bring the action for annulment on the basis of Article 230 EC, the applicant considers that the contested decision, which seeks the creation of a landfill site on an area which is within the boundaries of the Community of Grammatiko, is of direct and individual concern to it because it is a public body responsible for the protection of public health and the environment in the area where the project that is being financed is located.
   The applicant submits that the contested decision, the content of which it maintains came to its notice on 9 November 2007, infringes a number of provisions of primary Community law for the protection of health and the environment as well as provisions of secondary Community law giving concrete expression to the primary law.
   Specifically, the applicant claims that the financing of the project contravenes the aims of maintaining, protecting and improving the quality of the environment, of protecting public health and of using natural resources in a wise and rational manner. In addition, in the applicant's view the contested Commission decision infringes first and foremost Articles 3, 4 and 6 of Directive 75/442 (1) and Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 91/156 (2), which lay down specific obligations in the areas of prevention or reduction of waste production and its harmfulness.
   Lastly, according to the applicant, it is clear that the creation of a waste management and disposal facility within a protected area cannot in any circumstances be regarded as a project eligible for financing by a financial instrument such as the Cohesion Fund, which by definition should finance only works complying with the requirements of protection of the environment.

      (1)  Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39).

      (2)  Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 amending Directive 75/442/EEC on waste (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32).


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 7 March 1996 in Case C-360/93: European Parliament v. Council of the European Union (Common commercial policy - Services - Government procurement)

text:
4 . 5 . 96             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 133/ 11
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione
                        ( Sixth Chamber )                             Tributaria di Primo Grado di Reggio Emilia by order of that
                                                                      court of 15 June 1995 in the case of Max Mara Fashion
                        of 7 March 1996                               Group SRL against Ufficio del Registro di Reggio Emilia
in Case C-360/93 : European Parliament v. Council of the                                        Case C-307/95 )
                       European Union (')                                                        ( 96/C 133/22 )
(Common commercial policy — Services — Government
                           procurement)                               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                           ( 96/C 133/21 )                            European Communities by order of the Commissione
                                                                      Tributaria di Primo Grado (Tax Court of First Instance ),
                                                                      Reggio Emilia of 15 June 1995 , which was received at the
                  (Language of the case: French)                      Court Registry on 27 September 1995 , for a preliminary
                                                                      ruling in the case of Max Mara Fashion Group SRL against
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be          Ufficio del Registro di Reggio Emilia . The Commissione
           published in the European Court Reports)                   Tributaria made a reference for a preliminary ruling under
                                                                      Article 177 of the EC Treaty on the interpretation of
                                                                      Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning
In Case C-360/93 : European Parliament ( Agents : Johann              indirect taxes on the raising of capital ( OJ, English Special
Schoo and José Luis Rufas Quintana ) v . Council of the               Edition 1969 ( II ), p . 412 ), as amended by Council Directive
European Union ( Agents : Ramon Torrent and Amadeu                    85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985 ( OJ No L 156 , 1985 , p . 23 ).
Lopes Sabino ), supported by Commission of the European               The Court made an order on 21 December 1995 , the
Communities ( Agents : Jorn Sack and Patrick Hetsch ) and by          operative part of which is as follows :
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
( Agent: John E. Collins ) — Application for the annulment of         The request for a preliminary ruling submitted by
Council Decision 93/323/EEC of 10 May 1993 concerning                 Commissione Tributaria di Primo Grado , Reggio Emilia, by
the conclusion of an Agreement in the form of a                       an order of 15 June 1995 is inadmissible.
Memorandum of Understanding between the European
Economic Community and the United States of America on
government procurement ( OJ No L 125 , 1993 , p . 1 ) and
Council Decision 93/324/EEC of 10 May 1993 concerning
the extension of the benefit of the provisions of                     Action brought on 24 January 1996 by the Commission of
Directive 90/53 1 /EEC in respect of the United States of             the European Communities against the Kingdom of
America ( OJ No L 125 , 1993 , p . 54 ), — the Court ( Sixth                                           Spain
 Chamber ), composed of C. N. Kakouris, President of the                                        ( Case C-21 /96 )
 Chamber, G. F. Mancini , F. A. Schockweiler, P. J. G.                                            ( 96/C 133/23 )
Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ) and J. L. Murray, Judges;
Advocate-General : G. Tesauro, Registrar: R. Grass, has               An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
given a judgment on 7 March 1996 , in which the operative             the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
 part is as follows :                                                 24 January 1996 by the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities, represented by Thomas F. Cusack, Legal
 1 , annuls Council Decision 93/323/EEC of 10 May 1993                Adviser, and Isabel Martinez del Peral, of its Legal Service,
      concerning the conclusion of an Agreement in the form           with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
      of a Memorandum of Understanding between the                    Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre , Kirchberg.
      European Economic Community and the United States
                                                                      The Commission claims that the Court should :
       of America on government procurement and Council
      Decision 93/324/EEC of 10 May 1993 concerning the                1 , declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or
       extension of the benefit of the provisions of                       administrative provisions necessary to comply with
       Directive 90/531 /EEC in respect of the United States of            Articles 3 , 4 and 5 of Council Directive 84/446/Euratom
      America ;
                                                                           of 3 September 1 984 laying down basic measures for the
                                                                           radiation protection of persons undergoing medical
 2 , maintains in force the effects of the annulled                        examination or treatment (') or by failing to inform the
       decisions;                                                          Commission of the measures it has adopted for the
                                                                           transposition of the Directive, the Kingdom of Spain
                                                                           has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty
 3 , orders the Council to pay the costs;                                  establishing the European Atomic Energy Community;
                                                                           and
 4 , orders the Commission and the United Kingdom to bear              2 , order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs .
       their own costs.
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
 (') OJ No C 232 , 28 . 8 . 1993 .
                                                                       Under the third paragraph of Article 161 of the Euratom
                                                                       Treaty, the Directive is binding, as to the result to be
                                                                       achieved, upon each Member State to which it is addressed,


