title: Case T-687/13: Judgment of the General Court of 3 September 2014  — Unibail Management v OHIM (Representation of two lines and five stars) (Community trade mark — Application for a figurative Community trade mark representing two lines and five stars — Absolute ground for refusal — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Absence of concrete assessment — Duty to state reasons)

text:
               13.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 361/7

         Judgment of the General Court of 3 September 2014 — Unibail Management v OHIM (Representation of two lines and five stars)
   (Case T-687/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for a figurative Community trade mark representing two lines and five stars - Absolute ground for refusal - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Absence of concrete assessment - Duty to state reasons))
   2014/C 361/08
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Unibail Management (Paris, France) (represented by: L. Bénard, A. Rudoni, and O. Klimis, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, agent)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 September 2013 (case R 299/2013-2), concerning an application for the registration of a sign representing two lines and five stars as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 3 September 2013 (case R 299/2013-2) in so far as it dismissed the appeal brought by Unibail Management for products and services falling within classes 16, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 52, 22.2.2014.


title: Judgment of the Court of 23 May 2000 in Case C-196/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Social Security Commissioner): Regina Virginia Hepple and Others v Adjudication Officer, Adjudication Officer v Anna Stec and Others (Directive 79/7/EEC — Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security — Benefits under an accident at work and occupational disease insurance scheme — Introduction of a link to retirement age)

text:
C 233/8                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     12.8.2000
mann, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann and H. Ragnemalm                the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President,
(Rapporteur), Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,              D.A.O. Edward, L. Sevón and R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) (Presi-
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                  dents of Chambers), P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puisso-
23 May 2000, in which it has ruled:                                        chet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet,
                                                                           Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; H. von
The derogation for which Article 7(1) (a) of Council Directive             Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 May
79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation             2000, in which it:
of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of
social security provides must be interpreted as not applying to a          1.   Dismisses the appeal;
benefit such as the early old-age pension on account of incapacity for
work for which a qualifying age which differs according to sex was
introduced into national legislation after expiry of the period            2.   Orders the works council of SFP, Syndicat National de
prescribed for transposition of that directive.                                 Radiodiffusion et de Télévision CGT, Syndicat Unifié de Radio
                                                                                et de Télévision CFDT, Syndicat National Force Ouvrière de
                                                                                Radiodiffusion et de Télévision and Syndicat National de
(1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.                                                       l’Encadrement Audiovisuel CFE-CGC to pay the costs.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           of 23 May 2000
in Case C-106/98 P: Comité d’entreprise de la Société
française de production and Others v Commission of the
                    European Communities (1)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Appeal — Natural and legal persons — Directly and
individually concerned by the measure — State aid —                                                of 23 May 2000
Decision declaring aid incompatible with the common market
              — Trade unions and works councils)
                                                                           in Case C-196/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                           from the Social Security Commissioner): Regina Virginia
                           (2000/C 233/15)
                                                                           Hepple and Others v Adjudication Officer, Adjudication
                                                                                Officer v Anna Stec and Others (1)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           (Directive 79/7/EEC — Equal treatment for men and women
                                                                           in matters of social security — Benefits under an accident
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                           at work and occupational disease insurance scheme —
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                Introduction of a link to retirement age)
In Case C-106/98 P: Comité d’entreprise de la Société française
de production, having its registered office in Bry-sur-Marne                                       (2000/C 233/16)
(France), Syndicat national de radiodiffusion et de télévision
CGT (SNRT-CGT), having its registered office in Paris, Syndicat
unifié de radio et de télévision CFDT (SURT-CFDT), having its                                 (Language of the case: English)
registered office in Paris, Syndicat national Force ouvrière de
radiodiffusion et de télévision, having its registered office in
Paris, Syndicat national de l’encadrement audiovisuel CFE-                 In Case C-196/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
CGC (SNEA-CFE-CGC), having its registered office in Paris,                 the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Social Security
represented by H. Masse-Dessen, lawyer with right of audience              Commissioner, United Kingdom, for a preliminary ruling in
before the French Conseil d’État and Cour de Cassation, with              the proceedings pending before that court between Regina
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                    Virginia Hepple and Others v Adjudication Officer, Adjudica-
G. Thomas, 77, Boulevard Grande-Duchesse Charlotte —                       tion Officer v Anna Stec and Others — on the interpretation of
appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of              Article 7(1)(a) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December
the European Communities (Second Chamber) of 18 February                   1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of
1998 in Case T-189/97 Comité d’Entreprise de la Société                    equal treatment for men and women in matters of social
Française de Production and Others v Commission [1998]                     security (OJ 1979 L 6, p. 24) — the Court, composed
ECR II-335, seeking to have that order set aside — the other               of: G.C. Rodrı́guez, President, D.A.O. Edward and L. Sevón,
party to the proceedings being: Commission of the European                 Presidents of Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puis-
Communities (Agents: G. Rozet and D. Triantafyllou) —                      sochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann and H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur),
 ---pagebreak--- 12.8.2000                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                                C 233/9
Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator,            obligations under the EC Treaty and Article 7 of Directive
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 May 2000, in                 76/464 — the Court (Sixth Chamber) composed of: R. Schint-
which it has ruled:                                                        gen, President of the Second Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn,
                                                                           G. Hirsch (Rapporteur), H. Ragnemalm and V. Skouris, Judges;
The derogation provided for in Article 7(1)(a) of Council Directive        P. Léger, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation             Registrar, has given a judgment on 25 May 2000 in which it:
of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of        1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt pollution reduction program-
social security must be interpreted as applying to a benefit, such as            mes including quality objectives for the dangerous substances
the reduced earnings allowance at issue in the main proceedings,                 covered by the first indent of List II of the annex to Council
which was introduced into national legislation after expiry of the               Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by
period prescribed for transposition of the Directive and is subject to           certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic
age conditions which differ according to sex.                                    environment of the Community, the Hellenic Republic has
                                                                                failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(1) of that directive;
(1) OJ C 234 of 25.7.1998.
                                                                           2.
                                                                                Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 26 of 24.1.1998.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Second Chamber)
                           of 25 May 2000
                                                                                of 25 May 2000
in Case C-384/97 Commission of the European Communi-
                    ties v Hellenic Republic (1)                           in Case C-273/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                           the Bundesfinanzhof): Hans-Josef Schlebusch v Haupt-
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Water                                             zollamt Trier (1)
pollution — Obligation to adopt programmes in order to
reduce pollution caused by certain dangerous substances —                  (Additional levy on milk — Original and special reference
          Failure to transpose Directive 76/464/EEC)                       quantities — Accumulation — Definitive allocation of a
                                                                           special reference quantity — Conditions — Temporary
                                                                           transfer of part of an original reference quantity before the
                           (2000/C 233/17)                                      definitive allocation of a special reference quantity)
                                                                                (2000/C 233/18)
                     (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-384/97, Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: M. Condou-Durande) v Hellenic Republic (Agents:                    In Case C-273/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
A. Samoni-Rantou and E.-M. Mamouna) — Application for a                    the EC Treaty from the Bundesfinanzhof, Germany, for a
declaration that, by failing to establish programmes including             preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
quality objectives and setting deadlines for their implementa-             court between Hans-Josef Schlebusch and Hauptzollamt Trier
tion, in order to reduce water pollution caused by the                     — on the interpretation of the first sentence of Article 3a(3) of
99 dangerous substances covered by the first indent of List II             Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984
in the annex to Council Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May                      adopting general rules for the application of the levy referred
1976 on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances                   to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk
discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community                   and milk products sector (OJ 1984 L 90, p. 13), as amended
(OJ 1976 L 129, p. 23), and consequently by failing to require             by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1639/91 of 13 June 1991 (OJ
discharges which are made into waters and liable to contain                1991 L 150, p. 35) — the Court (Second Chamber), composed
any of the said substances to be subject to a prior authorisation          of: R. Schintgen, President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch (Rappor-
issued by the competent authority in which emission standards              teur) and V. Skouris, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General;
are set on the basis of quality objectives laid down in such               R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 25 May 2000, in
programmes, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its                 which it has ruled:


