title: Case C-625/16 P: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 March 2017 — Anikó Pint v European Commission (Appeal — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents from the Hungarian Government relating to the procedure EU Pilot No 8572/15 [CHAP(2015)00353 and 6874/14/JUST] concerning an alleged infringement by Hungary of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Request to be provided with documents — Lack of a response from the European Commission)

text:
               19.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/6

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 March 2017 — Anikó Pint v European Commission
   (Case C-625/16 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents from the Hungarian Government relating to the procedure EU Pilot No 8572/15 [CHAP(2015)00353 and 6874/14/JUST] concerning an alleged infringement by Hungary of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Request to be provided with documents - Lack of a response from the European Commission))
   (2017/C 195/08)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Anikó Pint (represented by: D. Lazar, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Operative part of the order

               1)

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2)

               Ms Anikó Pint shall bear her own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 112, 10.04.2017.


               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/2

         Criteria for assigning cases to Chambers
   2009/C 153/04
   On 16 June 2009, the Court of First Instance laid down the following criteria for the assignment of cases to the Chambers for the period from 1 October 2009 to 31 August 2010, in accordance with Article 12 of the Rules of Procedure:

               1.

               Appeals against the decisions of the Civil Service Tribunal shall be assigned to the Appeal Chamber as soon as the application has been lodged and without prejudice to any subsequent application of Articles 14 and 51 of the Rules of Procedure.

               2.

               Cases other than those referred to in paragraph 1 above shall be assigned to Chambers of three Judges as soon as the application has been lodged and without prejudice to any subsequent application of Articles 14 and 51 of the Rules of Procedure.
               Cases referred to in this paragraph shall be allocated to the Chambers in turn, in accordance with the date on which they are registered at the Registry, following three separate rotas:

                           —

                           for cases concerning application of the competition rules applicable to undertakings, the rules on State aid and the rules on trade protection measures;

                           —

                           for cases concerning the intellectual property rights referred to in Article 130(1) of the Rules of Procedure;

                           —

                           for all other cases.

                     In applying those rotas, the two Chambers sitting with three Judges which are composed of four Judges shall be taken into consideration twice at each third turn.
               The President of the Court of First Instance may derogate from the rotas on the ground that cases are related or with a view to ensuring an even spread of the workload.


title: Case T-108/13: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — VTZ and Others v Council (Dumping — Imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel originating in Russia — Definitive anti-dumping duty — Product concerned)

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/43

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — VTZ and Others v Council
   (Case T-108/13) (1)

   ((Dumping - Imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel originating in Russia - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Product concerned))
   (2016/C 048/48)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Volžskij trubnyi zavod OAO (VTZ OAO) (Volzhsky, Russia); Taganrogskij metallurgičeskij zavod OAO (Tagmet OAO) (Taganrog, Russia); Sinarskij trubnyj zavod OAO (SinTZ OAO) (Kamensk-Uralsky, Russia); Severskij trubnyj zavod OAO (STZ OAO) (Polevskoy, Russia) (represented by: J. F. Bellis, F. Di Gianni and G. Coppo, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert and B. Driessen, acting as Agents, and initially by G. Berrisch, lawyer, and B. Byrne, Solicitor, and subsequently by B. Byrne and finally by E. McGovern, Barrister)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. F. Brakeland, B.-R. Killmann and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents); ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Ostrava a.s. (Ostrava-Kunčice, Czech Republic); Benteler Steel/Tube GmbH (Paderborn, Germany); Dalmine SpA (Dalmine, Italy); Productos Tubulares, SA (Valle de Trápaga, Spain); Rohrwerk Maxhütte GmbH (Sulzbach-Rosenberg, Germany); ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Roman SA (Roman, Romania); Silcotub SA (Zalău, Romania); Tubos Reunidos Industrial, SL (Amurrio, Spain); V & M Deutschland GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany); V & M France (Boulogne-Billancourt, France); Vallourec Mannesmann Oil & Gas France (Aulnoye-Aymeries, France); voestalpine Tubular GmbH & Co. KG (Kindberg, Austria) (represented by: S. Gubel, lawyer, and B. O’Connor, Solicitor)

      Re:

   Application for partial annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1269/2012 of 21 December 2012 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 585/2012 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain seamless steel pipes, of iron or steel, originating, inter alia, in Russia, following a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (OJ 2012 L 357, p. 1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application in its entirety;

               2.

               Orders Volžskij trubnyi zavod OAO (VTZ OAO), Taganrogskij metallurgičeskij zavod OAO (Tagmet OAO), Sinarskij trubnyj zavod OAO (SinTZ OAO) and Severskij trubnyj zavod OAO (STZ OAO) to bear their own costs and to pay those of the Council of the European Union and those of ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Ostrava a.s., Benteler Steel/Tube GmbH, Dalmine SpA, Productos Tubulares, SA, Rohrwerk Maxhütte GmbH, ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Roman SA, Silcotub SA, Tubos Reunidos Industrial, SL, V & M Deutschland GmbH, V & M France, Vallourec Mannesmann Oil & Gas France, and voestalpine Tubular GmbH & Co. KG;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 114, 20.4.2013.


title: Case C-573/16: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 14 November 2016 — Air Berlin plc v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

text:
               23.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/16

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 14 November 2016 — Air Berlin plc v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs
   (Case C-573/16)
   (2017/C 022/22)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Air Berlin plc

      Defendant: Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the levying by a member state of Stamp Duty of 1,5 % on the transfer, as set out in the reference, in the circumstances set out in the reference, contrary to one or more of:

                           1)

                           Article 10 or Article 11 of the First Directive (1);

                           2)

                           Article 4 or Article 5 of the Second Directive (2); or

                           3)

                           Articles 12, 43, 48, 49 or 56 of the EC Treaty?

               2.

               Does the answer to the first question differ in circumstances where the transfer of shares to the clearance service was required in order to facilitate a listing of the company in question on a stock exchange in that member state or another member state?

               3.

               Does the answer to the first question or the second question differ in circumstances where the national law of the member state enabled an operator of a clearance service, where it receives approval from the taxation authority, to elect that no Stamp Duty is payable on the transfer of shares into the clearance service but that SDRT is instead charged on each subsequent sale of shares within the clearance service (at the rate of 0,5 % of the sale consideration)?

               4.

               Does the answer to the third question differ in circumstances where the structure of the transactions chosen by the company in question means that the benefit of the election cannot be enjoyed?