title: Case T-286/03: Action brought on 15 August 2003 by The Gillette Company against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
C 251/18               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                          18.10.2003
Regulations) and breach of the principle of equality of treat-            Specifically, for the marketing year 2000/2001, the
ment and non-discrimination.                                              Commission took as its basis for calculating production aid
                                                                          the export prices of tomatoes from the United States, Israel
                                                                          and Turkey. It follows that the defendant did not take into
                                                                          account the export prices of China, although in 1999 it was
                                                                          the world's second largest producer of tomatoes. That basis for
                                                                          calculation significantly reduced production aid.
                                                                          In support of their claims, the applicants argue that the
Action brought on 18 August 2003 by Agraz SA and                          conditions in the Bergadem case-law are fulfilled in the present
110 others against the Commission of the European                         case.
                           Communities
                         (Case T-285/03)
                                                                          The applicants claim that that omission infringes the relevant
                         (2003/C 251/34)
                                                                          basic regulation (2), that the regulation confers rights on
                                                                          individuals and that the powers of the Commission when
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          Regulation No 1519/2000 was adopted were extremely lim-
                                                                          ited, consisting merely in identifying the reference countries
                                                                          for the purposes of calculating the amount of the aid.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities on 18 August 2003 by the
company Agraz SA and 110 other companies, represented                     Finally, the Commission infringed the principles of good
by J.-L. da Cruz Vilaça, R. Oliveira, M.-J. Melícias and                  administration and legitimate expectations by failing to make
D. Choussy, laywers.                                                      the effort needed to learn the Chinese prices and by refusing,
                                                                          once it was notified of those prices, to amend the regulation.
The applicants claim that the Court should:                               (1) OJ L 174 of 13.7.2000, p. 29.
                                                                          (2) OJ L 297 of 21.11.1996, p. 29.
—     order the defendant to pay each applicant company the
      balance of the production aid together with interest at a
      rate fixed by the Court of First Instance as from 12 July
      2000 (or, in the alternative, as from 13 July 2000 or,
      further in the alternative, as from 16 July 2000) and until
      the actual day of payment;                                          Action brought on 15 August 2003 by The Gillette
                                                                          Company against the Office for Harmonisation in the
                                                                                Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
—     order the Commission to pay the costs, including those                                        (Case T-286/03)
      incurred by the applicants.
                                                                                (2003/C 251/35)
                                                                          (Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2) of
                                                                          the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                submitted: German)
The present application seeks recognition of the extra-contrac-
tual liability of the Community arising from the damage alleg-
edly suffered by the applicants as the result of the method used          An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
to calculate the amount of production aid for processed                   Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
tomato products for the marketing year 2000/2001 under                    Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1519/2000 of 12 July                        15 August 2003 by The Gillette Company, Boston (USA),
2000 setting for the 2000/01 marketing year the minimum                   represented by L. Kouker, lawyer. Wilkinson Sword GmbH,
price and the amount of production aid for processed tomato               Solingen (Germany), was also a party to the proceedings
products (1).                                                             before the Board of Appeal.
 ---pagebreak--- 18.10.2003           EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 251/19
The applicant claims that the Court should:                           Action brought on 13 August 2003 by TeleTech Holdings,
