title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 June 2002 in Case C-117/00: Commission of the European Communities v Ireland (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directives 79/409/EEC and 92/43/EEC — Conservation of wild birds — Special protection areas)

text:
27.7.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 180/3
the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters,
by the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings pending before that court between Italian                                         (Sixth Chamber)
Leather SpA and WECO Polstermöbel GmbH & Co., on the
interpretation of Title III, headed ‘Recognition and enforce-
ment’, of the abovementioned Convention of 27 September                                              of 13 June 2002
1968 (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 36), as amended by the Convention
of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of
Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain                   in Case C-117/00: Commission of the European Communi-
and Northern Ireland (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 1 and — amended                                               ties v Ireland (1)
text — p. 77), by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the
Accession of the Hellenic Republic (OJ 1982 L 388, p. 1) and
by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the Accession of the                   (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic (OJ 1989                      Directives 79/409/EEC and 92/43/EEC — Conservation of
L 285, p. 1), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann,                          wild birds — Special protection areas)
President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola,
M. Wathelet (Rapporteur) and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges;
P. Léger, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator,                                      (2002/C 180/05)
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 June 2002, in
which it has ruled:
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                           In Case C-117/00, Commission of the European Communities
1.    On a proper construction of Article 27(3) of the Convention of       (Agent: R. Wainwright) v Ireland (Agent: D. J. O’Hagan, assisted
      27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of             by C. Mac Eochaidh, BL): Application for a declaration that, by
      Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended by             failing to take all the measures necessary to comply with
      the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the             Article 3 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on
      Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of                the conservation of wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1), in respect
      Great Britain and Northern Ireland, by the Convention of             of the Red Grouse, and with the first sentence of Article 4(4)
      25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic            of that directive and Article 6(2) of Council Directive 92/43/
      and by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the Accession of             EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats
      the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic, a foreign          and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7), in respect
      decision on interim measures ordering an obligor not to carry        of the Owenduff-Nephin Beg Complex special protection area,
      out certain acts is irreconcilable with a decision on interim        Ireland has failed to comply with those directives and has
      measures refusing to grant such an order in a dispute between        failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty, the Court
      the same parties in the State where recognition is sought.           (Sixth Chamber), composed of: F. Macken, President of the
                                                                           Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur) and V. Skouris, Judges;
                                                                           P. Léger, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
                                                                           Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 June 2002, in which it:
2.    Where a court of the State in which recognition is sought finds
      that a judgment of a court of another Contracting State is           1.    Declares that, by failing to take the measures necessary to
      irreconcilable with a judgment given by a court of the former              safeguard a sufficient diversity and area of habitats for the Red
      State in a dispute between the same parties, it is required to             Grouse and by failing to take appropriate steps to avoid, in the
      refuse to recognise the foreign judgment.                                  Owenduff-Nephin Beg Complex special protection area, the
                                                                                deterioration of the habitats of the species for which the special
                                                                                protection area was designated, Ireland has failed to fulfil its
                                                                                obligations under Article 3 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC
                                                                                of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds and
                                                                                Article 6(2) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992
                                                                                on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and
(1) OJ C 147 of 27.5.2000.                                                       flora;
                                                                           2.    Orders Ireland to pay the costs.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.


title: Case C-601/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 25 November 2013 — AMBISIG-Ambiente e Sistemas de Informação Geográfica Lda v NERSANT-Associação Empresarial da Região de Santarém, NÚCLEO INICIAL — Formação e Consultoria Lda

text:
               8.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/8

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 25 November 2013 — AMBISIG-Ambiente e Sistemas de Informação Geográfica Lda v NERSANT-Associação Empresarial da Região de Santarém, NÚCLEO INICIAL — Formação e Consultoria Lda
   (Case C-601/13)
   2014/C 39/13
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: AMBISIG-Ambiente e Sistemas de Informação Geográfica Lda

      Defendants: NERSANT-Associação Empresarial da Região de Santarém, NÚCLEO INICIAL — Formação e Consultoria Lda

      Question referred

   With regard to a procurement contract for the provision of training and consultancy services, of an intellectual nature, is it compatible with Directive 2004/18/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004, as amended, to lay down, among the factors making up the award criterion in relation to tenders in a public tendering procedure, a factor that evaluates the teams specifically put forward by the tenderers for the performance of the contract, having regard to the composition of the respective teams, their proven experience and analysis of their CVs?

      (1)  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114.


title: Case T-382/06: Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2011 — Tomkins v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Copper and copper alloy fittings sector — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Imputability of the infringement — Duration of the infringement)

text:
               14.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/21

         Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2011 — Tomkins v Commission
   (Case T-382/06) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Copper and copper alloy fittings sector - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Imputability of the infringement - Duration of the infringement)
   2011/C 145/32
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Tomkins plc (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: T. Soames, S. Jordan, Solicitors, and J. Joshua, Barrister)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Nijenhuis and V. Bottka, acting as Agents, and by S. Kinsella and K. Daly, Solicitors)

      Re:

   Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2006) 4180 of 20 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F-1/38.121 — Fittings), and also for a reduction in the fine imposed on the applicant in that decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2006) 4180 of 20 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F-1/38.121 — Fittings) in so far as it relates to the period from 31 December 1988 to 29 October 1993 with respect to Tomkins plc;

               2.

               Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Tomkins plc under Article 2(h) of Decision C(2006) 4180 at EUR 4,25 million, in respect of which it is jointly and severally liable with Pegler Ltd as to EUR 3,4 million;

               3.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               4.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.


title: Case T-283/07: Action brought on 24 July 2007 — Tom Tailor v OHIM (Gesäßtasche rechts)

text:
               6.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/16

         Action brought on 24 July 2007 — Tom Tailor v OHIM (Gesäßtasche rechts)
   (Case T-283/07)
   (2007/C 235/29)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Tom Tailor GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: S.O. Gillert, K. Vanden Bossche and F. Schiwek)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 May 2007 (Case R 668/2006-1);

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘Gesäßtasche rechts’ for goods in Class 25 (Application No 4 287 769).

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application.

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

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), as the figurative mark applied for is sufficiently distinctive.