title: Action brought on 17 September 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium (Case C-326/97)

text:
1 . 11 . 97            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 331 / 15
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     necessary to comply with the Directive named in the
                                                                        Commission's application.
Pleas in law and main arguments correspond to those set                 (') OJ L 168 , 18 . 7. 1995, p. 14 .
                                                                        ( 2 ) OJ L 384 , 31 . 12 . 1986 , p. 1 .
out in Case C-320/97 (2 ); the period prescribed in the
Directive expired on 31 December 1995 .
O OJ L 368 , 31 . 12 . 1994 , p. 38 .
(2) See p. 13 of this Official Journal.
                                                                        Action brought on 17 September 1997 by the Commission
                                                                        of the European Communities against the Federal
                                                                                Republic of Germany
                                                                                ( Case C-325/97)
                                                                                ( 97/C 331 /29 )
Action brought on 17 September 1997 by the Commission
 of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                                                                        An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
                          ( Case C-324/97)                              brought before the Court of Justice on 17 September 1997
                                                                        by the Commission of the European Communities,
                            ( 97/C 331/28 )                             represented by Klaus-Dieter Borchardt, of its Legal
                                                                        Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
                                                                        Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
                                                                        also of the Commission's Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before               Kirchberg.
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
17 September 1997 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Paolo Stancanelli of its Legal              The Commission claims that the Court should:
Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                               1 . declare that, by failing to adopt the measures
                                                                               necessary to comply with Directives 94/39/EC ( ! ) and
                                                                               95/10/EC (2 ) within the period prescribed, the Federal
                                                                               Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    under the EC Treaty and those Directives;
                                                                        2 . order the defendant to pay the costs.
— declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and
     administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     European Parliament and Council Directive 95/27/EC                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     of 29 June 1995 (') amending Council Directive
     86/662/EEC       on     the  limitation  of   noise  emitted       Pleas in law and main arguments correspond to those set
     by hydraulic excavators, rope-operated excavators,                 out in Case C-320/97 ( 3 ); the period prescribed for
     dozers, loaders and excavator-loaders ( 2) or, in any              transposition expired on 30 June 1995 .
     event, by not having communicated such measures, the
     Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                        O OJ L 207, 10 . 8 . 1994, p. 20 .
     under that Directive;
                                                                        (2 ) OJ L 91 , 22 . 4 . 1995 , p . 39 .
                                                                        (3 ) See p. 13 of this Official Journal.
— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                        Action brought on 17 September 1997 by the Commission
                                                                        of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                                                                Belgium
Article 1 89 of the EC Treaty, in providing that a directive                                         (Case C-326/97)
is binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon the
Member State to which it is addressed, places Member                                                   ( 97/C 331 /30 )
States under an obligation to comply with the time-limits
set by directives for their implementation. In the present
case, when the time-limit expired on 31 December 1995 ,                 An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
the Italian Republic had not adopted the measures                        before the Court of Justice on 17 September 1997 by the
 ---pagebreak--- c 331/16               ΓΕΝ                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       1 . 11 . 97
Commission of the European Communities, represented                             Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations
by Paolo Stancanelli, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent,                    under the EC Treaty and those Directives;
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, also of the Commission's Legal
Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                      2. order the defendant to pay the costs.
The Commission claims that the Court should :                           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments correspond to those set
1 . declare that, by failing to bring into force, within                out in Case C-320/97 ( 3 ); the period prescribed for
      the period prescribed, the laws, regulations and                  transposition expired on 1 July 1995 .
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      European Parliament and Council Directive 95/27/EC
      of 29 June 1995 ( l ) amending Council Directive 86/              H OJ L 182, 2 . 8 . 1995 , p. 14 .
      662/EEC       on    the     limitation of   noise   emitted       ( 2 ) OJ L 182, 2 . 8 . 1995, p. 17.
      by hydraulic excavators, rope-operated excavators,                ( 3 ) See p. 13 of this Official Journal.
      dozers, loaders and excavator-loaders (2 ), the Kingdom
      of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      that Directive and the EC Treaty;
2 . order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
                                                                        Action brought on 24 September 1997 by the Commission
                                                                        of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                                        Belgium
                                                                                ( Case C-332/97)
Pleas in law and main arguments correspond to those set                                                ( 97/C 331/32 )
out in Case C-320/97 ( 3 ); the period prescribed for
transposition expired on 31 December 1995 .
                                                                        An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
                                                                        before the Court of Justice on 24 September 1997 by the
(') OJ L 168 , 18 . 7. 1995 , p. 14 .                                   Commission of the European Communities, represented
(2 ) OJ L 384, 31 . 12 . 1986 , p . 1 .
(3 ) See p. 13 of this Official Journal.
                                                                        by H. van Vliet, acting as Agent, with an address for
                                                                        service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la
                                                                        Cruz, of the Commission's Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
                                                                        Kirchberg.
                                                                        The Commission claims that the Court should :
Action brought on 23 September 1997 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Federal                         1 . declare that, by failing to bring into force, within
                        Republic of Germany                                     the period prescribed, the laws, regulations and
                            Case C-331/97)                                      administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                                Council Directive 93/119/EC of 22 December 1993 on
                            ( 97/C 331/31 )                                     the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or
                                                                                killing ( l ), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil
                                                                                its obligations under the Treaty;
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
brought before the Court of Justice on 23 September 1997                2 . order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Klaus-Dieter Borchardt, of its Legal
Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
also of the Commission's Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
Kirchberg.                                                              Pleas in law and main arguments correspond to those set
                                                                        out in Case C-320/97 (2 ); the period prescribed in the
                                                                        Directive expired on 1 January 1995 .
The Commission claims that the Court should :
                                                                        (') OJ L 340 , 31 . 12 . 1993 , p. 21 .
                                                                         ( z ) See p. 13 of this Official Journal .
1 . declare that, by failing to adopt the measures
      necessary to comply with Directives 95/40/EC (*) and
      95/4 1/EC (2) within the period prescribed, the Federal


title: Case T-262/11: Action brought on 20 May 2011 — Ellinikos Chrysos v Commission

text:
               23.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 219/18