      (1)  Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital

      OJ L 249, p. 25

      (2)  Council Directive 2008/7/EC of 12 February 2008 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital

      OJ L 46, p. 11


title: Case C-99/07 P: Appeal brought on 13 February 2007 by Smanor SA, Hubert Ségaud and Monique Ségaud against the Order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 14 December 2006 in Case T-150/06, Smanor and Others v Commission

text:
               21.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 170/9

         Appeal brought on 13 February 2007 by Smanor SA, Hubert Ségaud and Monique Ségaud against the Order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 14 December 2006 in Case T-150/06, Smanor and Others v Commission
   (Case C-99/07 P)
   (2007/C 170/15)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellants: Smanor SA, Hubert Ségaud, Monique Ségaud (represented by: J.P Ekeu and L. Roques, avocats)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   By Order of 23 May 2007 the Court (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered Smanor SA and Mr & Mrs Ségaud to bear their own costs.


title: Case T-30/00: Action brought on 16 February 2000 by Henkel KGaG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
C 135/14               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        13.5.2000
— confirm that the Administrative Circular is null and void              The applicant claims that the Court should:
    due to violation of the rights of the Staff Committee, as set
    out in Art. 46 CoE;                                                  — annul the Commission’s decision of 14 December 1999
                                                                              concerning a proceeding pursuant to Article 14 of Council
— order the defendant pay the costs of the proceedings, in                    Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 (Case IV/M.1610 — Deut-
    particular the costs of legal representation necessary for                sche Post/trans-o-flex) and cancel the fines imposed
    the applicants, such costs to be fixed and ordered for                    thereby;
    payment by the Court.
                                                                         — order the defendant to pay all the costs of the proceedings
                                                                              which the applicant has incurred;
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          — order the defendant, in the event that the applicant is
                                                                              successful, to reimburse to the latter the costs of the bank
                                                                              guarantee provided by the applicant by way of security for
The applicants are the Staff Committee of the ECB and three                   the payment of the fines.
members of this committee. They seek the comprehensive
withdrawal and annulment of the ECB’s administrative circular
endorsing an internet usage policy for its staff members.                Pleas in law and principal arguments
In support of its case, the applicants mainly put forward the            In the contested decision, the Commission alleges that the
following pleas in law:                                                  applicant deliberately supplied incorrect and misleading infor-
                                                                         mation concerning the acquisition of control over trans-o-flex
                                                                         Schnell-Lieferdienste GmbH in the notification given by it in a
— By adopting the contested circular, the defendant infringed            proceeding pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 in
    the Staff Committee’s right to consultation as laid down in          Case IV/M.1447 Deutsche Post/trans-o-flex. In addition, the
    Article 46 and 45 of the Conditions of Employment for                applicant allegedly supplied deliberately incorrect information
    Staff of the ECB (CoE). The circular laid down rules and             in response to several requests for information made by the
    regulations concerning working conditions of the staff, as           Commission. For that reason, a fine of EUR 50 000 has been
    related to in Article 45 CoE, and could thereof not be               imposed on the applicant on the basis of Article 14(1)(b) and
    adopted without prior consultation of the staff committee.           (c) of that regulation.
— Moreover, the circular provides for monitoring the staff’s             The applicant contests the decision on the grounds that the
    internet usage. This potentially endangers the right of              defendant applied a legally untenable interpretation to Article
    personality of the individual employees. A prior consul-             14(1)(b) and the first alternative in Article 14(1)(c). In addition,
    tation of the Committee was thereof necessary to safeguard           the Commission failed to exercise its discretion properly. The
    the staffs’ individual rights.                                       information supplied by the applicant was neither incorrect
                                                                         nor misleading, either as regards the notification of the
                                                                         proposed merger or as regards the answers given in response
                                                                         to the request for information.
Action brought on 16 February 2000 by Deutsche Post
AG against the Commission of the European Communi-                       Action brought on 16 February 2000 by Henkel KGaG
                                ties                                     against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                                Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                         (Case T-29/00)
                                                                                (Case T-30/00)
                        (2000/C 135/27)                                                           (2000/C 135/28)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
European Communities on 16 February 2000 by Deutsche                     16 February 2000 by Henkel KGaG, of Düsseldorf (Germany),
Post AG, of Bonn (Federal Republic of Germany), represented              represented by Holger Friedrich Wissel and Christian Oster-
by Ferdinand Hermanns, Rechtsanwalt, of Meerbusch, with an               rieth, Rechtsanwälte, of Messrs Clifford Chance Pünder, Düssel-
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc                dorf, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe.                                                   Chambers of Aloyse May, 398 Route d’Esch.
 ---pagebreak--- 13.5.2000             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 135/15
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             (2) order the reimbursement to the applicant of the OHIM
                                                                            appeal fee and order the OHIM to pay the costs of the
— annul the decision adopted on 25 November 1999 by the                     proceedings;
    Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in
    the Internal Market in the appeal proceedings registered            (3) in the alternative, order that the disclaimer ‘Alle vorge-
    under number R 75/1999-3;                                               nannten Waren/Dienstleistungen für eine in München
                                                                            stattfindende Messe’ (‘All the aforementioned goods/ser-
— order the defendant to pay the costs.                                     vices in relation to a trade fair held in Munich’) be annexed
                                                                            to the specification of goods/services.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
The trade mark con-           pictorial mark using the colours
cerned:                       white and red — application               The trade mark con-            the denominative and allegedly
                              No 840 132                                cerned:                        pictorial mark ‘electronica’ —
                                                                                application No 34587
Goods or service con-         Class 3, washing and dish-wash-
cerned:                       ing detergent                             Goods or service con-          goods and services in Classes 16,
                                                                        cerned:                        35 and 41 (including catalogues
                              Class 42, research in that field                                         relating to, and the organisation
                                                                                of, trade fairs in respect of build-
                                                                                ing components and construction
                                                                                groups in the electronics sector)
Decision contested be-        Refusal of registration by the
fore the Board of Ap-         examiner                                  Decision         contested     Refusal of registration by the
peal:                                                                   before the Board of Ap-        examiner
                                                                        peal:
Grounds of claim:             — Infringement of Article 7(1)(b)
                                  of Regulation (EC) No 40/94           Grounds of claim:              — incorrect        application    of
                              — Misuse of discretionary pow-                                               Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation
                                  ers                                                                      (EC) No 40/94
                                                                                — incorrect        application    of
                                                                                Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation
                                                                                (EC) No 40/94
Action brought on 18 February 2000 by Messe München
GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the
         Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                        Action brought on 17 February 2000 by Natalia Martinez
                                                                        Páramo and Others against the Commission of the Euro-
                         (Case T-32/00)                                                        pean Communities
                        (2000/C 135/29)                                                          (Case T-33/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 135/30)
                  (Language of the case: German)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                             (Language of the case: French)
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
18 February 2000 by Messes München GmbH, of Munich                      An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
(Germany), represented by Markus Graf, Rechtsanwalt, of                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Mitscherlich & Partner, Sonnenstrasse 33, Munich.                       European Communities on 17 February 2000 by Natalia
                                                                        Martı́nez Páramo, of Brussels, Anna Sodro, of Sterrebeek,
                                                                        Belgium, Inès Van Lierde, of Beersel, Belgium, Jean-Martial
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             Marenne, of Brussels, Ron Moys, of West Malling, the United
                                                                        Kingdom, and Michael Horgan, of Brussels, represented by Eric
(1) annul the decision adopted on 17 December 1999 by the               Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
    Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation              Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort
    in the Internal Market in appeal No R 177/1998-2;                   Rheinsheim.