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


title: Case T-358/08: Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2013 — Spain v Commission (Cohesion Fund — Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 — Project for the drainage of Saragossa — Partial cancellation of financial assistance — Public procurement — Concept of work — Article 14(10) and (13) of Directive 93/38/EEC — Splitting of contracts — Legitimate expectations — Obligation to state reasons — Time-limit for the adoption of a decision — Determination of financial corrections — Article H(2) of Annex II to Regulation No 1164/94 — Proportionality — Limitation)

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/29

         Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2013 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-358/08) (1)

   (Cohesion Fund - Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 - Project for the drainage of Saragossa - Partial cancellation of financial assistance - Public procurement - Concept of work - Article 14(10) and (13) of Directive 93/38/EEC - Splitting of contracts - Legitimate expectations - Obligation to state reasons - Time-limit for the adoption of a decision - Determination of financial corrections - Article H(2) of Annex II to Regulation No 1164/94 - Proportionality - Limitation)
   2013/C 252/45
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: initially J. Rodríguez Cárcamo and subsequently A. Rubio González, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Valero Jordana and A. Steiblytė, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 3249 of 25 June 2008 concerning the reduction of the assistance granted under the Cohesion Fund to the Kingdom of Spain in respect of Project No 96/11/61/018 — ‘Saneamiento de Zaragoza’ by Commission Decision C(96) 2095 of 26 July 1996

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 272, 25.10.2008.


title: Case C-6/13 P: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 November 2013 — IDT Biologika GmbH v European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Public supply contracts — Call for tenders related to the supply in Serbia of rabies vaccines — Rejection of a tender — Appeal clearly inadmissible or unfounded)

text:
               21.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 377/4

         Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 November 2013 — IDT Biologika GmbH v European Commission
   (Case C-6/13 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Public supply contracts - Call for tenders related to the supply in Serbia of rabies vaccines - Rejection of a tender - Appeal clearly inadmissible or unfounded)
   2013/C 377/07
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: IDT Biologika GmbH (represented by: R. Gross and T. Kroupa, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher and T. Scharf, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 25 October 2012 in Case T-503/10 IDT Biologika v Commission by which the General Court dismissed an application for annulment of the decision of the Delegation of the European Union to the Republic of Serbia of 10 August 2010 awarding the contract (reference EuropeAid/129809/C/SUP/RS) for the supply of rabies vaccines for vaccination campaigns in Serbia to the consortium led by the company Bioveta a.s. and rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant — Whether the limits to which the Commission is subject in the exercise of its discretion were exceeded

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               IDT Biologika GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 108, 13.4.2013.


title: Case C-275/15: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) made on 8 June 2015 — ITV Broadcasting Limited, ITV2 Limited, ITV Digital Channels Limited, Channel Four Television Corp., 4 Ventures Limited, Channel 5 Broadcasting Limited, ITV Studios Limited v TVCatchup Limited, Media Resources Limited, TVCatchup (UK) Limited

text:
               24.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/21

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) made on 8 June 2015 — ITV Broadcasting Limited, ITV2 Limited, ITV Digital Channels Limited, Channel Four Television Corp., 4 Ventures Limited, Channel 5 Broadcasting Limited, ITV Studios Limited v TVCatchup Limited, Media Resources Limited, TVCatchup (UK) Limited
   (Case C-275/15)
   (2015/C 279/26)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: ITV Broadcasting Limited, ITV2 Limited, ITV Digital Channels Limited, Channel Four Television Corp., 4 Ventures Limited, Channel 5 Broadcasting Limited, ITV Studios Limited

      Defendants: TVCatchup Limited, Media Resources Limited, TVCatchup (UK) Limited

      Interveners: The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, Virgin Media Limited

      Questions referred

   On the interpretation of Article 9 of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonization of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (1) (‘the Directive’), specifically of the phrase ‘This Directive shall be without prejudice in particular to … access to cable of broadcasting services’:

               1.

               Does the quoted phrase permit the continued application of a provision of national law with the scope of ‘cable’ as defined by national law, or is the scope of this part of Article 9 determined by a meaning of ‘cable’ that is defined by EU law?

               2.

               If ‘cable’ in Article 9 is defined by EU law, what is that meaning? In particular:

                           a)

                           Does it have a technologically specific meaning, restricted to traditional cable networks operated by conventional cable service providers?

                           b)

                           Alternatively, does it have a technologically neutral meaning which includes functionally similar services transmitted via the internet?

                           c)

                           In either case, does it include transmission of microwave energy between fixed terrestrial points?

               3.

               Does the quoted phrase apply (1) to provisions which require cable networks to retransmit certain broadcasts or (2) to provisions which permit the retransmission by — cable of broadcasts (a) where the retransmissions are simultaneous and limited to areas in which the broadcasts were made for reception and/or (b) where the retransmissions are of broadcasts on channels which are subject to certain public service obligations?

               4.

               If the scope of ‘cable’ within Article 9 is defined by national law, is the provision of national law subject to the EU principles of proportionality and fair balance between the rights of copyright owners, cable owners and the public interest?

               5.

               Is Article 9 limited to the provisions of national law in force at the date on which the Directive was agreed, the date it entered into force or its last date for implementation, or does it also apply to subsequent provisions of national law which concern access to cable of broadcasting services?

      (1)  OJ L 167, p. 10.