                                                                      Inc. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                               Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
—     annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of
      the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
                                                                                (Case T-288/03)
      (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 April 2003 in Case
      No R 221/2002-4;
                                                                                (2003/C 251/36)
—     order the defendant Office to pay the costs of the pro-                            (Language of the case: Spanish)
      ceedings.
                                                                      An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Pleas in law and main arguments                                       Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
                                                                      the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                      13 August 2003 by TeleTech Holdings, Inc., established in
Applicant for Com-          The applicant                             Denver, Colorado, (USA), represented by E. Armijo Chávarri
munity trade mark:                                                    and A. Castán Pérez-Gómez, lawyers.
Community trade mark        Figurative mark ‘XTREME RIGHT             The applicant claims that the Court should:
sought:                     GUARD SPORT’ in respect of
                            goods in Class 3 (non-medicated           —     annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM
                            preparations for use in the bath                of 28 May 2003 in Case R-412/2000-1 and, subject to
                            or     shower;    anti-perspirants;             the appropriate procedural steps, give judgment uphold-
                            deodorants; all included in                     ing either the applicant's principal claim or its alternative
                            Class      3)    —      application             claim.
                            No 1486745
Proprietor of mark or       Wilkinson Sword GmbH                      Pleas in law and main arguments
sign cited in the opposi-
tion proceedings:
                                                                      Community trade mark           Word mark ‘TELETECH GLOBAL
                                                                      in respect of which            VENTURES’ — Registered trade
Mark or sign cited in       The German figurative marks               declaration of invalidity      mark No 134.908, for products
opposition:                 ‘WILKINSON SWORD EXTREME’                 sought:                        in Classes 35 and 38.
                            (Nos 399 23 715 and 399 45 175)
                            in respect of goods in Class 3
                            (shaving cosmetics)                       Owner of the Com-              The applicant.
                                                                      munity trade mark in
                                                                      respect      of      which
Decision        of    the   Rejection of the opposition               declaration of invalidity
Opposition Division:                                                  sought:
Decision of the Board of    Annulment of the decision of the          Person applying for a          Teletech International S.A. (owner
Appeal:                     Opposition Division and refusal           declaration of invalidity:     of the national word mark
                            of the applicant's application for                                       ‘TELETECH INTERNATIONAL’),
                            registration                                                             in respect of certain goods within
                                                                                Class 35 (business management
Pleas in law:               —     Infringement of Article 8(1)                                       for technical services, customer
                                  (b) of Regulation (EC)                                             relations and call centres) and
                                  No 40/94;                                                          Class 38 (telecommunications
                                                                                services).
                            —     No likelihood of confusion;         Decision        of      the    Application upheld in part
                                                                      Cancellation Division:
                            —     No similarity between the
                                  opposing marks.                     Decision of the Board of       Appeal upheld, solely in so far as
                                                                      Appeal:                        the contested decision declared
                                                                                the Community mark in issue
                                                                                invalid in respect of ‘business
                                                                                management assistance services
                                                                                consisting of facilities manage-
                                                                                ment and site selection services’.