title: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 January 2005 in Case C-153/04 P: Euroagri Srl v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — EAGGF — Financial participation — Pilot and demonstration project for the use of a new technique called ‘Endovena’ on fruit trees)

text:
               30.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/12

      ORDER OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 26 January 2005
   in Case C-153/04 P: Euroagri Srl v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Appeal - EAGGF - Financial participation - Pilot and demonstration project for the use of a new technique called ‘Endovena’ on fruit trees)
   (2005/C 106/23)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case C-153/04 P, appeal under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, brought on 23 March 2004 by Euroagri Srl, established in Monte Vidon Combatte (Italy) (Lawyer: W. Massucci), the other party to the proceedings being the Commission of the European Communities (Agents: C. Cattabriga and L. Visaggio) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta, President of the Chamber, J. Makarczyk and P. Kūris (Rapporteur), Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 26 January 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The appeal is dimissed.

               2.

               Euroagri Srl shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 106 of 30.04.2004.


title: Joined Cases C-323/10 to C-326/10: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Gebr. Stolle GmbH & Co. KG (C-323/10, C-324/10 and C-326/10), Doux Geflügel GmbH (C-325/10) v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Regulation (EEC) No 3846/87 — Agriculture — Export refunds — Poultrymeat — Fowls of the species Gallus domesticus, drawn and plucked)

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/11

      Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Gebr. Stolle GmbH & Co. KG (C-323/10, C-324/10 and C-326/10), Doux Geflügel GmbH (C-325/10) v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
      (Joined Cases C-323/10 to C-326/10) (1)

      (Regulation (EEC) No 3846/87 - Agriculture - Export refunds - Poultrymeat - Fowls of the species Gallus domesticus, drawn and plucked)
      (2012/C 25/18)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Finanzgericht Hamburg

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Gebr. Stolle GmbH & Co. KG (C-323/10, C-324/10 and C-326/10), Doux Geflügel GmbH (C-325/10)

         Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

         Re:

      Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Hamburg — Interpretation of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3846/87 of 17 December 1987 establishing an agricultural product nomenclature for export refunds (OJ 1987 L 366, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2765/1999 of 16 December 1999 (OJ 1999 L 338, p. 1) — Heading 0207 12 90 — Fowls of the species Gallus domesticus, plucked but not completely drawn as provided for under that heading of the nomenclature

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Subheading 0207 12 90 of Annex I to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3846/87 of 17 December 1987 establishing an agricultural product nomenclature for export refunds, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2091/2005 of 15 December 2005 publishing, for 2006, the agricultural product nomenclature for export refunds, must be interpreted as meaning that a poultry carcass under that subheading has to be completely drawn, so that it is prejudicial to its tariff classification if part of the guts or trachea, for example, are still attached to the carcass following a mechanical gutting process.

                  2.

                  Product code 0207 12 90 9990 of Annex I to Regulation No 3846/87, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2765/1999 of 16 December 1999, must be interpreted as meaning that an ‘irregular composition’ allows for the presence in a carcass of a maximum of only four giblets from those which it lists, of one or more than one type, provided that the total of four is adhered to.

                  3.

                  Subheading 0207 12 10 of Annex I to Regulation No 3846/87, as amended by Regulation No 2765/1999, must be interpreted as meaning that a poultry carcass in which one of the giblets listed in that subheading, namely the neck, heart, liver and gizzard, is present more than once, does not come under that subheading.

                  4.

                  Subheading 0207 12 10 of Annex I to Regulation No 3846/87, as amended by Regulation No 2765/1999, must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of the export refund classification, a poultry carcass to which some small quill feathers, plumage feathers, quill ends and hairs are still attached after going through a mechanical plucking process comes under that subheading, provided that those remaining feathers are compatible with the characteristic of a chicken ready for roasting and with sound and fair marketable quality.

                  5.

                  Product code 0207 12 90 9990 of Annex I to Regulation No 3846/87, as amended by Regulation No 2765/1999, must be interpreted as meaning that a poultry carcass in which the trachea is still attached to the neck does not come under that product code.

                  6.

                  When a customs office seeks to determine whether goods presented for export comply with the tariff heading stated in the export declaration, the results of a partial examination of declared goods are valid for all the goods declared, in accordance with Article 70(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code. A margin of error does not have to be allowed within which it may be found that an anomaly is not prejudicial to a refund.

         (1)  OJ C 209, 31.7.2010.

         OJ C 274, 9.10.2010.


title: Action brought on 19 December 1997 by Ditta Fabrizio Cernecca against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-601/97)

text:
C 72/18               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    7.3.98
Action brought on 19 December 1997 by Ditta Pietro                  Clarich and Alessandro Giadrossi, of the Bars of Florence
Stagno against the Commission of the European                       and Trieste, with an address for service at the latter's
                          Communities                               Chambers at 17 Via XXX Ottobre, Trieste.
                       (Case T-600/97)
                          (98/C 72/40)                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                    Ð annul Commission Decision C(97) 2735 final of
                                                                         30 July 1997,
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 19 December                 Ð in the alternative, annul Article 5 of that Decision
1997 by Ditta Pietro Stagno, represented by Marcello                     inasmuch as it requires the Member State to recover
Clarich and Alessandro Giadrossi, of the Bars of Florence                the aid (granted as from 1 July 1990), together with
and Trieste, with an address for service at the latter's                 the interest accrued as from the date on which the aid
Chambers at 17 Via XXX Ottobre, Trieste.                                 was paid,
The applicant claims that the Court should:                         Ð in any event, order the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities to pay the costs.
Ð annul Commission Decision C(97) 2735 final of
     30 July 1997,
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Ð in the alternative, annul Article 5 of that Decision
     inasmuch as it requires the Member State to recover            The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
     the aid (granted as from 1 July 1990), together with           relied upon in Case T-288/97 Regione Friuli-Venezia
     the interest accrued as from the date on which the aid         Giulia v. Commission (1).
     was paid,
                                                                    (1) OJ C 7, 10.1.1998, p. 25.
Ð in any event, order the Commission of the European
     Communities to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                    Action brought on 19 December 1997 by Trasporti e
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those            Spedizioni Internazionali Cossutta SNC against the
relied upon in Case T-288/97 Regione Friuli-Venezia                          Commission of the European Communities
Giulia v. Commission (1).
                                                                                (Case T-602/97)
(1) OJ C 7, 10.1.1998, p. 25.                                                                 (98/C 72/42)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                    An action against the Commission of the European
Action brought on 19 December 1997 by Ditta Fabrizio                Communities was brought before the Court of First
Cernecca against the Commission of the European                     Instance of the European Communities on 19 December
                          Communities                               1997 by Trasporti e Spedizioni Internazionali Cossutta
                       (Case T-601/97)                              SNC, represented by Marcello Clarich and Alessandro
                                                                    Giadrossi, of the Bars of Florence and Trieste, with an
                          (98/C 72/41)                              address for service at the latter's Chambers at 17 Via
                                                                    XXX Ottobre, Trieste.
                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 19 December                 Ð annul Commission Decision C(97) 2735 final of
1997 by Ditta Fabrizio Cernecca, represented by Marcello                 30 July 1997,


title: Case T-443/08: Action brought on 6 October 2008 — Freistaat Sachsen and Land Sachsen-Anhalt v Commission

text:
               20.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 327/35