title: Case T-7/01: Action brought on 12 January 2001 by Norman Pyres against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
24.3.2001             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 95/17
—    Error of fact and absolute lack of statement of reasons.           —     condemn the Commission to pay damages provisionally
     First, the need to involve consumer organisations was not                evaluated at 1 Euro for the prejudice suffered;
     provided for in the invitation to tender and, secondly,
     evidence of the requisite experience had been submitted.           —     condemn the Commission to pay the costs.
—    Internal inconsistency of the decision and misuse of
     powers. In a communication dated 14 September 2000,                Pleas in law and main arguments
     sent by the Commission to the participants in the
     tendering procedure, it was stated that not only had the
                                                                        The applicant entered into a three-year contract of employ-
     applicant consortium’s offer been selected, that is to say
                                                                        ment with the Authority Empowered to Conclude Contracts
     its tender been accepted, it had also been awarded the             of Employment (AECCE), which contract was renewable for a
     contract in which it was interested.
                                                                        further year.
—    Breach of the terms of the tender and invalidity on                Despite allegedly favourable opinions expressed in the appli-
     grounds of incompetence. The applicants state in this              cant’s last performance report, the AECCE decided only to
     respect that the Director General who signed the contest-          extend the applicant’s contract for six months.
     ed decision was not, under the terms of the tender, the
     person competent to carry out all the communications
     relating to the tendering procedure and to adopt the               The applicant seeks the annulment of this decision and submits
     relevant measures, and that the contested letter confuses          that the AECCE’s decision violated the obligation to state
     selection criteria, for the purposes of participating in the       reasons contained in Article 25 of the Staff Regulations. As all
     tendering procedure, and grounds for exclusion from the            three-year contracts of temporary staff were allegedly extended,
     tendering procedure itself.                                        except for the one of the applicant, a limit of six months
                                                                        for the extension of the applicant’s contract constitutes an
                                                                        infringement of the principle of non-discrimination and goes
                                                                        clearly against the interest of the service.
                                                                        Furthermore, the applicant alleges that the decision infringes
                                                                        Article 26 of the Staff Regulation and violates his rights to
                                                                        defence, and that it constitutes a misuse of powers.
Action brought on 12 January 2001 by Norman Pyres
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                          (Case T-7/01)
                                                                        Action brought on 19 January 2001 by Michael Becker
                                                                                against the European Court of Auditors
                         (2001/C 95/33)
                                                                                (Case T-9/01)
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (2001/C 95/34)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                                (Language of the case: German)
European Communities on 12 January 2001 by Norman Pyres
(Swan Residence, rue Ph. Baucq, 100, Belgium), represented by
Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of De Backer, Brussels.            An action against the European Court of Auditors was brought
                                                                        before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                        on 19 January 2001 by Michael Becker, of Luxembourg,
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             represented by Roy Nathan, lawyer.
—    annul the decision of the Commission of 22 January                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
     2000 extending the Appellant’s contract of employment
     only until 30 July 2000, so for a further period limited to        —     order the defendant to withdraw its decision of 13 No-
     six months, and, if necessary, annul the decision of the                 vember 2000;
     Commission of 6 October 2000 rejecting the Appellant’s
     complaint;                                                         —     order the defendant to pay all the costs.


title: Case C-306/11 P: Appeal brought on 14 June 2011 by XXXLutz Marken GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 24 March 2011 in Case T-54/09 XXXLutz Marken GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and Natura Selection S.L.

text:
               13.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 238/12

         Appeal brought on 14 June 2011 by XXXLutz Marken GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 24 March 2011 in Case T-54/09 XXXLutz Marken GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and Natura Selection S.L.
   (Case C-306/11 P)
   2011/C 238/17
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: XXXLutz Marken GmbH (represented by: H. Pannen, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings:

               —

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

               —

               Natura Selection S.L.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment under appeal;

               —

               Refer the case back to the General Court;

               —

               Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The General Court infringed Article 8(1)(b) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation (1) by concluding that the signs ‘Linea Natura Natur hat immer Stil’ and ‘natura selection’ were similar purely on the basis that both signs contained the word element ‘natura’. That word element is not, however, the dominant element of the earlier trade mark.
   In its assessment of the similarity of the signs, the General Court started from a legally incorrect understanding of the concepts of ‘distinctive character’ and ‘descriptive character’.
   Furthermore, the conclusions of the General Court concerning the similarity of the signs are contradictory and demonstrate in that regard a failure to state reasons.
   In the judgment under appeal the General Court also proceeded on the basis of a distortion of the facts. Contrary to the findings of the General Court, the appellant has already demonstrated, in the proceedings before the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal, that there is a connection between the goods at issue and the word element ‘natura’.

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


title: Case C-295/15 P: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 22 June 2016 — Matratzen Concord GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), KBT & Co. Ernst Kruchen agenzia commercial sociétá in accomandita (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — EU trade mark — EU word mark ARKTIS — Application for revocation — Genuine use of the mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 51(1)(a) — Form of use of the mark — Proof of use of the mark — Consent of the proprietor — Partial rejection of the application for revocation)

text:
               19.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/12

         Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 22 June 2016 — Matratzen Concord GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), KBT & Co. Ernst Kruchen agenzia commercial sociétá in accomandita
   (Case C-295/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - EU trade mark - EU word mark ARKTIS - Application for revocation - Genuine use of the mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 51(1)(a) - Form of use of the mark - Proof of use of the mark - Consent of the proprietor - Partial rejection of the application for revocation))
   (2016/C 343/17)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Matratzen Concord GmbH (represented by: I. Selting, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: A. Schifko, Agent), KBT & Co. Ernst Kruchen agenzia commercial sociétá in accomandita (represented by: K. Schulze Horn, Rechtsanwältin)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Matratzen Concord GmbH shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 302, 14.9.2015.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 March 2000 in Case C-266/97 P: Coöperatieve Vereniging De Verenigde Bloemenveilingen Aalsmeer BA (VBA) v Vereniging van Groothandelaren in Bloemkwekerĳproducten (VGB), Florimex BV (Appeal — Competition — Closure of procedure on a complaint in the absence of a response by the complainants within the time-limit notified to them — Compatibility with Article 85(1) of the Treaty of a fee levied on suppliers who have concluded agreements relating to the delivery of floricultural products to undertakings established on the premises of a cooperative auction society — Compatibility with Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty of an exclusive purchase obligation accepted by certain wholesalers reselling such products to retailers in a specific trading area forming part of the same premises — Discrimination — Effect on trade between Member States — Assessment by reference to a body of rules taken as a whole — Lack of appreciable effect)