         Action brought on 20 May 2011 — Ellinikos Chrysos v Commission
   (Case T-262/11)
   2011/C 219/29
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Ellinikos Chrysos AE (Kifissia, Greece) (represented by: K. Adamantopoulos, E. Petritsi, E. Trova and P. Skouris, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul European Commission’s Decision of 23 February 2011 in case C 48/2008 (ex NN 61/2008), regarding State aid which Greece has implemented in favour of Ellinikos Xryssos, in particular Articles 1 to 5 thereof; and

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs occasioned by the applicant in the course of the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed several manifest errors in establishing and assessing the underlying facts of the case that materially affected the Commission’s application and interpretation of the condition of the existence of an economic advantage to Ellinikos Xryssos, pursuant to Article 107(1) TFEU.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed manifest errors in law in its application and interpretation of the State aid definition element relating to the existence of an economic advantage, pursuant to Article 107(1) TFEU, as the Commission erroneously applied, or misapplied, the relevant market economy investor principle.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed several manifest errors in law in its application and interpretation of the condition of the existence of an economic advantage, pursuant to Article 107(1) TFEU, by establishing such an economic advantage by reference to the Commission’s own unfounded, selective and arbitrary arguments regarding the alleged value of the transferred assets.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed manifest errors in law in the application and interpretation of the condition of the existence of an economic advantage, pursuant to Article 107 (1) TFEU, as it erroneously found that the alleged waiver of taxes in favour of Ellinikos Xryssos constituted an economic advantage.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed essential procedural requirements and misused its power, resulting in a breach of its obligation to carry out a diligent and impartial examination of the case.


title: Case T-209/16: Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2017 — Apax Partners UK v EUIPO — Apax Partners Midmarket (APAX PARTNERS) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Application for the EU word mark APAX PARTNERS — Earlier international word mark APAX — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the services — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               15.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/35

         Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2017 — Apax Partners UK v EUIPO — Apax Partners Midmarket (APAX PARTNERS)
   (Case T-209/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Application for the EU word mark APAX PARTNERS - Earlier international word mark APAX - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the services - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 151/45)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Apax Partners UK Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Rose and J. Warner, Solicitors)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Apax Partners Midmarket (Paris, France) (represented by: C. Joly, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 February 2016 (Case R 1611/2014-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Apax Partners Midmarket and Apax Partners UK.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Apax Partners UK Ltd to pay the costs, including those necessarily incurred by Apax Partners Midmarket for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

      (1)  OJ C 232, 27.6.2016.


title: Case T-36/06: Judgment of the General Court of 3 March 2010 — Bundesverband deutscher Banken v Commission (State aid — Transfer of public assets to Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen Girozentrale — Decision finding that the notified measure does not constitute aid — Private investor test — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based — Serious difficulties)

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/37

         Judgment of the General Court of 3 March 2010 — Bundesverband deutscher Banken v Commission
   (Case T-36/06) (1)

   (State aid - Transfer of public assets to Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen Girozentrale - Decision finding that the notified measure does not constitute aid - Private investor test - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Serious difficulties)
   2010/C 100/56
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Bundesverband deutscher Banken eV (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: H.-J. Niemeyer and K.-S. Scholz, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: N. Khan and T. Scharf, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Land Hessen (Germany) (represented initially by H.-J. Freund and M. Holzhäuser, and subsequently by H.-J. Freund and S. Lehr, lawyers); and Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen Girozentrale (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by H.-J. Freund, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2005) 3232 final of 6 September 2005 relating to the transfer of the Hessischer Investitionsfonds (Hessian Investment Fund) as a silent partnership contribution to Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen Girozentrale

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Bundesverband deutscher Banken eV to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission, the Land Hessen and Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen Girozentrale.

      (1)  OJ C 96, 22.4.2006.


title: Joined Cases C-29/13 and C-30/13: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — Global Trans Lodzhistik OOD v Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Stolichna (Reference for a preliminary ruling  — Community Customs Code  — Articles 243 and 245  — Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93  — Article 181a  — Decision amenable to review  — Admissibility of legal proceedings where a prior administrative complaint has not been made  — Principle of respect for the rights of defence)

text:
               5.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 135/11

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — Global Trans Lodzhistik OOD v Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Stolichna
   (Joined Cases C-29/13 and C-30/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Community Customs Code - Articles 243 and 245 - Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 - Article 181a - Decision amenable to review - Admissibility of legal proceedings where a prior administrative complaint has not been made - Principle of respect for the rights of defence))
   2014/C 135/12
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Global Trans Lodzhistik OOD

      Defendant: Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Stolichna

      Re:

   Requests for a preliminary ruling — Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Interpretation of Articles 243 and 245 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) and Article 181a(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation No 2913/92 (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1) — Principles of the rights of the defence and res judicata — Appeal against a decision of the customs authority to recover a posteriori customs debts even in cases of final decisions of that authority — Admissibility of legal proceedings where a prior administrative complaint has not been made — Decision of the customs authority taken in breach of procedural requirements — Obligation for a court in such a situation to make a ruling without taking account of the requirement of a prior administrative appeal.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               First, a decision, such as one of those at issue in the main proceedings, rectifying, on the basis of Article 30(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 82/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996, the customs value of goods with the consequence that the declarant is served with a tax adjustment in respect of value added tax, constitutes a challengeable act for the purposes of Article 243 of Regulation No 2913/92. Secondly, having regard to the general principles of respect for the rights of the defence and res judicata, Article 245 of Regulation No 2913/92 does not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes provision for two separate appeal procedures for challenging decisions of the customs authorities, where that legislation does not run counter to either the principle of equivalence or the principle of effectiveness.

               2.