         Action brought on 6 October 2008 — Freistaat Sachsen and Land Sachsen-Anhalt v Commission
   (Case T-443/08)
   (2008/C 327/63)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicants: Freistaat Sachsen and Land Sachsen-Anhalt (represented by: U. Soltész, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Article 1 of the Commission's decision of 23 July 2008 pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 231 EC in so far as the Commission finds that

                           (a)

                           the measure adopted by Germany in respect of capital contributions for the construction of a new southern runway and related airport infrastructure at Leipzig/Halle airport constitutes State aid for the purposes of Article 87(1) EC; and

                           (b)

                           this ‘State aid’ amounts to EUR 350 million;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicants' costs pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants object to the findings in the first part of Article 1 of Commission Decision C (2008) 3512 final of 23 July 2008 Measure No C48/2006 (ex N227/2006) Germany DHL and Leipzig Halle Airport that the capital contributions granted by Germany to Leipzig/Halle airport represent State aid to the airport and that that aid amounts to EUR 350 million.
   The applicants rely on seven pleas in law in support of their claims:
   First, the applicants submit that the rules on State aid are not even applicable because the airport is not an undertaking within the meaning of those rules, so far as the expansion of regional airport infrastructure is concerned.
   Second, Flughafen Leipzig/Halle GmbH is a State-owned single purpose vehicle with an organisational structure governed by private law which, accordingly, as is generally acknowledged, cannot be deemed to be a recipient of aid in so far as the State provides it with the resources required in order to perform its functions.
   Third, the contested decision is inherently contradictory, in that Flughafen Leipzig/Halle GmbH is simultaneously treated in the decision both as recipient and donor of aid.
   Fourth, the application of the guidelines published in 2005 (1) to facts which obtained before the guidelines were published is contrary to the prohibition on retroactivity, the requirement of legal certainty, the protection of legitimate expectations and the principle of equality. In the applicant's view, only the Commission's 1994 guidelines (2) were applicable.
   In addition, the applicants state that the new guidelines are contrary to primary Community law, being factually inapplicable and inherently contradictory where regional airport operators do not have the status of an undertaking. The 2005 guidelines also made the construction of airports subject to the rules on aid, whereas, in the previous guidelines of 1994, this activity was expressly excluded from the application of the State aid rules. In view of the diametrically opposed content of the old and the new guidelines, and the non-revocation of the 1994 provisions, it is unclear how the financing of airport infrastructure is intended to be legally assessed.
   Sixth, the applicants submit that the Commission has committed a breach of procedure since it failed to apply the provisions of Regulation No 659/1999 (3) on existing aid to the capital contributions which it deemed to be aid.
   Seventh, the 2005 guidelines also circumvent the division of powers between the Member States and the Commission, since the Commission is extending its powers beyond the framework laid down in the EC Treaty by adopting an expanded interpretation of the essential criterion of ‘undertaking’ in Article 87(1) EC and, as a result of this expanded interpretation, making procedures which are within the administrative competence of national authorities subject to review by the Community institutions.

      (1)  Communication from the Commission — Community Guidelines on financing of airports and start-up aid to airlines departing from regional airports, OJ 2005 C 312, p. 1.

      (2)  Communication from the Commission — Application of Articles 92 and 93 of the EC Treaty and Article 61 of the EEA Agreement to State aids in the aviation sector, OJ 1994 C 350, p. 7.

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty.


title: Case T-123/08: Action brought on 14 March 2008 — Spitzer v OHIM — Homeland Housewares (Magic Butler)

text:
               9.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 116/27

         Action brought on 14 March 2008 — Spitzer v OHIM — Homeland Housewares (Magic Butler)
   (Case T-123/08)
   (2008/C 116/50)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Harald Spitzer (Hörsching, Austria) (represented by: T. Schmitz, Rechtsanwalt)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Homeland Housewares, LLC (Los Angeles, United States of America)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 January 2008 (Case R 1508/2006-1);

               —

               reject the opposition entered by Homeland Housewares, LLC, against the word mark for which registration is sought, ‘Magic Butler’ No 4 109 906;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Harald Spitzer.

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Magic Butler’ for goods in Classes 7 and 21 (application No 4 109 906)

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Homeland Housewares, LLC

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word mark ‘MAGIC BULLET’ for goods in Class 7 (Community trade mark 4 100 483) and the word mark ‘THE MAGIC BULLET’ for goods in Class 7 (Community trade mark 3 584 885)

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part.

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

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EG) No 40/94 (1), because there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks in conflict.

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


title: Case C-290/07 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 September 2010 — European Commission v Scott SA, Département du Loiret, French Republic (Appeal — State aid — Preferential price for the purchase of developed land — Inquiry as to market value — Formal investigation procedure — Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Obligation to undertake a diligent and impartial examination — Scope of the Commission’s power freely to assess value — Costs method — Scope of review by the Courts)

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/6

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 September 2010 — European Commission v Scott SA, Département du Loiret, French Republic
      (Case C-290/07 P) (1)

      (Appeal - State aid - Preferential price for the purchase of developed land - Inquiry as to market value - Formal investigation procedure - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Obligation to undertake a diligent and impartial examination - Scope of the Commission’s power freely to assess value - Costs method - Scope of review by the Courts)
      (2010/C 288/11)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: European Commission (represented by: J. Flett, acting as Agent)

         Other parties to the proceedings: Scott SA (represented by: J. Lever QC, R. Griffith and M. Papadakis, Solicitors, and by P. Gardner and G. Peretz, Barristers), Département du Loiret (represented by: A. Carnelutti, avocat), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, S. Seam and F. Million, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Appeal against the judgment of the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance delivered on 29 March 2007 in Case T-366/00 Scott SA v Commission of the European Communities by which the Court annulled Article 2 of Commission Decision 2002/14/EC of 12 July 2000 on the State aid granted by France to Scott Paper SA/Kimberley-Clark (OJ 2000 L 12, p. 1) in so far as it concerns aid granted in the form of a preferential land price referred to in Article 1 of the decision

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 29 March 2007 in Case T-366/00 Scott v Commission.

                  2.

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

                  3.