text:
10.6.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 163/3
2. So long as it has not been withdrawn or declared invalid, an E          B.J. Drijber) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
    101 certificate, issued in accordance with Article 11a of Council      J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, President of the Sixth Chamber,
    Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972, fixing                    acting as President of the Fifth Chamber, L. Sevón,
    the procedure for implementing Regulation No 1408/71,                  J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and M. Wathelet, Judges;
    as amended and updated by Regulation No 2001/83 and                    A. Saggio, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for
    subsequently by Regulation No 3811/86, is binding both upon            the Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 March 2000, in
    the competent institution of the Member State to which a self-         which it:
    employed person goes in order to carry out a work assignment
    and the person who calls upon the services of that worker.             1. Dismisses the appeal;
3. The E 101 certificate, issued in accordance with Article 11a of         2. Orders Coöperatieve Vereniging De Verenigde Bloemenveilingen
    Regulation No 574/72, may have retroactive effect.                          Aalsmeer BA (VBA) to bear its own costs and to pay those of
                                                                                Florimex BV and Vereniging van Groothandelaren in Bloem-
                                                                                kwekerijprodukten (VGB) relating to the proceedings before the
(1) OJ C 212 of 12.7.1997.                                                      Court of Justice;
                                                                           3. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 295 of 30.3.2000.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Fifth Chamber)
                         of 30 March 2000                                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
in Case C-265/97 P: Coöperatieve Vereniging De Verenig-                                               (Fifth Chamber)
de Bloemenveilingen Aalsmeer BA (VBA) v Florimex BV
                           and Others (1)
                                                                                of 30 March 2000
(Appeal — Competition — Decision rejecting a complaint
— Compatibility with Article 2 of Regulation No 26 of a                    in Case C-266/97 P: Coöperatieve Vereniging De Verenig-
fee charged to external suppliers on floricultural products                de Bloemenveilingen Aalsmeer BA (VBA) v Vereniging
supplied to wholesalers established on the premises of a                   van Groothandelaren in Bloemkwekerijproducten (VGB),
 cooperative society of auctioneers — Statement of reasons)                                            Florimex BV (1)
                          (2000/C 163/04)                                  (Appeal — Competition — Closure of procedure on a
                                                                           complaint in the absence of a response by the complainants
                                                                           within the time-limit notified to them — Compatibility with
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                          Article 85(1) of the Treaty of a fee levied on suppliers
                                                                           who have concluded agreements relating to the delivery of
                                                                           floricultural products to undertakings established on the
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     premises of a cooperative auction society — Compatibility
                   in the European Court Reports)                          with Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty of an exclusive purchase
                                                                           obligation accepted by certain wholesalers reselling such
                                                                           products to retailers in a specific trading area forming part
In Case C-265/97 P: Coöperatieve Vereniging De Verenigde                   of the same premises — Discrimination — Effect on trade
Bloemenveilingen Aalsmeer BA (VBA), established in Aalsmeer                between Member States — Assessment by reference to a
(Netherlands), represented by G. van der Wal, of the Brussels              body of rules taken as a whole — Lack of appreciable effect)
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of A. May, 31 Grand-Rue — Appeal against the
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European                                               (2000/C 163/05)
Communities (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) of
14 May 1997 in Joined Cases T-70/92 and T-71/92 Florimex
and VGB v Commission [1997] ECR II-693, seeking to have                                         (Language of the case: Dutch)
that judgment set aside, the other parties to be proceedings
being: Florimex BV and Others and Vereniging van Groothan-
delaren in Bloemkwekerijprodukten (VGB), established in                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Aalsmeer (Netherlands), represented by J.A.M.P. Keijser, of the                                in the European Court Reports)
Nijmegen Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the Chambers of A. Kronshagen, 22 Rue Marie-Adélaïde and                   In Case C-266/97 P: Coöperatieve Vereniging De Verenigde
Commission of the European Communities, (Agent:                            Bloemenveilingen Aalsmeer BA (VBA), established in Aalsmeer
 ---pagebreak--- C 163/4               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          10.6.2000
(Netherlands), represented by G. van der Wal, of the Brussels                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of A. May, 398 Route d’Esch — Appeal against the
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European                                           (Sixth Chamber)
Communities (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) of
14 May 1997 in Case T-77/94 VGB and Others v Commission
[1997] ECR II-759, seeking to have that judgment set aside,                                      of 30 March 2000
the other parties to the proceedings being Vereniging van
Groothandelaren in Bloemkwekerijproducten (VGB), Florimex               in Case C-236/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
BV, Inkoop Service Aalsmeer BV and M. Verhaar BV, estab-                the Arbetsdomstolen): Jämställdhetsombudsmannen v
lished in Aalsmeer (Netherlands), represented by J.A.M.P.                                    Örebro läns landsting (1)
Keijser, of the Nijmegen Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. Kronshagen, 22 Rue
Marie-Adélaïde and Commission of the European Communi-                  (Social policy — Male and female workers — Equal pay for
ties, (Agent: B.J. Drijber) — the Court (Fifth Chamber),                work of equal value — Article 119 of the EC Treaty (Articles
composed of: J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, acting for the President         117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have been replaced by Articles
of the Chamber, L. Sevón, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann (Rapporteur)       136 EC to 143 EC) — Directive 75/117/EEC — Comparison
and M. Wathelet, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate General;                   of a midwife’s pay with that of a clinical technician —
L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a               Taking into account a supplement and a reduction in
judgment on 30 March 2000, in which it:                                         working time for inconvenient working hours)
                                                                                (2000/C 163/06)
1. Dismisses the main appeal and the cross-appeal;
                                                                                (Language of the case: Swedish)
2. Orders Coöperatieve Vereniging De Verenigde Bloemenveilingen
     Aalsmeer BA (VBA) to bear its own costs and to pay those of        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
     Vereniging van Groothandelaren in Bloemkwekerijproducten                              in the European Court Reports)
     (VGB), Florimex BV, Inkoop Services Aalsmeer BV and
     M. Verhaar BV relating to the appeal;
                                                                        In Case C-236/98: Reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                                                                        the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Arbetsdomstolen,
                                                                        Sweden, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
                                                                        before that court between Jämställdhetsombudsmannen and
3. Orders Vereniging van Groothandelaren in Bloemkwekerijpro-           Örebro läns Landsting — on the interpretation of Article 119
     ducten (VGB), Florimex BV, Inkoop Services Aalsmeer BV and         of the EC Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have
     M. Verhaar BV to bear their own costs and to pay those             been replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC) and of Council
     of Coöperatieve Vereniging De Verenigde Bloemenveilingen           Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the approxi-
     Aalsmeer BA (VBA) relating to the cross-appeal;                    mation of the laws of the Member States relating to the
                                                                        application of the principle of equal pay for men and women
                                                                        (OJ 1975 L 45, p. 19) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed
                                                                        of: J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, President of the Chamber,
                                                                        R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet and
4. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its        F. Macken, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate General ; H.A. Rühl,
     own costs.                                                         Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
                                                                        on 30 March 2000, in which it ruled:
                                                                        1. The inconvenient-hours supplement is not to be taken into
                                                                            account in calculating the salary which serves as the basis for a
                                                                            pay comparison for the purposes of Article 119 of the EC Treaty
(1) OJ C 318 of 18.10.1997.                                                 (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty were replaced by Articles
                                                                            136 EC to 143 EC) and Council Directive 75/117/EEC of
                                                                            10 February 1975 on the approximation of the laws of the
                                                                            Member States relating to the application of the principle of
                                                                            equal pay for men and women. If a difference in pay between the
                                                                            two groups compared is found to exist, and if the available
                                                                            statistical data indicate that there is a substantially higher
                                                                            proportion of women than men in the disadvantaged group,
                                                                            Article 119 of the Treaty requires the employer to justify the
                                                                            difference by objective factors unrelated to any discrimination on
                                                                            grounds of sex.