               Article 243 of Regulation No 2913/92 does not provide that the admissibility of judicial proceedings against decisions adopted on the basis of Article 181a(2) of Regulation No 2454/93, as amended by Regulation No 3254/94, is subject to the condition that the administrative remedies available to challenge those decisions have been exhausted beforehand.

               3.

               Article 181a(2) of Regulation No 2454/93, as amended by Regulation No 3254/94, must be interpreted as meaning that a decision adopted under that article must be regarded as final and capable of being challenged by way of a direct action before an independent judicial authority, even where it was adopted in breach of the right of the person concerned to be heard and to raise objections.

               4.

               In the event of a breach of the right of the person concerned to be heard and to raise objections under Article 181a(2) of Regulation No 2454/93, as amended by Regulation No 3254/94, it is for the national court to determine, having regard to the particular circumstances of the case before it and in the light of the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, whether, where the decision which was adopted in breach of the principle of respect for the rights of the defence must be annulled on that ground, it must give a ruling in the action brought against that decision or whether it can consider referring the matter back to the competent administrative authority.

      (1)  OJ C 108, 13.4.2013.


title: Case C-331/07: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 23 April 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Animal feed and food law — Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 — Shortage of staff assigned to the services responsible for veterinary controls)

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/5

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 23 April 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-331/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Animal feed and food law - Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 - Shortage of staff assigned to the services responsible for veterinary controls)
   2009/C 141/08
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Tserepa-Lacombe and F. Erlbacher, Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: S. Charitaki and I. Chalkias, Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules (OJ 2004 L 165, p. 1) — Shortage of staff assigned to the services responsible for veterinary controls

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by not having adopted all the measures necessary to remedy the shortage of staff assigned to the services responsible for veterinary controls in Greece, the Hellenic Republic has failure to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 247, 20.10.2007.


title: Case C-162/15 P: Appeal brought on 8 April 2015 by Evonik Degussa GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 28 January 2015 in Case T-341/12 Evonik Degussa GmbH v European Commission

text:
               15.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 198/24

         Appeal brought on 8 April 2015 by Evonik Degussa GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 28 January 2015 in Case T-341/12 Evonik Degussa GmbH v European Commission

   (Case C-162/15 P)
   (2015/C 198/33)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Evonik Degussa GmbH (represented by: C. Steinle, C. von Köckritz and A. Richter, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other party: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               set aside the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 28 January 2015 in Case T-341/12 Evonik Degussa GmbH v European Commission;

               2.

               annul Commission Decision C(2012) 3534 final of 24 May 2012 in Case COMP/38.620 Hydrogen Peroxide and Perborate, concerning the refusal of a request by Evonik Degussa for confidential treatment of information in the decision in Case COMP/F/38.620 — Hydrogen Peroxide and Perborate, pursuant to the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU; and

               3.

               order the Commission to pay the appellant’s costs of the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   The appellant relies upon three grounds of appeal.

      First ground of appeal, alleging that the General Court wrongly interpreted Decision 2011/695/EU of the President of the European Commission of 13 October 2011 on the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain competition proceedings (1) and erred in law in not finding that the Commission failed to state reasons and that the hearing officer failed to correctly exercise his discretion in the decision on the publication of the information at issue. The attempt of the General Court to read the reasoning contained in the correspondence of the responsible officer at the Directorate-General for Competition with the appellant ‘into’ the hearing officer’s report contradicts not only the clear wording of the hearing officer’s decision and is thereby based upon a manifest distortion of the decision of which annulment is sought, but also led to a restriction of the appellant’s right to effective judicial protection.

      Second ground of appeal, alleging that the General Court erred in interpreting Article 339 TFEU and Article 30 of Regulation No 1/2003 (2). The General Court proceeded on the erroneous assumption that the information at issue resulting from leniency applicants’ statements did not fall under the protection of professional secrecy and that their publication under Article 30 of Regulation No 1/2003 lay in the discretion of the Commission. The publication of printed words such as extracts from leniency applicants’ written statements in a Commission decision was a partial publication of those leniency applicants’ statements, which was prohibited under points 32 et seq. of the 2002 Commission Notice on Immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases and paragraph 40 of the 2006 Commission Notice on Immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases. In addition, the General Court misinterpreted Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 (3) and the Court of Justice’s case-law in that respect concerning the publication of extracts from Commission decisions.

      Third ground of appeal, alleging that the General Court erred in its application of the fundamental principles of legal certainty and of the protection of legitimate expectations. In its judgment, the General Court proceeded on the erroneous assumption that the appellant’s legitimate expectations would not be harmed through the re-publication of the decision in an extended version. The administrative proceedings brought by the Commission against the appellant were brought to a close with the publication of the non-confidential version of the decision in 2007. The re-publication of the 2007 decision in an extended, non-confidential decision after those proceedings had been brought to a close was unlawful.

      (1)  OJ 2011 L 275, p. 29.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

      (3)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).


title: Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 106, 30.4.2005

text:
               14.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 115/42

         (2005/C 115/78)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 106, 30.4.2005

   Past publications

      OJ C 93, 16.4.2005

      OJ C 82, 2.4.2005

      OJ C 69, 19.3.2005

      OJ C 57, 5.3.2005

      OJ C 45, 19.2.2005

      OJ C 31, 5.2.2005

   These texts are available on:

               EUR-Lex:http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex

               CELEX:http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: Case T-73/10 P: Appeal brought on 17 February 2010 by Apostolov against the Order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal made on 15 December 2009 in case Apostolov v Commission, F-8/09

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/63

         Appeal brought on 17 February 2010 by Apostolov against the Order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal made on 15 December 2009 in case Apostolov v Commission, F-8/09
   (Case T-73/10 P)
   2010/C 100/93
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Svetoslav Apostolov (Saarwellingen, Germany) (represented by: D. Schneider-Addae-Mensah, lawyer)

      Other party to the appeal proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               annul the Order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber), dated 15 December 2009 in Case F-8/09;

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission contained in the letter dated 23 October 2008;

               —

               oblige the European Commission and its specialised services, mainly the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO), to count the answers given by the appellant to questions 9, 30 and 32 of the competency test of 14 December 2007 as correct;

               —

               in the subsidiary, allow the appellant to pass again the competency test;

               —

               in the subsidiary to the second, third and fourth orders sought above, remand the present case to the European Union Civil Service Tribunal; and