                  Reserves the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 183, 4.8.2007.


title: Case T-416/12: Action brought on 20 September 2012 — HP Health Clubs Iberia v OHIM — Shiseido (ZENSATIONS)

text:
               17.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/35

         Action brought on 20 September 2012 — HP Health Clubs Iberia v OHIM — Shiseido (ZENSATIONS)
   (Case T-416/12)
   2012/C 355/73
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: HP Health Clubs Iberia, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: S. Serrat Viñas, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Shiseido Company Ltd (Tokyo, Japan)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 June 2012 in Case R 2212/2010-1;

               —

               reject the opposition brought by Shiseido Company Ltd;

               —

               refer the case back to OHIM for it to register the mark is respect of which registration was sought for all the contested services; and

               —

               order the defendant and the other party involved in the case to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in these proceedings and in the earlier proceedings before OHIM.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: figurative mark ‘ZENSATIONS’ for services in Classes 35 and 44 — Community trade mark No 5 778 303

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Shiseido Company Ltd

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: word mark ‘ZEN’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 21 and 44

      Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal upheld
   Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of the second sentence of Article 75 and Article 76(1) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(2)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Action brought on 27 May 1998 by Frans Jacobs against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-82/98)

text:
C 234/34               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   25.7.98
The applicant seeks relief from the Court of First Instance           Action brought on 29 May 1998 by FeÂdeÂration
on the ground that in rejecting her complaint the                     Internationale de l'Automobile against the Commission of
Commission failed to properly investigate the question                                 the European Communities
whether her rights under Article 85 could be adequately                                      (Case T-85/98)
safeguarded by the national courts of the United Kingdom.
                                                                                (98/C 234/66)
(1) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1984/83 of 22 June 1983
    on the application of Article 85(3) of the EC Treaty to
    categories of exclusive purchasing agreements (OJ L 173 of                       (Language of the case: English)
    30.6.1983, p. 5).
(2) OJ C 206 of 30.7.1993, p. 2.
                                                                      An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                      Instance of the European Communities on 29 May 1998
                                                                      by FeÂdeÂration Internationale de l'Automobile, represented
                                                                      by Lord Lester of Herne Hill QC, Mark Hoskins, Craig
                                                                      Pouncey and Veronica Roberts, with an address for service
Action brought on 27 May 1998 by Frans Jacobs against                 in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Georges Baden, 7
       the Commission of the European Communities                     Place du TheÂaÃtre.
                         (Case T-82/98)
                          (98/C 234/65)                               The applicant claims that the Court should:
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                      Ð declare the Commission decision adopted on or
                                                                          around 22 December 1997 to provide to members of
An action against the Commission of the European                          the press copies of the warning letters dated
Communities was brought before the Court of First                         19 December 1997 was unlawful and is therefore
Instance of the European Communities on 27 May 1998                       void; and
by Frans Jacobs, residing at Walshoutem (Belgium),
represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis, VeÂronique Leclercq,
Ariane Tornel and FrancËoise Parmentier, of the Brussels              Ð make an order for nominal damages in the sum of one
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                     hundred ECUs for non-pecuniary harm caused to the
offices of Fiduciaire Myson SaÁrl, 30 Rue de Cessange.                    applicant's reputation;
The applicant claims that the Court should:                           Ð order that the Commission must make good the
                                                                          pecuniary loss suffered by the applicant as a result of
Ð annul the Commission's decision not to promote the                      the Commission's unlawful acts, namely, the leaking
     applicant to grade B 4 in the 1997 promotions                        of the warning letters to the press and the statements
     procedure;                                                           made to the press by Mr Van Miert;
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.                               Ð order that the Commission should pay interest at the
                                                                          annual rate of 8 % as from the date of judgment in
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       these proceedings;
In support of his claim, the applicant maintains, first, that         Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
the contested decision is vitiated by the complete absence
of any statement of reasons, contrary to Article 25 of the
Staff Regulations of officials.                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
He further states that, although he has been eligible for             The applicant in the present case (the FIA) is an
promotion since 1 May 1997, no staff report or any other              association declared in conformity with the French law of
report concerning his conduct, efficiency and ability has             1 July 1901 and enjoying consultative status at the
been drawn up as required by Article 43 of the Staff                  Council of Europe and at the United Nations. It is an
Regulations. The applicant considers that, in the absence             international federation of 143 national automobile clubs,
of such a report, the defendant was unable to make any                automobile associations, touring clubs and national
lawful assessment, on the same basis, of the comparative              federations for motoring and motor sport, representing
merits of the applicant and of those of his colleagues who            113 countries and over 100 million motorists. Through its
were eligible for promotion to grade B 4, and that the                Sports Division and its affiliated National Sporting
contested decision therefore disregards Article 45 of the             Authorities, the FIA lays down rules accepted throughout
Staff Regulations and the principles of equal treatment               the world as governing all categories of international
and non-discrimination.                                               motor sport for vehicles with four or more wheels. These
                                                                      rules are contained in the International Sporting Code. In
                                                                      addition, the FIA has an economic interest in certain


title: Case C-364/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechtshof te 's-Hertogenbosch by order of 5 September 2001 in the case of H. Barbier against the decision of the head of the section "non-resident individuals/undertakings", Heerlen, of the national revenue service

text:
C 331/12              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       24.11.2001
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechtshof te                 Action brought on 24 September 2001 by the Com-
’s-Hertogenbosch by order of 5 September 2001 in the                        mission of the European Communities against Ireland
case of H. Barbier against the decision of the head of the
section ‘non-resident individuals/undertakings’, Heerlen,                                            (Case C-366/01)
                of the national revenue service
                                                                                (2001/C 331/19)
                         (Case C-364/01)
                                                                         An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
                                                                         Justice of the European Communities on 24 September 2001
                                                                         by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
                        (2001/C 331/18)                                  by Marie Wolfcarius, acting as agent, with an address for
                                                                         service in Luxembourg.
                                                                         The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         (1) declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                                                                or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of European                     Commission Directive 1999/48/EC(1) of 21 May 1999
Communities by order of 5 September 2001 by the Gerechts-                       adapting for the second time to technical progress
hof (District Court) ’s-Hertogenbosch which was received at                     Council Directive 96/49/EC on the approximation of the
the Court Registry on 24 September 2001, for a preliminary                      laws of the Member States with regard to the transport of
ruling in the case of H. Barbier against the decision of the head               dangerous goods by rail, or in any event by failing to
of the section ‘non-resident individuals/undertakings’, Heerlen,                inform the Commission of those measures, Ireland has
of the national revenue service on the following questions:                     failed to fulfil its obligations under this Directive,
                                                                         (2) order Ireland to pay the costs.
1.   Is cross-border economic activity at present a precon-
     dition of the application of Community law?
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
2.   When a Member State imposes, on inheritance of immov-               Article 249 EC, under which a directive shall be binding, as to
     able property situated in that Member State, a charge to            the result to be achieved, upon each Member State, carries by
     tax on the value of that property, does Community law               implication an obligation on the Member States to observe the
     preclude it from allowing deduction of the value of the             period for compliance laid down in the Directive. That period
     liability to transfer the legal title to that property where        expired on 1 July 1999 without Ireland having enacted the
     the testator at the time of death was resident in that              provisions necessary to comply with the Directive referred to
     Member State but not where at the time of death he was              in the conclusions of the Commission.
     resident in another Member State?
                                                                         (1) OJ L 169, 5.7.1999, p. 58.
3.   Does it make any difference to the reply to be given to
     Question 2, whether at the time of acquisition of the
     immovable property the testator no longer resided in the
     Member State in which the property is situated?
                                                                         Action brought on 24 September 2001 by the Com-
                                                                         mission of the European Communities against the Hellen-
4.   Is the distribution of the testator’s capital as between the                                       ic Republic
     State in which the property is situated, the State of
     residence and any other States relevant to Question 2?
                                                                                (Case C-367/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 331/20)
5.   If so, in which State is a capital investment which is
     constituted by a claim under current-accounting arrange-
     ments on a limited company such as that described in
     paragraph 2.4 invested?                                             An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
                                                                         the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 Sep-
                                                                         tember 2001 by the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties, represented by Antonio Caeiros, legal Adviser, and Panos
                                                                         Panagiotopoulos, a national civil servant on secondment to its
                                                                         Legal Service.