               6.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/8

         Action brought on 21 July 2011 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Norway
   (Case E-9/11)
   2011/C 294/08
   An action against Norway was brought before the EFTA Court on 21 July 2011 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Xavier Lewis, Florence Simonetti Gjermund Mathisen, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35, Rue Belliard, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to declare that:

               1.

               By maintaining in force such restrictions on the rights of persons and undertakings established in EEA States to own holdings and exercise voting rights in regulated markets in Norway as provided for in Sections 35(1), (2) and (3) and 36 of the Act of 29 June 2007 No 74 on Regulated Markets (the Stock Exchange Act) and Sections 5-3(1), (2) and (3) and 5-4 of the Act of 5 July 2002 on Registration of Financial Instruments (the Securities Depositories Act), the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations arising from Articles 31 and 40 EEA.

               2.

               The Kingdom of Norway bear the costs of the proceedings.

      Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               Norwegian legislation restricts ownership of and voting rights in financial services infrastructure institutions. As a main rule, the Stock Exchange Act prohibits the holding of more than 20 % of the shares in stock exchanges, as well as the voting for more than 20 % of the total voting capital or 30 % of the votes represented at the general meeting. Corresponding rules with respect to securities depositories are laid down in the Securities Depositories Act.

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that the contested legislation is incompatible both with the freedom of establishment under Article 31 EEA and with the freedom movement of capital under Article 40 EEA.

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits in particular that the contested legislation is unnecessary to promote the well-functioning and efficiency of the financial markets and to inspire confidence among market operators in the independence and impartiality of the institutions. It argues that alternative, less restrictive measures are available that would be sufficiently effective.


title: Case C-152/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 1 March 2001 in the case of Kyocera Electronics Europe GmbH against Hauptzollamt Krefeld