title: Case C-608/13 P: Appeal brought on 25 November 2013 by Compañía Española de Petróleos (CEPSA), S.A. against the judgment delivered on 16 September 2013 in Case T-497/07 CEPSA v Commission

text:
               25.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/13

         Appeal brought on 25 November 2013 by Compañía Española de Petróleos (CEPSA), S.A. against the judgment delivered on 16 September 2013 in Case T-497/07 CEPSA v Commission
   (Case C-608/13 P)
   2014/C 24/25
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Compañía Española de Petróleos (CEPSA), S.A. (represented by: O. Armengol i Gasull and J.M. Rodríguez Cárcamo, abogados)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               uphold the appeal and itself give a final judgment in the case, without referring the case back to the General Court;

               —

               set aside the contested judgment insofar as paragraph 1 of the operative part dismisses CEPSA’s action for annulment and paragraph 3 of the operative part orders CEPSA to pay the costs, uphold paragraph 2 of the operative part, rejecting the Commission’s claims and, accordingly, amend Decision C(2007)4441 final of 3 October 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/38.710 — Bitumen Spain), reducing the amount of the fine to the extent that the Court of Justice considers appropriate; and

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

                     Error of law
                   (Second paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, in relation to Article 3 of Regulation No 1 (1) determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community). In the appellant’s view, infringement of the rules governing languages in the statement of objections in a competition proceeding is an infringement of an essential procedural requirement that must entail the annulment of the decision ultimately made in that proceeding, even if that infringement does not affect the undertaking’s rights of the defence. Since the General Court did not annul the contested decision in the judgment under appeal, as the appellant had claimed it should, it infringed the second paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, in relation to Article 3 of Regulation No 1 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community.

               2.

                     Serious distortion of the facts
                   in that it is stated in the judgment that the appellant freely accepted that the statement of objections be notified to it in a language not its own, and that the communication of the statement of the objections in that language did not affect its rights of the defence.

               3.

                     Error of law (breach of the principle of proportionality)
                  . The judgment did not take into account the fact that the activity of production and distribution of penetration bitumen represented a very small percentage of the total turnover of the appellant, considered as a group of companies. The application of the parent company/subsidiary presumption does not preclude the application of the principle of proportionality, as traditionally interpreted by the case law of the Court of Justice (Parker Pen case (2)).

               4.

                     Error of law
                   (Article 31 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (3) of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (Regulation 1/2003), in accordance with Article 261 TFEU). The General Court refused to examine whether its delay in delivering the judgment under appeal breached the principle of the observance of a reasonable time-limit, thereby infringing Article 31 of Regulation No 1/2003, pursuant to Article 261 TFEU.

               5.

                     Error of law
                   (Article 41(1) and the second paragraph of Article 47 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights (4)). The General Court rejected CEPSA’s claim alleging breach of its right to have its case determined within a reasonable time, a right enshrined in Article 41(1) and the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The present proceedings have lasted more than 11 years. The proceedings before the Commission lasted 5 years and, in the judicial procedure before the General Court, more than 4 years passed between the end of the written procedure and the opening of the oral procedure.

               6.

                     Error of law
                   (Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court). The General Court ordered the appellant to pay all the costs of the action for annulment, despite the fact that the submissions made by the Commission in that action were also rejected in the General Court’s judgment. Therefore, the judgment under appeal infringes the rules on costs set out in Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

      (1)  OJ, English Special Edition 1952-1958, p. 59

      (2)  Case T-77/92 Parker Pen v Commission (1994) ECR II-549, paragraphs 94 and 95.

      (3)  OJ 2003, L 1, p. 1.

      (4)  OJ 2000, C 364, p. 1.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 14 May 1998 in Case C-368/97: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure to fulfil obligations - Failure to transpose Directive 94/57/EC)