title: Case T-135/10: Order of the General Court of 15 November 2011 — Pieno žvaigždės v OHIM — Fattoria Scaldasole (Iogurt.)

text:
               14.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/20

         Order of the General Court of 15 November 2011 — Pieno žvaigždės v OHIM — Fattoria Scaldasole (Iogurt.)
   (Case T-135/10) (1)

   2012/C 13/42
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 134, 22.5.2010.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 30 January 1997 in Case C-340/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): E. J. M. de Jaeck v. Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Social security for migrant workers - Determination of the legislation applicable - Definition of employed and self-employed)

text:
No C 74/8                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    8 . 3 . 97
      — Council Directive 92/88/EEC of 26 October 1992                  ( Supreme Court of the Netherlands) for a preliminary
           amending Directive 74/63/EEC on undesirable                  ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
           substances and products in animal nutrition,                 between E. J. M. de Jaeck and Staatssecretaris van Finan
                                                                        cien — on the interpretation of Articles 14 ( a ) and 14 ( c )
                                                                        of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971
       — Council Directive 92/116/EEC of 17 December
                                                                        on the application of social security schemes to employed
           1992 amending and updating Directive 71 /118/                persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their
           EEC on health problems affecting trade in fresh              families moving within the Community, as amended and
           poultrymeat,                                                 updated by Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2001/83 of
                                                                        2 June 1983 ( OJ No L 230, 22. 8 . 1983 , p. 6 ) — the
       — Council        Directive      92/117/EEC      concerning       Court ( Fifth Chamber), composed of: L. Sevon, President
           measures for protection against specific zoonoses            of the First Chamber, acting as President of the Fifth
           and specified zoonotic agents in animals and                 Chamber, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet ( Rapporteur ),
           products of animal origin in order to prevent                P. Jann and M. Wathelet, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,
           outbreaks      of food-borne         infections    and       Advocate-General; H. A. Riihl, Principal Administrator,
           intoxications,                                               for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 January
                                                                        1997, in which it has ruled:
       — Council Directive 92/118/EEC laying down animal
           health and public health requirements governing
           trade in and imports into the Community of
           products not subject to the said requirements laid           1 . For the purposes of Articles 14 (a) and 14 (c) of
           down in specific Community rules referred to in                   Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of
           Annex A (I) to Directive 89/662/EEC and, as
                                                                             14 June 1971 on the application of social security
           regards pathogens, to Directive 90/425/EEC,                       schemes to employed persons, to self-employed
                                                                             persons and to members of their families moving
                                                                             within the Community, as amended and updated by
       the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations             Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001 /83 of 2 June
       under Articles 23, 32, 29, 2, 3, 17 and 20 respectively               1983, 'employed' and 'self-employed' should be
       of those Directives;                                                  understood to refer to activities which are regarded as
                                                                             such for the purposes of the social security legislation
                                                                             of the Member State in whose territory those activities
2 . orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                            are pursued.
( ! ) OJ No C 315 , 25 . 11 . 1995 .
                                                                        2. Where Article 14 (c) (1 ) (b) of the Regulation is
                                                                             applicable, Community law does not preclude the
                                                                             legislation of one of the two Member States from
                                                                             insuring the person in question against only some of
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       the risks covered by its social security scheme,
                                                                             provided that there is no discrimination in that regard
                           ( Fifth Chamber)
                                                                             between nationals of that State and nationals of the
                         of 30 January 1997                                  other Member States.
in Case C-340/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): E. J. M. de Jaeck v.
                 Staatssecretaris van Financiën (M
(Social security for migrant workers — Determination of                 3 . Where Article 14 (c) (I ) (b) of the Regulation applies,
the legislation applicable — Definition of employed and                      Community law does not preclude one of the two
                             self-employed)                                  Member States from determining the amount of
                                                                             contributions to be paid by an insured person who
                              ( 97/C 74/ 14                                  works in that State for only part of the working week,
                                                                             without taking into account contributions which that
                                                                             person may pay in another Member State in respect of
                  (Language of the case: Dutch)                              work performed there during the rest of the week .
    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be        H OJ No C 392, 31 . 12 . 1994 .
            published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-340/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden


title: Case C-19/06: Order of the President of the Court of 15 September 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/36

         Order of the President of the Court of 15 September 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic
   (Case C-19/06) (1)

   (2006/C 294/68)

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 60, 11.03.2006.


title: Case T-154/16: Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2016 — Grid applications v EUIPO (APlan) (European Union trade mark — Application for EU word mark APlan — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive nature — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               30.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/48

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2016 — Grid applications v EUIPO (APlan)
   (Case T-154/16) (1)

   ((European Union trade mark - Application for EU word mark APlan - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive nature - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 030/55)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Grid applications GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: M. Meyenburg, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 February 2016 (Case R 1819/2015-4) concerning an application for registration of work sign APlan as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Grid applications GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 200, 6.6.2016.


title: Case T-636/13: Action brought on 26 November 2013 — TrekStor v OHIM — MSI Technology (MovieStation)

text:
               8.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/24

         Action brought on 26 November 2013 — TrekStor v OHIM — MSI Technology (MovieStation)
   (Case T-636/13)
   2014/C 39/42
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: TrekStor Ltd (Hong Kong, China) (represented by: O. Spieker, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: MSI Technology GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Alter the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 27 September 2013 (Case R 1914/2012-4) to the effect that MSI Technology GmbH’s application of 20 June 2011 for a declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark ‘MovieStation’ is rejected and that MSI Technology GmbH is ordered to pay the costs of that application;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the action before the Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the word mark ‘MovieStation’ for goods in Class 9 — Community trade mark No 5743257

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: MSI Technology GmbH

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of Regulation No 207/2009

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: the mark concerned was declared invalid

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case C-32/05: Action brought on 31 January 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               2.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/12

         Action brought on 31 January 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-32/05)
   (2005/C 82/26)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 31 January 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Sara Pardo Quintillán and Joanna Hottiaux, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (1) and, in any event, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for transposition of the Directive into national law expired on 22 December 2003.