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings and of the proceedings before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present appeal, the appellant seeks to have set aside the Order to the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (EUCST) of 15 December 2009, delivered in Case F-8/09 Apostolov v Commission, by which the EUCST dismissed as inadmissible the action by which the appellant had sought annulment of a decision of the Commission of 21 October 2008 by which the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) dismissed his complaint against the decision of 25 April 2008 informing him that the marks he had been given in the selection tests held in connection with the call for expression of interest EPSO/CAST27/4/07 were not sufficient for him to be included in the database of eligible candidates.
   In support of his appeal, the appellant submits, principally, that there was confusion as far as the time-limit for his application was concerned and that, as a result, there was an excusable error which rendered the application filed by the appellant with the EUCST on 9 July 2009 admissible.
   The appellant also submits that EPSO has committed a manifest error of appreciation of certain answers given by the appellant in the framework of the selection tests held in connection with the call for expression of interest EPSO/CAST27/4/07. The appellant further submits that EPSO had chosen a completely wrong procedure of testing candidates in order to ensure a correct selection procedure.


title: Action brought on 5 August 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland (Case C-308/98)

text:
26.9.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 299/29
Action brought on 5 August 1998 by the Commission of               The applicant claims that the Court should:
         the European Communities against Ireland
                       (Case C-308/98)                             1. declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
                                                                       period the laws, regulations and administrative
                        (98/C 299/44)                                  provisions necessary to comply with European
                                                                       Parliament and Council Directive 94/47/EC of
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of              26 October 1994 on the protection of purchasers in
Justice of the European Communities on 5 August 1998                   respect of certain aspects of contracts relating to the
by the Commission of the European Communities,                         purchase of the right to use immovable properties on a
represented by Götz zur Hausen, its legal adviser, and                 timeshare basis (1), the Kingdom of Spain has failed to
Michael Shotter, a national official seconded to the                   fulfil its obligations under that Directive;
Commission under an arrangement for the exchange of
officials, acting as agents, with an address for service in        2. order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, a
member of the Legal Service of the Commission, Centre              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Wagner.
                                                                   The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        paragraph of Article 189 and the first paragraph of
                                                                   Article 5 of the EC Treaty requires Member States to
                                                                   adopt the measures necessary to transpose directives
Ð declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations           addressed to them into their domestic law before the
    or administrative provisions necessary to comply with          expiry of the period prescribed for doing so and forthwith
    Council Directive 94/69/EC of 19 December 1994                 to inform the Commission thereof. That period, which is
    adapting to technical progress for the twenty-first time       laid down in Article 12 of Directive 94/47/EC, expired on
    Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation              29 April 1997 without Spain having brought into force
    of laws, regulations and administrative provisions             the necessary provisions.
    relating to the classification, packaging and labelling
    of dangerous substances (1), and/or by failing to inform
                                                                   (1) OJ L 280, 29.10.1994, p. 83.
    the Commission thereof, Ireland has failed to fulfil its
    obligations under that Directive, and
Ð order Ireland to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                Actions brought on 18 August 1998 by the Commission of
                                                                   the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                                                   Belgium, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the French
Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive shall
                                                                                Republic
be binding, as to the result to be achieved, on each
Member State, carries by implication an obligation on the                   (Cases C-319/98, C-320/98 and C-321/98)
Member States to observe the period for compliance laid                                     (98/C 299/46)
down in the Directive. That period expired on 1 September
1996 without Ireland having enacted the provisions
necessary to comply with the Directive referred to in the          Three actions against the Kingdom of Belgium (Case
conclusions of the Commission.                                     C-319/98), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (C-320/98)
                                                                   and the French Republic (Case C-321/98) respectively
(1) OJ L 381, 31.12.1994, p. 1.                                    were brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                   Communities on 18 August 1998 by the Commission of
                                                                   the European Communities, represented by Pieter van
                                                                   Nuffel, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an
                                                                   address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                                                                   Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
                                                                   Kirchberg.
Action brought on 11 August 1998 by the Commission of
 the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain             The applicant claims that the Court should:
                       (Case C-311/98)
                        (98/C 299/45)                              Ð declare that, by failing to bring into force within the
                                                                       prescribed period the laws, regulations and
                                                                       administrative provisions necessary to comply with
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought                     European Parliament and Council Directive 94/47/EC
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                of 26 October 1994 on the protection of purchasers in
on 11 August 1998 by the Commission of the European                    respect of certain aspects of contracts relating to the
Communities, represented by Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of                purchase of the right to use immovable properties on a
its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for                timeshare basis (1), and, in any event, by failing
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la              to notify the abovementioned provisions to the
Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                  Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium, the Grand


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 14 December 1995 in Case C-17/95: Commission of the European Communities v. French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directives 91/67/EEC, 91/628/EEC and 92/35/EEC - Failure to transpose)

text:
No C 64/6             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      2 . 3 . 96
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                 2 . orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
                       ( Fifth Chamber)
                    of 14 December 1995                              f 1 ) OJ No C 54 , 4 . 3 . 1995 .
in    Case    C-17/95 : Commission of the European
              Communities v. French Republic (')
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Directives 91/67/EEC, 91/628/EEC and 92/35/EEC —
                     Failure to transpose)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          ( 96/C 64/11 )
                                                                                of 15 December 1995
                                                                     in Case C-415/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                (Language of the case: French)                       the Cour d'Appel, Liege ): Union Royale Beige des Sociétés
                                                                     de Football Association ASBL and Others v. Jean-Marc
                                                                                Bosman and Others ( ! )
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be         (Freedom of movement for workers — Competition rules
         published in the European Court Reports)                    applicable to undertakings — Professional footballers —
                                                                     Sporting rules on the transfer ofplayers requiring the new
                                                                     club to pay a fee to the old club — Limitation ofthe number
In Case C-17/95 : Commission of the European                         of players having the nationality of other Member States
Communities ( Agent: Gerard Rözet ) v. French Republic                                who may be fielded in a match)
(Agents : Edwige Belliard and Jean-Louis Falconi )
application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt and                                       ( 96/C 64/ 12 )
communicate, within the prescribed period, the laws,
regulations and administrative provisions necessary in order                          (Language of the case: French)
to comply with Council Directive 91 /67/EEC of 28 January
1991 concerning the animal health conditions governing the
placing on the market of aquaculture animals and products            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
( OJ No L 46 , 1991 , p. 1 ), Council Directive 91 /628/EEC of                 published in the European Court Reports)
19 November 1991 on the protection of animals during
transport and amending Directives 90/425/EEC and                     In Case C-415/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
91/496/EEC ( OJ No L 340, 1991 , p. 17) and Council                  of the EC Treaty from the Cour d'Appel ( Court of Appeal ),
Directive 92/35/EEC of 29 April 1992 laying down control             Liege, Belgium, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
rules and measures to combat African horse sickness ( OJ No          pending before that court between Union Royale Beige des
L 157, 1992, p. 19 ), the French Republic has failed to fulfil       Sociétés de Football Association ASBL and Jean-Marc
its obligations under the EC Treaty — the Court ( Fifth              Bosman, between Royal Club Liégeois SA and Jean-Marc
Chamber ), composed of: D. A. O. Edward, President of the            Bosman, SA d'Économie Mixte Sportive de l'Union Sportive
Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann                       du Littoral de Dunkerque, Union Royale Beige des Sociétés
( Rapporteur ), P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; A. La Pergola,         de Football Association ASBL and Union des Associations
Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on            Europeennes de Football ( UEFA ), and between Union des
14 December 1995 , in which it:                                      Associations Europeennes de Football (UEFA ) and
                                                                     Jean-Marc Bosman — on the interpretation of Articles 48 ,
                                                                     85 and 86 of the EC Treaty — the Court, composed of: G. C.
1 . declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations         Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C. N. Kakouris, D. A. O.
    and administrative provisions necessary in order the             Edward and G. Hirsch ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F.
     comply with:                                                    Mancini ( Rapporteur ), J. C. Moitinho de Almeida , P. J. G.
                                                                     Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, P. Jann and H.
    — Council Directive 91 /628/EEC of 19 November                   Ragnemalm, Judges; C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General ; R.
         1991 on the protection of animals during transport          Grass, Registrar, and D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal
        and amending Directives 90/425/EEC and                       Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgement on
         91 /496/EEC,                                                 15 December 1995 , the operative part of which is as
                                                                     follows :
     and
                                                                      1 . Article 48 of the EC Treaty precludes the application of
                                                                           rules laid down by sporting associations, under which a
     — Council Directive 92/35/EEC of 29 April 1992                        professional footballer who is a national of one Member
         laying down control rules and measures to combat                  State may not, on the expiry of his contract with a club,
        African horse sickness,                                            be employed by a club of another Member State unless
                                                                           the latter club has paid to the former club a transfer,
                                                                           training or development fee;
     the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
     under Article 21 (1 ) of Directive 91 /628/EEC and
     Article 20 (1 ) of Directive 92/35/EEC, referred to             2 . Article 48 of the EC Treaty precludes the application of
     above;                                                                rules laid down by sporting associations under which, in