text:
C 186/4                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       30.6.2001
Thionville, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the          2.    accordingly, declare the application admissible and send
premises of Borislav Erdeljan, 90 Route de Thionville —                     it back to the Court of First Instance for judgment (or for
Appeal against the unpublished order of the Court of First                  a stay of proceedings pending delivery of the judgment
Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) of                     of the Court of Justice in Case C-310/99 Italy v Com-
21 May 1999 in Cases T-169/98 and T-170/98 Schiocchet v                     mission);
Commission, seeking to have that order annulled and to have
the forms of order sought by the appellant at first instance          3.    order the Commission to pay the full costs incurred by
granted, the other party to the proceedings being: Commission               the appellants in respect of matters adjunct to proceedings
of the European Communities (Agent: M. Wolfcarius, assisted                 before the Court of First Instance and the present appeal
by J.-L. Fagnart) — The Court (Third Chamber), composed of:                 proceedings, reserving the costs of the main proceedings.
C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber,
J.-P. Puissochet and F. Macken, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 16 Novem-          Pleas in law and main arguments
ber 2000, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                      The contested order is vitiated by the following errors in law:
1.    The appeal is dismissed.
                                                                      —     infringement and misapplication of Articles 111 and 114
2.    Schiocchet SARL shall pay the costs.                                  of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance;
                                                                      —     infringement and misapplication of the provisions of the
                                                                            Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance with
(1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.                                                  regard to calculating procedural time-limits in the event
                                                                            of publication of the contested act;
                                                                      —     failure to give reasons in relation to the legal arguments
                                                                            for the application of the rules on time-limits invoked by
                                                                            the appellant;
                                                                      —     in the alternative, error of law and failure to state reasons
                                                                            with regard to the matter of excusable error.
Appeal brought on 27 March 2001 by Confederazione
Generale dell’Industria Italiana (Confindustria), estab-
lished in Rome, Confederazione Generale Italiana del
Commercio, del Turismo, dei Servizi e delle PMI
(Confcommercio), Confartigianato, Associazione Bancaria
Italiana (ABI), established in Rome, Associazione Naziona-
le fra le Imprese Assicuratrici (ANIA), established in Milan          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzh-
(Italy), and Banco di Napoli SpA, established in Naples               of by order of that court of 1 March 2001 in the case of
(Italy) against the order made on 19 January 2001 by the              Kyocera Electronics Europe GmbH against Hauptzollamt
                  Second Chamber, Extended                                                          Krefeld
                        (Case C-141/01 P)                                                      (Case C-152/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 186/08)
                         (2001/C 186/07)
                                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
An appeal against the order made on 19 January 2001 by the            European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof
Second Chamber extended Composition, of the Court of First            (Federal Finance Court) of 1 March 2001, received at the Court
Instance of the European Communities in Case T-126/00                 Registry on 9 April 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case
between Confederazione Generale dell’Industria Italiana (Con-         of Kyocera Electronics Europe GmbH v Hauptzollamt Krefeld
findustria) and Others and the Commission of the European             on the following questions:
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 27 March 2001 by Confederazione               1.    Must Article 3(2)(a) of Commission Regulation (EEC)
Generale dell’Industria Italiana (Confindustria) and the other              No 1495/80 (1) of 11 June 1980 implementing certain
abovementioned companies.                                                   provisions of Articles 1, 3 and 8 of Council Regulation
                                                                            (EEC) No 1224/80 (2) on the valuation of goods for
                                                                            customs purposes as amended by Regulation (EEC)
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                 No 220/85 (3) be interpreted as meaning that payments
                                                                            of interest are distinct from the price of the goods if at
1.    set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of the             the material time, namely the acceptance of the customs
      European Communities of 19 January 2001;                              declaration, only the invoice for the net price of the goods
 ---pagebreak--- 30.6.2001              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 186/5
      has been submitted to the customs office and that invoice              crops which need little water. The legislation which was
      — like the declaration of customs value — does not                     enacted shortly afterwards in light of experience (Council