      (1)  OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1


title: Case C-114/04: Actionbrought on 3 March 2004 by the Commission of theEuropean Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/29

         Action brought on 3 March 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-114/04)
   (2004/C 106/50)
   An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 3 March 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Dr Bernhard Schima of the Legal Service of the Commission, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that by failing to give parallel importers an appropriate period in which to liquidate their stock upon the withdrawal of a licence for a plant protection reference product the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC;

               2.

               order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission is of the opinion that the measures instituted by the Biologische Bundesanstalt (Federal Biological Agency) are not compatible with the principle of free movement of goods laid down in Articles 28 to 30 EC and the relevant case-law.
   The withdrawal of the licence for the reference product without the provision of any period for liquidation of current stocks held by the parallel importers, with the result that the parallel imported products could no longer be sold, constituted an obstacle to the free movement of goods as laid down in the Court’s case-law and therefore was fundamentally incompatible with Article 28 EC.
   A parallel importer needs to purchase large quantities of the relevant product abroad in order to offer the product for sale on the market of the importing State at a competitive price and to satisfy his clients’ orders. For this reason it is unavoidable that the parallel importer should hold a certain amount of stock. The automatic disappearance of the possibility of selling that stock after the withdrawal of the licence for the reference product undoubtedly amounts to a quantitative restriction on imports.
   This obstacle to trade in respect of the parallel import of plant protection products is not justifiable, since the withdrawal of the licence was not made on one of the grounds laid down in Article 30 EC and in particular not for reasons of public health.


title: Case C-514/10: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky — Czech Republic) — Wolf Naturprodukte GmbH v SEWAR spol. s r.o. (Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Temporal scope — Enforcement of a judgment delivered before the accession of the State of enforcement to the European Union)

text:
               18.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 250/3

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky — Czech Republic) — Wolf Naturprodukte GmbH v SEWAR spol. s r.o.
   (Case C-514/10) (1)

   (Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Temporal scope - Enforcement of a judgment delivered before the accession of the State of enforcement to the European Union)
   2012/C 250/04
   Language of the case: Czech

      Referring court

   Nejvyšší soud České republiky

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Wolf Naturprodukte GmbH

      Defendant: SEWAR spol. s r. o.

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Nejvyšší soud České republiky — Interpretation of Article 66(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Temporal scope — Enforcement of a judgment delivered before the accession of the State of enforcement to the European Union

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 66(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that, for that regulation to be applicable for the purpose of the recognition and enforcement of a judgment, it is necessary that at the time of delivery of that judgment the regulation was in force both in the Member State of origin and in the Member State addressed.

      (1)  OJ C 13, 15.11.2011.


title: Joined Cases C-154/15, C-307/15 and C-308/15: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 December 2016 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 1 de Granada, Audiencia Provincial de Alicante — Spain) — Francisco Gutiérrez Naranjo v Cajasur Banco SAU (C-154/15), Ana María Palacios Martínez v Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA (BBVA) (C-307/15), Banco Popular Español, SA v Emilio Irles López, Teresa Torres Andreu (C-308/15) (References for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Consumer contracts — Mortgage loans — Unfair terms — Article 4(2) — Article 6(1) — Declaration of nullity — Limitation by the national court of the temporal effects of the declaration of nullity of an unfair term)

text:
               20.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 53/8

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 December 2016 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 1 de Granada, Audiencia Provincial de Alicante — Spain) — Francisco Gutiérrez Naranjo v Cajasur Banco SAU (C-154/15), Ana María Palacios Martínez v Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA (BBVA) (C-307/15), Banco Popular Español, SA v Emilio Irles López, Teresa Torres Andreu (C-308/15)
   (Joined Cases C-154/15, C-307/15 and C-308/15) (1)

   ((References for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Consumer contracts - Mortgage loans - Unfair terms - Article 4(2) - Article 6(1) - Declaration of nullity - Limitation by the national court of the temporal effects of the declaration of nullity of an unfair term))
   (2017/C 053/10)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 1 de Granada, Audiencia Provincial de Alicante

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Francisco Gutiérrez Naranjo (C-154/15), Ana María Palacios Martínez (C-307/15), Banco Popular Español, SA (C-308/15)

      Defendants: Cajasur Banco SAU (C-154/15), Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA (BBVA) (C-307/15), Emilio Irles López, Teresa Torres Andreu (C-308/15)

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as precluding national case-law that temporally limits the restitutory effects connected with a finding of unfairness by a court, in accordance with Article 3(1) of that directive, in respect of a clause contained in a contract concluded between a consumer and a seller or supplier, to amounts overpaid under such a clause after the delivery of the decision in which the finding of unfairness is made.

      (1)  OJ C 228, 13.7.2015.

      OJ C 279, 24.8.2015.