text:
C 258/2               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      15.8.98
uniform basis of assessment (OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1)            Belgium (Agent: Annie Snoecx) Ð application for a
and of Articles 6 and 59 of the EC Treaty Ð the Court                declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of               and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
the Chamber, M. Wathelet, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida                  Council Directive 94/57/EC of 22 November 1994 on
(Rapporteur), D. A. O. Edward and J.-P. Puissochet,                  common rules and standards for ship inspection and
Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate General; D. Louterman-                 survey organisations and for the relevant activities of
Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has              maritime administrations (OJ L 319 of 12.12.1994, p. 20),
given a judgment on 7 May 1998, in which it has ruled:               the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                     under that directive and the EC Treaty Ð the Court (Fifth
                                                                     Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann (Rapporteur),
1. The term fixed establishment' in Article 9(1) of the             President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet, J. C. Moitinho de
     Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977               Almeida, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; F. G. Jacobs,
     on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member                  Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
     States relating to turnover taxes Ð Common system of            judgment on 14 May 1998, in which it:
     value added tax: uniform basis of assessment must be
     interpreted in such a way that an undertaking
     established in one Member State which hires out or
                                                                     1. Declares that, by failing to adopt within the period
     leases a number of vehicles to clients established in
                                                                          prescribed, the laws, regulations and administrative
     another Member State does not possess a fixed
                                                                          provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
     establishment in that other State merely by engaging in
                                                                          94/57/EC of 22 November 1994 on common rules and
     that hiring out or leasing.
                                                                          standards for ship inspection and survey organisations
                                                                          and for the relevant activities of maritime
2. It is contrary to Article 59 of the EC Treaty for                      administrations, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to
     national rules to provide that taxable persons not                   fulfil its obligations under Article 16(1) of that
     established in a Member State, who apply for a refund                Directive;
     of VAT in accordance with the Eighth Council
     Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the
     harmonisation of the laws of the Member States                  2. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
     relating to turnover taxes Ð Arrangements for the
     refund of value added tax to taxable persons not
                                                                     (1) OJ C 370 of 6.12.1997.
     established in the territory of the country, are entitled
     to interest only from such time as notice to pay was
     served on that Member State and at a lower rate than
     that applied to the interest paid to taxable persons
     established in the territory of that State automatically
     on the expiry of the statutory time-limit for
     reimbursement.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
( ) OJ C 40 of 8.2.1997.
 1                                                                                (Fourth Chamber)
                                                                                of 28 May 1998
                                                                     in Case C-62/97 P: Commission of the European
                                                                            Communities v María Lidia Lozano Palacios (1)
                                                                     (Appeal Ð Officials Ð Former national export on
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                              detachment Ð Installation allowance)
                        (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                (98/C 258/04)
                        of 14 May 1998
in    Case    C-368/97: Commission of the European                                    (Language of the case: French)
            Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (1)
(Failure to fulfil obligations Ð Failure to transpose
                      Directive 94/57/EC)
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                         (98/C 258/03)                                          published in the European Court Reports)
                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                     In Case C-62/97 P: Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities (Agent: Julian Currall, assisted by Denis
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       Waelbroeck) Ð appeal against the judgment of the Court
          published in the European Court Reports)                   of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 12 December 1996
                                                                     in Case T-33/95 Lozano Palacios v Commission [1996]
                                                                     ECR-SC II-1535, seeking to have that judgment set aside,
In Case C-368/97: Commission of the European                         the other party to the proceedings being: María Lidia
Communities (Agent: Berend Jan Drijber) v Kingdom of                 Lozano Palacios, official of the Commission of the


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 18 June 1996 in Case T-150/94: Juana de la Cruz Vela Palacios v. Economic and Social Committee of the European Communities (Officials - Actions for annulment of measures and compensation - Admissibility - Submission of a complaint by fax - Staff report - Delay - Statement of reasons for the award of poorer marks than in the previous staff report - Non-material damage)

text:
20 . 7 . 96            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 210/ 15
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              Communities, residing in Brussels, represented by Eric
                        of 18 June 1996                               Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                      Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 rue du Fort
in Case T-150/94: Juana de la Cruz Vela Palacios v.                   Rheinsheim, v . Economic and Social Committee of the
Economic and Social Committee of the European                         European Communities ( Agents : Moises Bermejo Garde
                        Communities ( 1 )                             and Denis Waelbroeck ) — application for annulment of the
(Officials — Actions for annulment of measures and                    decisions of the Secretary-General of the Economic and
compensation — Admissibility — Submission of a                        Social Committee of 6 December 1993 and 22 June 1994
complaint by fax — Staff report — Delay — Statement of                imposing on the applicant the disciplinary measure of a
reasons for the award ofpoorer marks than in the previous             reprimand and rejecting the complaint lodged against that
             staff report — Non-material damage)                      measure, and for annulment or withdrawal of the appraisal
                          ( 96/C 210/37 )                             report of 5 July 1993 drawn up by the applicant's former
                                                                      superior — the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber ),
                 (Language of tbe case: French)                       composed of: A. Saggio, President, V. Tiili and R. M. Moura
In Case T-150/94 : Juana de la Cruz Vela Palacios, an official        Ramos, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the
of the Economic and Social Committee of the European                  Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 June 1996 , in which
                                                                      it :
Communities, residing in Brussels, represented by Eric
Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 rue du Fort            1 , annuls the decision of the Economic and Social
Rheinsheim, v. Economic and Social Committee of the                        Committee of 6 December 1993 imposing on the
European Communities ( Agents : Moises Bermejo Garde                       applicant the disciplinary measure of a reprimand and
and Denis Waelbroeck ) — application for annulment, first,                 the decision of the Economic and Social Committee of
of the decision of the Economic and Social Committee of                    22 June 1 994 rejecting the applicant's complaint against
18 June 1993 concerning the drawing-up of the applicant's                  the decision of 6 December 1993 ;
staff reports for the periods from 1 December 1986 to
31 August 1988 and from 1 September 1988 to 31 August                 2 , dismisses the remainder of the action;
 1990 and, second , of the decision of 13 January 1994
rejecting the complaint against those reports, and for                3 , orders the Economic and Social Committee to pay all
                                                                           the costs .
compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the
applicant as a result of breaches of duty allegedly committed
by the administration in relation to the applicant — the              (') OJ No C 316 , 12 . 11 . 1994 .
Court of First Instance ( First Chamber ), composed of: A.
Saggio, President, V. Tiili and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges;
B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
given a judgment on 18 June 1996 , in which it :
                                                                           ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 1 , orders the Economic and Social Committee to pay the
                                                                                of 27 March 1996
     applicant a sum corresponding to BFR 50 000 by way of
     compensation for the non-material damage suffered by             in Joined Cases T-530/93 and others: R. Bathoorn and 213
     her;                                                             Others v. Council of the European Union and Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities ( ! )
2 , dismisses the remainder of the action ;
                                                                                (Partial removal from the register)
3,   orders the Economic and Social Committee to bear its
                                                                                ( 96/C 210/39 )
     own costs and to pay one half of the costs of the
     applicant, who is ordered to bear one half of her own
     costs .
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
 O OJ No C 161 , 11 . 6 . 1994 .                                      In Joined Cases T-530/93 to T-533/93 , T-l /94 to T-4/94 ,
                                                                      T-ll /94, T-53/94 and T-71 /94, T-73/94 to T-76/94,
                                                                      T-86/94 and T-87/94, T-91 /94, T-94/94 and T-96/94 ,
                                                                      T-101 /94 to T-106/94, T-118/94 to T-124/94 , T-130/94
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              and T-253/94 : R. Bathoorn and 213 Others, domiciled in
                        of 18 June 1996                               the Netherlands, represented by H. J. Bronkhorst, advocate
in Case T-293/94 : Juana de la Cruz Vela Palacios v.                  with a right of audience before the Hoge Raad ( Supreme
Economic and Social Committee of the European                         Court) of the Netherlands, and E. H. Pijnacker Hordijk, of
                         Communities (')                              the Amsterdam Bar, with an address for service in
 (Officials — Admissibility — Act adversely affecting an              Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Frieden, 62 avenue
 official — Interim appraisal note — Duty to act in good faith        Guillaume, v . Council of the European Union ( Agent: A.
                     — Disciplinary measure)                          Brautigam ) and Commission of the European Communities
                                                                       ( Agent: Thomas van Rijn ) — application for compensation
                           ( 96/C 210/38 )                            under Article 178 and the second paragraph of Article 215
                 (Language of the case: French)                       of the EEC Treaty for the damage which the applicants claim
                                                                      to have suffered as a result of the application of Council
 In Case T-293/94 : Juana de la Cruz Vela Palacios, an official       Regulation ( EEC ) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting
 of the Economic and Social Committee of the European                 general rules for the application of the levy referred to in