title: Case T-385/09: Action brought on 2 October 2009 — Annco v OHIM — Freche et fils (ANN TAYLOR LOFT)

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/61

         Action brought on 2 October 2009 — Annco v OHIM — Freche et fils (ANN TAYLOR LOFT)
   (Case T-385/09)
   2009/C 282/113
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Annco, Inc. (New York, United States) (represented by: G. Triet, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Freche et fils associés SARL (Paris, France)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the appeal well founded;

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 July 2009 in case R 1485/2008-1;

               —

               Alter the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 July 2009 in case R 1485/2008-1, in favour of the registration of the Community trade mark concerned for classes 18 and 25, in addition to class 35;

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The mark “ANN TAYLOR LOFT”, for goods and services in classes 18, 25 and 35

      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: French trade mark registration of the mark “LOFT” for goods in classes 18 and 25

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Allowed the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal wrongly held that there was a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned; infringement of Article 75 of Council Regulation 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal wrongly relied on evidence and reasons on which the applicant was not given the opportunity to comment.


title: Case C-235/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Luxembourg) lodged on 12 May 2010 — David Claes v Landsbanki Luxembourg SA (in liquidation)

text:
               31.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/22

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Luxembourg) lodged on 12 May 2010 — David Claes v Landsbanki Luxembourg SA (in liquidation)
   (Case C-235/10)
   ()
   2010/C 209/28
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: David Claes

      Defendant: Landsbanki Luxembourg SA (in liquidation)

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are Articles 1, 2 and 3 of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies (1) to be interpreted as applying to a termination of activities as a result of a declaration that the employer is insolvent or a judicial decision ordering the dissolution and winding-up, on grounds of insolvency, of the credit institution which is the employer on the basis of Article 61(l)(a) and (b) of the amended Law of 5 April 1993 relating to the financial sector, in respect of which termination the national legislation provides for the termination of employment contracts with immediate effect?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, are Articles 1, 2 and 3 of Directive 98/59/EC to be interpreted as meaning that the administrator or liquidator is to be deemed to be in the same position as an employer who is contemplating collective redundancies and who is capable of carrying out, to that end, the acts referred to in Articles 2 and 3 of Directive 98/53/EC and of effecting such redundancies (judgment in Case C-323/08, paragraphs 39, 40 and 41)? (2)

      (1)  OJ 1998 L 225, p. 16.

      (2)  Judgment of 10 December 2009 in Case C-323/08 Rodríguez Mayor and Others


title: Case T-576/08: Action brought on 23 December 2008 — Germany v Commission

text:
               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/43

         Action brought on 23 December 2008 — Germany v Commission
   (Case T-576/08)
   (2009/C 55/77)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and B. Klein)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 983/2008 of 3 October 2008 adopting the plan allocating to the Member States resources to be charged to the 2009 budget year for the supply of food from intervention stocks for the benefit of the most deprived persons in the Community;

               —

               maintain the effects of the annulled regulation;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 983/2008 of 3 October 2008 (1), which contains the annual plan for 2009 in respect of the distribution of food to the most deprived persons in the Community.
   In the applicant's submission, the regulation has no legal basis in Community law. While it was adopted on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 (2), which in turn has the common agricultural policy of the Community (Articles 36 and 37 EC, in conjunction with Article 33 EC) as legal basis, it does not, however, meet the requirements laid down therein.
   The plan was originally devised by way of a competence ancillary to the common agricultural policy as essentially available intervention stocks were used for a social purpose. For several years, on the other hand, the plan has been operating exclusively through the purchase of food on the market since, because of common foreign policy reforms, intervention stocks hardly remain. The applicant regards the plan today as a purely social-policy instrument of the Community for which there is no legal basis (principle of conferred powers).
   The contested regulation is thus not compatible with the requirements in Article 27(2) of Regulation No 1234/2007 which allows the purchase of food for the plan only if intervention stocks have temporarily reached their capacity. In the meantime it has, however, become a permanent state of affairs that the purchase of food largely predominates.
   Nor does the contested regulation pursue any of the objectives of the common agricultural policy that are laid down in Article 33(1) EC.
   In order to avoid difficulties in the execution of the annual plan, the applicant calls on the court to limit the effects of the annulment to the provision on purchases in Article 2 of Regulation No 983/2008 in conjunction with Annex II thereto.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 983/2008 of 3 October 2008 adopting the plan allocating to the Member States resources to be charged to the 2009 budget year for the supply of food from intervention stocks for the benefit of the most deprived persons in the Community (OJ 2008 L 268, p. 3).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (OJ 2007 L 299, p. 1).