      reveal either expressly or by implication that in the                  Regulation No 1422/97) (2) bears out the fact that neither
      context of the transaction to be assessed interest was also            the objectives nor the spirit of the applicable Community
      paid by the buyer to the seller?                                       law were prejudiced.
2.    If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative:
                                                                             As regards the failure to implement the extraordinary set-
      Do the interest payments then form part of the customs                 aside in relation to irrigated arable crops, they rely on
      value of the goods?                                                    the factual circumstances (the drought and the Act of
                                                                             Accession) acknowledged by Commission Regulation
                                                                             No 1040/95 (3) and to an agreement which unfortunately
(1) OJ L 154, 21.6.1980, p. 14.                                              will be put to the test only if it is recognised by the
(2) OJ L 134, 31.5.1980, p. 1.                                               Commission.
(3) OJ L 25, 30.1.1985, p. 7.
                                                                        —    (In the alternative) The financial adjustment includes
                                                                             items which should not be included and has been
                                                                             calculated in a way that is contrary to the applicable rules.
                                                                             Although items which the Commission alleges should be
                                                                             present are included in the adjustment, the way it has
                                                                             been calculated is incorrect.
Action brought on 9 April 2001 by the Kingdom of Spain
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                        (Arable crops: the checks carried out in the Autonomous
                        (Case C-153/01)                                 Community of Andalusia in respect of the 1996 and 1997
                                                                        harvests were inadequate as to quality and quantity)
                        (2001/C 186/09)
                                                                        —    The checks carried out considerably exceed the minimum
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                    required by the rules. The delays alleged to have occurred
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                 as regards the standard-method checks cannot have any
Communities on 9 April 2001 by the Kingdom of Spain,                         repercussions since the checks carried out by tele-
represented by Mr Santiago Ortiz Vaamonde, Abogado del                       detection, in themselves, exceed the compulsory mini-
Estado, acting as Agent, with an address for service in                      mum. Furthermore, it is not surprising that the additional
Luxembourg at the Spanish Embassy, 4-6 Boulevard E. Servais.                 checks using the standard methods were carried out in
                                                                             part after 31 August, since they are additional checks
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  taking place later than the initial checks. The Commission
                                                                             failed to respond on both occasions when it was asked
—     annul the Commission’s decision of 5 February 2001 (1)                 whether it was incorrect to carry out additional checks
      excluding from financing certain expenditure incurred by               after 31 August. It is inconsistent to increase the amount
      the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the                   of the adjustment in proportion to the number of
      EAGGF, in so far as that decision is the object of the                 additional checks, since that amounts to inflicting heavier
      present action; and                                                    penalties if more checks are carried out.
—     order the defendant institution to pay the costs.
                                                                             The Spanish authorities consider that the adjustment
                                                                             relating to the tele-detection and standard-method checks
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              in Andalusia for the 1997 harvest is void for two further
                                                                             reasons:
(Arable crops: inadequate extraordinary set-aside for the 1995
harvest)                                                                     1.    The information used by the Commission to assess
                                                                                the 1997 harvest is incorrect since it concerns the
—     There was no failure to fulfil obligations such as to allow                  1996 harvest. There is, therefore, a manifest error of
      a financial adjustment to be made. The Spanish authorities                   fact.
      consider that they have not acted in breach of Community
      law.                                                                   2.    The adjustment relating to the 1997 harvest is
                                                                                indefensible because there has been a breach of the
      As regards the failure to implement the extraordinary set-                   principle of the right to a fair hearing.
      aside in the non-irrigated areas, they submit that the
      applicable law should be interpreted purposively and in a
      factual context, on the basis of a fact recognised by the              Even if the Court were to hold that it was appropriate to
      Commission: that the exceptional drought in 1994                       make a financial adjustment, the amount fixed by the
      prompted farmers to have recourse to the production of                 Commission cannot be justified.