title: Case C-340/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München by order of that court of  9 September 2005  in the criminal proceedings against Stefan Kremer

text:
               26.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/15

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München by order of that court of 9 September 2005 in the criminal proceedings against Stefan Kremer
   (Case C-340/05)
   (2005/C 296/27)
   Language of the case: German
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Oberlandesgericht München (Germany) of 9 September 2005, received at the Court Registry on 19 September 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings against Stefan Kremer.
   The reference concerns the case where the driving licence of a person in a Member State (host State) has been withdrawn by the administrative authorities due to unfitness to drive or the acquisition of such a licence has been refused, the acquisition of a new driving licence in that host State is dependant on the applicant obtaining a medical/psychological certificate proving his fitness to drive in accordance with the provisions of that host State, the applicant fails to obtain this, and subsequently — before expiration of the driving ban in the host Member State — he acquires a driving licence in another Member State (issuing State).
   The following questions are referred for a preliminary ruling:
   Does Article 8(4) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC (1) permit, in such a case, the host State to adopt a legal rule under which a driving licence from an issuing State may be used in the host State only on application and after examination as to whether the conditions for the measure under Article 8(2) of the directive have ceased to apply,
   or, does it follow from the principle of mutual recognition of driving licenses laid down in Article 1(2) of the directive and from the requirement that Article 8(4) of the directive should be narrowly construed, that the host State must recognise the validity of the driving licence without a prior control procedure and that that host State merely has the authority to deny the right to use the driving licence in the host State if reasons (still) exist which justify the application of measures under Article 8(2) of the directive?

      (1)  OJ L 237, p. 1.


title: Case C-88/16 P: Appeal brought on 12 February 2016 by European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 2 December 2015 in Case T-553/13: European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki v Fusion for Energy

text:
               12.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 335/30

         Appeal brought on 12 February 2016 by European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 2 December 2015 in Case T-553/13: European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki v Fusion for Energy
   (Case C-88/16 P)
   (2016/C 335/38)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (represented by: M. Sfyri, C.-N. Dede, D. Papadopoulou, dikigoroi)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy (Fusion for Energy)
   By order of 7 July 2016 the Court of Justice (Ninth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


title: Case T-346/08: Judgment of the General Court of 17 December 2010 — Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli v OHIM (Representation of a small bell with a red ribbon) (Community trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark — Representation of a small bell with a red ribbon — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               12.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/10

         Judgment of the General Court of 17 December 2010 — Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli v OHIM (Representation of a small bell with a red ribbon)
   (Case T-346/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark - Representation of a small bell with a red ribbon - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2011/C 46/17
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG (Kilchberg, Switzerland) (represented by: R. Lange, E. Schalast and G. Hild, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 June 2008 (Case R 943/2007-4), concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the representation of a small bell with a red ribbon.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 11.10.2008.


title: Case F-115/12: Action brought on 15 October 2012 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/71

         Action brought on 15 October 2012 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-115/12)
   2013/C 26/146
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the implied decision rejecting the claim for compensation for the harm purportedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the Commission’s sending a letter concerning the recovery of the sum of EUR 4 875 relating to the costs which the Court of First Instance ordered the applicant to pay in Case T-241/03.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision, whatever the form in which it was adopted, rejecting the claim of 19 July 2011;

               —

               annul the decision, whatever the form in which it was adopted, rejecting the complaint of 19 February 2012 against the decision of 19 July 2011;

               —

               in so far as necessary, annul the note of 12 June 2012, written in French, bearing the reference at the top of the right side of the first of five pages ‘Ref. Ares(2012)704847 — 13/06/2012’;

               —

               order the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 5 500,00, together with interest on that sum at the rate of 10 % per annum, with annual capitalisation, with effect from 20 July 2011 until the date of actual payment of that sum;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-539/10: Action brought on 24 November 2010 — Acino Pharma GmbH v Commission