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 15 December 1998 in Case T-277/93: John Meakin v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Action for damages - Non-contractual liability of the Community - Milk Producers having entered into non-marketing or conversion undertakings - Compensation paid during the course of proceedings - Cause not proceeding to judgment)

text:
C 71/24              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 13.3.1999
      Removal from the register of Case C-370/98 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-262/98 (1)
                       (1999/C 71/43)
                                                                                (1999/C 71/44)
By order of 16 December 1998 the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-370/98 (reference for
a preliminary ruling from the Immigration Appeal                    By order of 12 January 1999 the President of the Court of
Tribunal): Secretary of State for the Home Department v             Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Mustafa Saglam.                                                     removal from the register of Case C-262/98: Commission
                                                                    of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
(1) OJ C 397, 19.12.1998.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 278, 5.9.1998.
                                                   COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                           1. There is no need to adjudicate on the application.
         (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition)
                    of 15 December 1998                             2. The defendants are to pay the costs.
in Case T-247/93: D. J. Stenhouse v Council of the
European Union and Commission of the European                       3. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
                       Communities (1)                                  Ireland is to bear its own costs.
(Action for damages Ð Non-contractual liability of the
Community Ð Milk Ð Producers having entered into                    (1) OJ C 165, 2.7.1992.
non-marketing       or    conversion     undertakings      Ð
Compensation paid during the course of proceedings Ð
            Cause not proceeding to judgment)
                       (1999/C 71/45)
               (Language of the case: English)                           ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                             (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition)
In Case T-247/93: D. J. Stenhouse, residing in Netherbury
(United Kingdom), represented by Nicholas Green,                                        of 15 December 1998
Graham Hughes and Martin Rawstorne, Barristers, and                 in Case T-277/93: John Meakin v Council of the
Bevan Ashford (Solicitors), Gotham House, Tiverton,                 European Union and Commission of the European
Devon, EX16 6LT, United Kingdom, against Council of                                         Communities (1)
the European Union (Agents: Arthur Brautigam, John
Carbery and Ann-Mara Colaert), and Commission of the                (Action for damages Ð Non-contractual liability of the
European Communities (Agents: Christopher Docksey,                  Community Ð Milk Producers having entered into
GeÂrard Rozet and Hans-Jürgen Rabe), supported by                   non-marketing       or     conversion    undertakings     Ð
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland                Compensation paid during the course of proceedings Ð
(Agent: John Colahan) Ð application for compensation                            Cause not proceeding to judgment)
pursuant to Article 178 and the second paragraph of                                         (1999/C 71/46)
Article 215 of the EC Treaty for the losses sustained by
the applicant as a result of his having been prevented from
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
marketing milk by virtue of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for
the application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of            In Case T-277/93: John Meakin, residing in Leigh (United
Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk                     Kingdom), represented by Nicholas Green, Barrister, and
products sector (OJ L 90, 1.4.1989, p. 13), as                      Bevan Ashford (Solicitors), Gotham House, Tiverton,
supplemented by         Commission Regulation (EEC)                 Devon, EX16 6LT, United Kingdom, against Council of
No 1371/84 of 16 May 1984 (OJ L 132, 18.5.1984, p. 11               the European Union (Agents: Arthur Brautigam, John
Ð the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended             Carbery and Ann-Mara Colaert), and Commission of the
Composition), composed of R. M. Moura Ramos,                        European Communities (Agents: Christopher Docksey and
President of the Chamber, R. García-Valdecasas, V. Tiili, P.        Hans-Jürgen Rabe) Ð application for compensation
Lindh and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made             pursuant to Article 178 and the second paragraph of
an order on 15 December 1998, the operative part of                 Article 215 of the EC Treaty for the losses sustained by
which is as follows:                                                the applicant as a result of his having been prevented from
 ---pagebreak--- 13.3.1999             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 71/25
marketing milk by virtue of Council Regulation (EEC)                      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for                                     of 3 December 1998
the application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of
Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk                      in Case T-230/94 (92): Frederick Farrugia v Commission
products sector (OJ L 90, 1.4.1984, p. 13), as                                     of the European Communities (1)
supplemented       by Commission         Regulation (EEC)                                  (Taxation of costs)
No 1371/84 of 16 May 1984 (OJ L 132, 18.5.1984, p. 11)
Ð the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended                                      (1999/C 71/48)
Composition), composed of R. M. Moura Ramos,
President of the Chamber, R. García-Valdecasas, V. Tiili, P.                        (Language of the case: English)
Lindh and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made
an order on 15 December 1998, the operative part of
which is as follows:                                                 In Case T-230/94 (92): Frederick Farrugia, resident in
                                                                     Athens, represented by Linos Sissilianos, of the Athens
                                                                     Bar, v Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
1. There is no need to adjudicate on the application.                Ana Maria Alves Vieira) Ð application for taxation of
                                                                     costs following the judgment of the Court of First Instance
                                                                     of 21 March 1996 in Case T-230/94 Farrugia v
2. The defendants are to pay the costs.                              Commission [1996] ECR II-195 Ð the Court of First
                                                                     Instance (Second Chamber), composed of A. Potocki,
(1) OJ C 165, 2.7.1992.                                              President, C. W. Bellamy and A. W. H. Meij, Judges; H.
                                                                     Jung, Registrar, made an order on 3 December 1998, the
                                                                     operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                     The total amount of costs to be paid by the Commission
                                                                     to the applicant is fixed at GRD 1 200 000.
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                     (1) OJ C 101, 22.4.1995.
                     of 4 December 1998
in Case T-448/93 (92): British Cement Association and
   Others v Commission of the European Communities (1)
                      (Taxation of costs)
                        (1999/C 71/47)
                                                                          ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                of 16 November 1998
                                                                     in Joined Cases T-163/97 and T-179/97: Netherlands
In Case T-448/93 (92): British Cement Association,
                                                                     Antilles v Council of the European Union and
established at Wexham Springs (United Kingdom), Blue
                                                                            Commission of the European Communities (1)
Circle Industries Plc, established in London, Castle
Cement Ltd, established at Peterborough (United                      (Disjoinder Ð Stay of proceedings Ð Disclaimer of
Kingdom), and Rugby Group Plc, established at Rugby                                            jurisdiction)
(United Kingdom), represented by David Lyon, of the Bar
                                                                                (1999/C 71/49)
of England and Wales, v Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: Eric White) Ð application for
taxation of costs pursuant to the judgment of the Court of                           (Language of the case: Dutch)
First Instance of 6 July 1995 in Joined Cases T-447/93,
T-448/93 and T-449/93 AITEC and Others v Commission
                                                                     In Joined Cases T-163/97: Netherlands Antilles,
[1995] ECR II-1971 Ð the Court of First Instance (First
                                                                     represented by Marco Marinus Slotboom and Pierre
Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of B.
                                                                     Vincent FrancËois Bos, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an
Vesterdorf, President, C. W. Bellamy, J. Pirrung, A. Meij
                                                                     address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order
                                                                     Marc Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe, against Council of the
on 4 December 1998, the operative part of which is as
                                                                     European Union (Agents: Ramon Torrent, Jürgen Huber
follows:
                                                                     and Guus Houttuin) and Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities (Agent: Thomas van Rijn), supported by
The total amount of the costs recoverable by the                     Kingdom of Spain (Agent: Luis PeÂrez de Ayala Becerril)
applicants in Case T-448/93 is fixed in the sum of GBP               and Italian Republic (Agents: Umberto Leanza and
90 000.                                                              Francesca Quadri); and T-179/97: Netherlands Antilles,
                                                                     represented by Marco Marinus Slotboom and Pierre
                                                                     Vincent FrancËois Bos, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an
(1) OJ C 121, 13.5.1992.
                                                                     address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                     Marc Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe, against Council of the
                                                                     European Union (Agents: Ramon Torrent, Jürgen Huber