title: Case C-93/07: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 27 September 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2003/35/EC — Environment — Public participation in certain projects and programmes — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               24.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/4

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 27 September 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-93/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2003/35/EC - Environment - Public participation in certain projects and programmes - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2007/C 283/06)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Konstantinidis and J.-B. Laignelot, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: D. Haven, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EC and 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 156, p. 17)
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               By failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;

               2.

               The Kingdom of Belgium is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 September 2003 in Case C-58/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Special Commissioners of Income Tax): Océ van der Grinten NV v Commissioners of Inland Revenue, (Directive 90/435/EEC — Corporation tax — Parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States — Concept of withholding tax)

text:
15.11.2003             EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                               C 275/7
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      2.    Article 7(2) of Directive 90/435 is to be interpreted as
                                                                                allowing taxation such as the 5% charge envisaged by the
                                                                                double taxation convention at issue in the main proceedings
                                                                                even though that charge, in so far as it applies to dividends
                         (Fifth Chamber)                                          paid by the subsidiary to its parent company, amounts to a
                                                                                withholding tax within the meaning of Article 5(1) of the
                                                                                Directive.
                     of 25 September 2003
                                                                            3.    Examination of the third question has revealed no formal or
                                                                                procedural defects such as to affect the validity of Article 7(2)
in Case C-58/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                          of the Directive.
the Special Commissioners of Income Tax): Océ van der
   Grinten NV v Commissioners of Inland Revenue (1),
                                                                            (1) OJ C 134 of 5.5.2001.
(Directive 90/435/EEC — Corporation tax — Parent com-
panies and subsidiaries of different Member States —
                  Concept of withholding tax)
                         (2003/C 275/12)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                of 30 September 2003
                                                                            in Case C-76/01 P: Comité des industries du coton et des
In Case C-58/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC                fibres connexes de l’Union européenne (Eurocoton) and
by the Special Commissioners of Income Tax (United                                                       Others (1)
Kingdom) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before them between Océ van der Grinten NV and Com-
missioners of Inland Revenue, on the interpretation of                      (Appeal — Dumping — Failure by the Council to adopt a
Article 5(1) of Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990                proposal for a regulation imposing definitive anti-dumping
on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of                  duties — Lack of simple majority necessary for the adoption
parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States                of the regulation — Expiry of the time-limit for the anti-
(OJ 1990 L 225, p. 6, corrigendum at OJ 1991 L 23, p. 35)                   dumping investigation — Definition of a reviewable act —
and the interpretation and validity of Article 7(2) of that                                     Obligation to state reasons)
directive, the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet
(Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, A. La
Pergola, P. Jann and A. Rosas, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate                                           (2003/C 275/13)
General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
has given a judgment on 25 September 2003, in which it has
ruled:                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
1.   In so far as taxation such as the 5 % charge envisaged by the
     double taxation convention at issue in the main proceedings is
     imposed on the dividends paid by a subsidiary resident in the          In Case C-76/01 P, Comité des industries du coton et des fibres
     United Kingdom to its parent company resident in another               connexes de l’Union européenne (Eurocoton), established in
     Member State, it amounts to a withholding tax on profits               Brussels (Belgium), Ettlin Gesellschaft für Spinnerei und Webe-
     which a subsidiary distributes to its parent company within the        rei AG, established in Ettlingen (Germany), Textil Hof Weberei
     meaning of Article 5(1) of Council Directive 90/435/EEC of             GmbH & Co. KG, established in Hof (Germany), H. Hecking
     23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in            Söhne GmbH & Co., established in Stadtlohn (Germany),
     the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different             Spinnweberei Uhingen GmbH, established in Uhingen
     Member States. On the other hand, such taxation does not               (Germany), F. A. Kümpers GmbH & Co., established in Rheine
     amount to a withholding tax prohibited by Article 5(1) of the          (Germany), Tenthorey SA, established in Éloyes (France), Les
     Directive in so far as it is imposed on the tax credit to which        tissages des héritiers de G. Perrin — Groupe Alain Thirion
     that distribution of dividends confers entitlement in the United       (HPG–GAT Tissages), established in Cornimont (France), Étab-
     Kingdom.                                                               lissements des fils de Victor Perrin SARL, established in


               10.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 325/6

         Action brought on 29 August 2011 by Hurtigruten ASA against the EFTA Surveillance Authority
   (Case E-10/11)
   2011/C 325/03
   An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 29 August 2011 by Hurtigruten ASA, represented by Siri Teigum, advokat, and Odd Stemsrud, advokat, Advokatfirmaet Thommessen AS, Haakon VII’s gate 10, 0116 Oslo, Norway.
   The Applicant requests the EFTA Court to:

               1.

               Annul the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision No 205/11/COL of 29 June 2011 on the Supplementary Agreement on the Hurtigruten Service;

               2.

               In the alternative, declare void Articles 2, 3 and 4 of the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision No 205/11/COL of 29 June 2011, to the extent that they order the recovery of the aid referred to in Article 1 of the Decision; and

               3.

               Order the EFTA Surveillance Authority to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Hurtigruten ASA.

      Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               The Applicant, Hurtigruten ASA, is a public limited company, pursuing travel and transport activities in Norway and abroad.

               —

               On 28 November 2008, the Norwegian authorities informed the EFTA Surveillance Authority of the renegotiation of the agreement between the Norwegian authorities and Hurtigruten ASA on acquisition of transport services between Bergen and Kirkenes in Norway. On 14 July 2010 the EFTA Surveillance Authority informed the Norwegian authorities that it would initiate the formal investigation procedure laid down in Article 1(2) of Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement in respect of the additional payments to Hurtigruten in 2008.

               —

               With Decision No 205/11/COL, the EFTA Surveillance Authority decided that the Supplementary Agreement constituted State aid which is incompatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement within the meaning of Article 61(1) EEA in so far as they constitute a form of overcompensation for public service.