title: Case T-19/04: Action brought on 19 January 2004 by Metso Paper Automation Oy against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
C 71/38               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                        20.3.2004
Action brought on 16 January 2004 by Luigi Marcuccio                       Action brought on 19 January 2004 by Metso Paper
  against the Commission of the European Communities                       Automation Oy against the Office for Harmonisation in
                                                                            the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
                         (Case T-18/04)                                                             (Case T-19/04)
                                                                                (2004/C 71/67)
                        (2004/C 71/66)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                   (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                           An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                           Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
                                                                           the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  19 January 2004 by Metso Paper Automation Oy, Tampere,
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 Finland, represented by J. Tanhuanpää, lawyer.
European Communities on 16 January 2004 by Luigi Marcuc-
cio, represented by Alessandro Distanto, avvocato.
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                —     annul the contested decision (1) partially as concerns
                                                                                refusal to register the trade mark PAPERLAB on the
                                                                                grounds of Article 7(1)(c) CTMR (item 1 of the order).
                                                                                The subject appeal does not apply to item 2 of the order
—     Annul the decision of the Appointing Authority rejecting
                                                                                in which the Board of Appeal remits the case to the
      his request;
                                                                                examiner for further prosecution on the grounds of
                                                                                Article 7(3) CTMR;
—     Declare that the applicant is entitled, pursuant to
      Article 72 of the Staff Regulations, to reimbursement of             —     order the Office to pay the costs of the applicant.
      100 % of all medical expenses incurred by him from
      4 January 2002 until complete recovery;
—     Order the Commission to pay the costs.                               Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           The trade mark con-           The word mark ‘PAPERLAB’ —
                                                                           cerned:                       application No 2 575 009
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            Goods or service con-         Goods in Class 9 (Computer
                                                                           cerned:                       equipment and measuring instal-
                                                                                lations for surveying and testing
                                                                                of paper)
The applicant takes issue with the defendant’s refusal to                  Decision        contested     Refusal of registration by the
reimburse him 100 % of the medical expenses incurred by him                before the Board of           examiner
in the course of treating his illness.                                     Appeal:
                                                                           Decision of the Board of      The contested decision was
                                                                           Appeal:                       upheld insofar as it rejected the
In support of those claims, the applicant alleges infringement                                           application on the grounds of
of Article 72 of the Staff Regulation and an absolute failure to                                         Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC)
state reasons.                                                                                No 40/94. The case was remitted
                                                                                to the examiner for further pros-
                                                                                ecution on the grounds of
                                                                                Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC)
                                                                                No 40/94.
 ---pagebreak--- 20.3.2004               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 71/39
Grounds of claim:               —    The mark ‘PAPERLAB’ is                 2)    order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                     registrable in Class 9 because
                                     it does not directly describe
                                     the goods in any manner;
                                —    The trade mark ‘PAPERLAB’              Pleas in law and main arguments
                                     can serve as a mark in trade
                                     to distinguish goods of the
                                     applicant from goods of
                                     other traders;                         The applicants in the present case, all officials and servants
                                                                            posted to the Food and Veterinary Office, Dublin, contest the
                                —    The Office for Harmonis-               pay slips and the back pay slips concerning them for the
                                     ation in the Internal Market           period since 1 July 2002.
                                     has accepted several similar
                                     trademarks.
                                                                            In support of their application, the applicants put forward a
                                                                            single plea in law challenging the validity of the weighting
(1) Decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonis-       fixed for Ireland by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom)
    ation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of               No 2265/2002 of 16 December 2002 (1) inasmuch as, contrary
    17 November 2003 (Case R 842/2002-1).
                                                                            to Article 64 of the Staff Regulations which lays down
                                                                            the principle of equal purchasing power between officials
                                                                            irrespective of their place of work does, that weighting does
                                                                            not offset the difference between the actual cost of living at
                                                                            their place of work and that in Brussels. Specifically, they state
                                                                            that setting the weighting at 124,8 does not meet such a
                                                                            requirement.
                                                                            (1) OJ 2002 L 347, p. 1.
Action brought on 20 January 2004 by María Pilar Aguar
Fernández and 126 others against Commission of the
                     European Communities
                           (Case T-20/04)
                           (2004/C 71/68)
                                                                            Action brought on 21 January 2004 by Fusion Electronics
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                          Limited against the Office for Harmonisation in the
                                                                                Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
                                                                                (Case T-21/04)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 20 January 2004 by María Pilar                                                (2004/C 71/69)
Aguar Fernández and 126 others, all residing in Ireland,
represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël
Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service             (Language of the case: to be determined pursuant to article 131(2)
in Luxembourg.                                                              of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the case was
                                                                                submitted: English)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
1)    annul the decisions of the Commission establishing the                An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
      pay slips and the back pay slips in respect of the applicants         Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
      since 1 July 2002 pursuant to Council Regulation (EC,                 the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
      Euratom) No 2265/2002 of 16 December 2002 adjusting                   21 January 2004 by Fusion Electronics Limited, Auckland,
      with effect from 1 July 2002 the remuneration and                     New Zealand, represented by Mr A. Roughton Barrister. Ford
      pensions of officials and other servants of the European              Motor Company was also a party to the proceedings before
      Communities and the weightings applied thereto;                       the Board of Appeal.


title: Case C-328/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Mercantil 3, Barcelona, Spain lodged on 27 July 2006 — Alfredo Nieto Nuño v Leonci Monlleó Franquet

text:
               30.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 237/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Mercantil 3, Barcelona, Spain lodged on 27 July 2006 — Alfredo Nieto Nuño v Leonci Monlleó Franquet
   (Case C-328/06)
   (2006/C 237/13)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Referring court
   Juzgado Mercantil 3, Barcelona
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Alfredo Nieto Nuño

      Defendant: Leonci Monlleó Franquet
   Question referred
   Must the concept of trade marks which are ‘well known’ in a Member State, referred to in Article 4 of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC (1) of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1), be taken to indicate solely and exclusively the degree of knowledge and establishment in a Member State or in a significant part of the territory of that State, or may the determination of whether a mark is well known be linked to a territorial scope which does not coincide with that of the territory of a State but rather with an autonomous community, region, district or city, depending on the goods or services which the mark covers and the persons to whom the mark is actually addressed, in short, depending on the market in which the mark is used?

      (1)  OJ L 40, 11.2.1989, p.1


title: Case C-579/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Nederland) lodged on 15 November 2013 — P v Commissie Sociale Zekerheid Breda, S v College van Burgemeester en Wethouders van de gemeente Amstelveen

text:
               25.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/8

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Nederland) lodged on 15 November 2013 — P v Commissie Sociale Zekerheid Breda, S v College van Burgemeester en Wethouders van de gemeente Amstelveen
   (Case C-579/13)
   2014/C 24/14
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Centrale Raad van Beroep

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: P

      Defendant: Commissie Sociale Zekerheid Breda
   &

      Applicant: S

      Defendant: College van Burgemeester en Wethouders van de gemeente Amstelveen

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the aim and scope of Directive 2003/109/EC, (1) or of Article 5(2) and/or of Article 11(1) thereof, be interpreted as meaning that the imposition of the civic integration obligation, under national law, on third-country nationals who have acquired long-term resident status, with penalties in the form of a system of fines, cannot be reconciled therewith?

               2.

               In answering the first question, is it relevant whether the civic integration obligation was imposed before long-term resident status was granted?

      (1)  Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents (OJ 2004 L 16, p. 44).


title: Case T-415/08: Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2013 — Irish Music Rights Organisation v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Copyright relating to public performance of musical works via the internet, satellite and cable retransmission — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Sharing of the geographic market — Bilateral agreements between national collecting societies — Concerted practices precluding the possibility of granting multi-territory and multi-repertoire licences — Proof — Presumption of innocence)

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/30

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2013 — Irish Music Rights Organisation v Commission
   (Case T-415/08) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Copyright relating to public performance of musical works via the internet, satellite and cable retransmission - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Sharing of the geographic market - Bilateral agreements between national collecting societies - Concerted practices precluding the possibility of granting multi-territory and multi-repertoire licences - Proof - Presumption of innocence)
   2013/C 156/51
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Irish Music Rights Organisation Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: D. Collins, Solicitor, and M. Favart, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and J. Bourke, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the applicant: International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers (CISAC) (Neuilly-sur-Seine, France) (represented by J.-F. Bellis and K. Van Hove, lawyers); and European Broadcasting Union (EBU) (Grand-Saconnex, Switzerland) (represented by D. Slater, Solicitor, and D. Waelbroeck, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 3 of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC), in so far as it concerns Irish Music Rights Organisation Ltd;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 313, 6.12.2008.