title: Case T-91/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of  8 December 2005  — Just v Commission (Officials — Open competition — Multiple-choice questions — Accuracy of the answers on the correction form — Action manifestly unfounded in law)

text:
               25.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/31

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 8 December 2005 — Just v Commission
   (Case T-91/04) (1)

   (Officials - Open competition - Multiple-choice questions - Accuracy of the answers on the correction form - Action manifestly unfounded in law)
   (2006/C 48/61)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Alexander Just (Hoeilaart, Belgium) (represented by: G. Lebitsch, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Krämer, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)
   Application for
   Annulment of the decision of the selection board in competition COM/A/2/02 to award the applicant, in respect of the pre-selection stage, a number of marks which did not allow him admission to the subsequent tests in that competition
   Operative part of the Order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Each party shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 30.4.2004


title: Case C-525/06: Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 March 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van koophandel Hasselt (Belgium)) — NV de Nationale Loterij v BVBA Customer Service Agency (Appeal against a judgment making a reference for a preliminary ruling — Appeal court giving judgment itself in the main proceedings — No need to reply)

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/20

         Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 March 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van koophandel Hasselt (Belgium)) — NV de Nationale Loterij v BVBA Customer Service Agency
   (Case C-525/06) (1)

   (Appeal against a judgment making a reference for a preliminary ruling - Appeal court giving judgment itself in the main proceedings - No need to reply)
   2009/C 141/34
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank van koophandel Hasselt

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: NV de Nationale Loterij

      Defendant: BVBA Customer Service Agency

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank van koophandel te Hasselt — Interpretation of Article 49 EC — National lottery holding on the territory of a Member State a statutory monopoly seeking to limit addiction to gambling but advertising regularly in order to promote participation in the lottery — National legislation prohibiting the sale by other undertakings seeking to make a profit, without authorisation of the national lottery, of group participation forms

      Operative part

   There is no need to reply to the reference for a preliminary ruling in Case C-525/06.

      (1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.


title: Case T-457/13 P: Judgment of the General Court of 29 April 2015 — CC v Parliament (Appeal — Cross-appeal — Civil service — Open competition — Errors in the management of the list of successful candidates — Non-contractual liability — Material harm — Legitimate expectations — Distortion of the facts — Loss of an opportunity — Non-material harm — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               15.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 198/35

         Judgment of the General Court of 29 April 2015 — CC v Parliament
   (Case T-457/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Cross-appeal - Civil service - Open competition - Errors in the management of the list of successful candidates - Non-contractual liability - Material harm - Legitimate expectations - Distortion of the facts - Loss of an opportunity - Non-material harm - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2015/C 198/46)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: CC (Bridel, Luxembourg) (represented by: G. Maximini, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: M. Ecker and E. Despotopoulou, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 11 July 2013 in CC v Parliament (F-9/12, ECR-SC, EU:F:2013:116), and seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 11 July 2013 in CC v Parliament (F-9/12);

               2.

               Refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;

               3.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 325, 9.11.2013.


title: Case C-364/02: Action brought on 9 October 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
C 289/18                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                    23.11.2002
1999), compatible with Articles 11 and 12 of Directive 69/                   It is not disputed by the Hellenic Republic that it must adopt
335/EEC ( 1), in so far as they provide for a charge, payable to             measures to comply with the abovementioned directive.
the Comissão do Mercado de Valores Mobiliários, for over-
the-counter transactions involving securities which varies
according to the value of the transaction without upper limits?              The Commission records that until now the Hellenic Republic
                                                                             has not adopted the appropriate measures for the full incorpor-
                                                                             ation of the directive into Greek law.
( 1) Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning
     indirect taxes on the raising of capital. OJ L 249 of 3.10.1969,
     p. 25.
                                                                             (1 ) OJ L 127 of 9.5.2001, p. 38.
Action brought on 9 October 2002 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
                                                                             Action brought on 14 October 2002 by the Commission
                                                                             of the European Communities against the Hellenic Repub-
                          (Case C-364/02)                                                                      lic
                          (2002/C 289/31)                                                             (Case C-369/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 289/32)
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 Octo-
ber 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Maria Kondou-Durande, Legal Adviser in its                    An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
Legal Service.                                                               the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 Octo-
                                                                             ber 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                             represented by Maria Kondou-Durande, Legal Adviser in its
The Commission claims that the Court should:                                 Legal Service.
—      declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
       and administrative provisions necessary to comply with                The Commission claims that the Court should:
       Commission Directive 2001/32/EC (1) of 8 May 2001
       recognising protected zones exposed to particular plant
                                                                             —     declare that, by failing to adopt within the time-limit laid
       health risks in the Community and repealing Directive
                                                                                down the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
       92/76/EEC, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its
                                                                                necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2001/
       obligations under Article 3(1) of that directive;
                                                                                33/EC ( 1) of 8 May 2001 amending certain annexes to
                                                                                Council Directive 2000/29/EC on protective measures
—      order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                               against the introduction into the Community of organ-
                                                                                isms harmful to plants or plant products and against their
                                                                                spread within the Community, the Hellenic Republic has
                                                                                failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                    directive;
                                                                             —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 EC,
directives are binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
each Member State to which they are addressed.
                                                                             Pleas in law and main arguments
Under the first paragraph of Article 10 EC, Member States are
to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular,
to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty            In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 EC,
or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the                    directives are binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
Community.                                                                   each Member State to which they are addressed.