               —

               The Applicant claims, inter alia, that the EFTA Surveillance Authority has based the contested Decision on manifest errors of law and/or assessment:

                           —

                           under Article 59(2) EEA relating to the Norwegian Government’s right to ensure that the performance of an undertaking entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest is not obstructed when its continued operation is at risk, and the level of compensation which can be granted in these circumstances,

                           —

                           under Article 61(1) EEA and the Altmark framework and the subsequent enforcement of the Decision,

                           —

                           of Article 61(3) EEA and the applicability of the State Aid Guidelines for aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty, and

                           —

                           that the Decision must be annulled based on the failure of the EFTA Surveillance Authority to state reasons for its decision as required by Article 16 SCA, breach of the principle of good administration, breach of the duty to exercise due diligence, lack of legal basis in Protocol 3 SCA and/or breach of the principle of legal certainty.


title: Case T-600/14: Order of the General Court of 15 September 2015 — Syriatel Mobile Telecom v Council

text:
               16.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/60

         Order of the General Court of 15 September 2015 — Syriatel Mobile Telecom v Council
   (Case T-600/14) (1)

   (2015/C 381/81)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 361, 13.10.2014.


title: Case T-129/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  15 March 2006  — Develey v OHIM (Community trade mark — Three-dimensional mark — Shape of a plastic bottle — Refusal of registration — Absolute ground of refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Earlier national trade mark — Paris Convention — TRIPs Agreement — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               6.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/20

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 March 2006 — Develey v OHIM
   (Case T-129/04) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Three-dimensional mark - Shape of a plastic bottle - Refusal of registration - Absolute ground of refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Earlier national trade mark - Paris Convention - TRIPs Agreement - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2006/C 108/35)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties:

      Applicant: Develey Holding GmbH & Co. Beteiligungs KG (Unterhaching, Gemany) (represented by: R. Kunz-Hallstein and H. Kunz-Hallstein, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)
   Action
   for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 January 2004 (Case R 367/2003-2) rejecting the application for registration as a Community trade mark of a three-dimensional sign in the form of a bottle.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 168, 26.6.2004.


title: Case C-461/05: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 December 2009 — European Commission v Kingdom of Denmark (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Duty-free imports of military equipment)

text:
               27.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/5

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 December 2009 — European Commission v Kingdom of Denmark
   (Case C-461/05) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Duty-free imports of military equipment)
   2010/C 51/07
   Language of the case: Danish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Cattabriga, G. Wilms, and H. Støvlbæk, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: J. Molde, J. Bering Liisberg and B. Weis Fogh, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E.-M. Mamouna, A. Samoni-Rantou and K. Boskovits, Agents), Portuguese Republic (represented by: C. Guerra Santos, L. Inez Fernandes and J. Gomes, Agents), Republic of Finland (represented by: E. Bygglin and A. Guimaraes-Purokoski, Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Articles 2, 9, 10 and 11 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources (OJ 1989 L 155, p. 1) and, for the period after 31 May 2000, of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources (OJ 2000 L 130, p. 1) — Duty-free imports of military equipment

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by refusing to calculate and make payment to the European Commission of own resources which were not collected in the period from 1 January 1998 until 31 December 2002 in relation to imports of military material which were exempted from customs duties, and by refusing to pay default interest arising from the failure to pay those own resources to the European Commission, the Kingdom of Denmark has failed to fulfil its obligations under, respectively, Article 2 and Articles 9 to 11 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources, as amended by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1355/96 of 8 July 1996, until 31 May 2000, and, after that date, the same articles of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Denmark to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic, the Portuguese Republic and the Republic of Finland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 48, 25.2.2006.


title: Case T-202/12: Action brought on 16 May 2012 — Al Assad v Council

text:
               21.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/24

         Action brought on 16 May 2012 — Al Assad v Council
   (Case T-202/12)
   2012/C 217/51
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Bouchra Al Assad (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: G. Karouni, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Implementing Decision 2012/172/CFSP of 23 March 2012 implementing Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, in so far as it refers to Mrs Bouchra (aka Bushra) Al Assad;

               —

               Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs, in accordance with Articles 87 and 91 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law, which are for all essential purposes identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-383/11 Makhlouf v Council. (1)

      (1)  OJ 2011 C 282, p. 30.