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/48

         Action brought on 24 November 2010 — Acino Pharma GmbH v Commission
   (Case T-539/10)
   ()
   2011/C 30/86
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Acino Pharma GmbH (Miesbach, Germany) (represented by: R. Buchner, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission decisions C(2010) 2203, C(2010) 2204, C(2010) 2205, C(2010) 2206, C(2010) 2207, C(2010) 2208, C(2010) 2210, C(2010) 2218 of 29 March 2010 and C(2010) 6428, C(2010) 6429, C(2010) 6430, C(2010) 6432, C(2010) 6433, C(2010) 6434, C(2010) 6435, C(2010) 6436 of 16 September 2010;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   First, the applicant challenges the Commission's decisions of 29 March 2010 by which it suspended the placing on the market of batches of the medicinal products ‘Clopidogrel Acino — Clopidogrel’, ‘Clopidogrel Acino Pharma GmbH — Clopidogrel’, ‘Clopidogrel ratiopharm — Clopidogrel’, ‘Clopidogrel Sandoz — Clopidogrel’, ‘Clopidogrel 1A Pharma — Clopidogrel’, ‘Clopidogrel Acino Pharma — Clopidogrel’, ‘Clopidogrel Hexal — Clopidogrel’, and ‘Clopidogrel ratiopharm GmbH — Clopidogrel’, and withdrew batches which were already on the European Union market. Second, the applicant seeks the annulment of those decisions of the Commission of 16 September 2010 by which it amended the authorisation of medicinal products which have already been authorised and ordered the prohibition of the placing on the market of certain batches of those medicinal products.
   In support of its action the application raises five pleas in law.
   By its first plea the applicant claims that the requirements under Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, (1) in conjunction with Articles 116 and 117 of Directive 2001/83/EC, (2) for a suspension, withdrawal or recall of, or amendment to, Community authorisations for the placing on the market of the medicinal products concerned were not satisfied. The applicant claims that it provided evidence during the procedure that the infringements found to exist did not compromise the quality of the medicinal products.
   By its second plea the applicant claims that the Commission failed to satisfy the requirement of proof in finding that the requirements under Article 116 and 117 of Directive 2001/83/EC were satisfied.
   By its third plea the applicant claims that the Commission infringed the general principle of proportionality in determining the level of protection to be applied.
   By its fourth plea the applicant claims that essential procedural requirements were infringed since the opinion of the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use of the European Medicines Agency was unlawful. In the applicant's view, as a result of the decisive importance of that opinion, its unlawfulness calls into question that of the Commission's decisions. In addition, it is not apparent from the reasons given in the contested decision that the Commission made use of the discretion which it is granted.
   Finally, the applicant submits, as its fifth plea, that the Commission failed to provide sufficient reasoning in the contested decision, since it failed to provide its own reasons, but rather relied wholesale on the scientific assessment of the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use of the European Medicines Agency.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 1).

      (2)  Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67).


title: Case T-489/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 18 December 2008 — Insight Direct USA v OHIM — Net Insight (Insight)

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/68

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 18 December 2008 — Insight Direct USA v OHIM — Net Insight (Insight)
   (Case T-489/07) (1)

   (2009/C 44/116)

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.


title: Action brought on 13 January 1998 by Heidi Hautala, Member of the European Parliament against the Council of the European Union (Case T-14/98)

text:
7.3.98               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 72/27
Ð declare that the European Economic Community is                  Chambers of Me Marc Loesch & Wolter, 11 rue Goethe,
    liable to the applicant for the loss of income suffered        Luxembourg.
    by him as a result of the application of Council
    Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 Mach 1984 and of
    Council Regulation (EEC) No 764/89 of 20 March                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
    1989 amending Regulation (EEC) No 857/84,
    inasmuch as those regulations contain(ed) no provision
    enabling a representative reference quantity to be             Ð annul the decision of 4 November 1997, whereby the
    granted to SLOM transferees who, pursuant to an                    Council refused to grant access to the document
    undertaking given in accordance with Council                       requested by the applicant,
    Regulation (EEC) No 1078/77 of 17 May 1977, did
    not supply any milk during the reference year selected
    by the Member State concerned,                                 Ð order the Council to pay the applicant's costs pursuant
                                                                       to the Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the
                                                                       Court of First Instance, including the costs of any
Ð declare that the applicant has suffered a loss of income             interveners.
    amounting to the difference between, on the one hand,
    the revenue Ð including inter alia income from sales
    and additions to his herd Ð which he would in the              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    ordinary course of events have received from the
    quantities of milk that he would have delivered if,
    during the period from 1 April 1984 (the date on               The applicant, a Member of the European Parliament,
    which Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 entered into force)           seeks the annulment of a refusal by the defendant to grant
    to 31 March 1994 (the date of expiry of the 1993/              access to a certain document which was requested
    1994 levy period), had he been in possession of the            pursuant to Council Decision 93/731/EC of 20 December
    milk reference quantity to which he was entitled, and,         1993 on public access to Council documents. The
    on the other hand, the income which he actually                document in question is the Report from the Common
    received during that period;                                   Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) Working Group on
                                                                   Conventional Arms Exports, approved on 14Ð15
                                                                   November 1996, on the implementation of the common
Ð declare that interest at the rate of 8 % per annum, or           criteria on arms exports agreed by the European Council
    such other rate as the Court shall in its discretion           in 1991 and 1992.
    think fit, is payable to the applicant on the
    compensation due to him, covering the period from
    the date of delivery of the Court's judgment to the            In support of the form of order which it seeks the
    date of payment in full,                                       applicant submits that the contested refusal constitutes:
Ð order the defendants to pay the costs.
                                                                   Ð a misapplication of the exceptions laid down in
                                                                       Article 4(1) of the above mentioned Council Decision.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    First, the Council has refused access to the Report in
                                                                       its entirety, without any explanation why its disclosure
                                                                       could be harmful for the EU's relations with third
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                 countries'. The mandatory and absolute terms in
Case T-146/97.                                                         which the Article 4(1) is drafted does not permit such
                                                                       an approach. Second, even should it appear that the
                                                                       disclosure of certain aspects of the Report might
                                                                       undermine the protection of the public interest, the
                                                                       applicant still submits that the Council has acted in
                                                                       breach of its duty to provide access to those parts of
                                                                       the document not covered by the exception. The
Action brought on 13 January 1998 by Heidi Hautala,                    failure on the part of the defendant to examine in the
Member of the European Parliament against the Council                  present case the question whether the document
                   of the European Union                               should be released if certain parts were blanked out
                       (Case T-14/98)                                  constitutes further evidence of the Council's failure to
                                                                       give the applicant's request any careful consideration
                        (98/C 72/58)                                   and should in itself be regarded as constituting an
                                                                       infringement of Article 4(1),
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                   Ð a breach of the fundamental principle of the
An action against the Council of the European Union was                Community law that citizens of the European Union
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European             should be granted the widest and fullest possible
Communities on 13 January 1998 by Heidi Hautala, MEP,                  access to documents of the institutions of the Union,
represented by Onno W. Brouwer and Thomas Janssens,                    and of the principle of the protection of legitimate
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                       expectations,
 ---pagebreak--- C 72/28             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     7.3.98
Ð a breach of the obligation to state reasons, inasmuch              The complaint alleged conduct which amounted to serious
    as in the contested refusal the Council merely                   infringements of the rules on competition of the EC Treaty
    reproduced the text of Council Decision 97/731/EC,               committed during the construction of the building for the
    without relating it to a specific factual premise.               Council of the European Union in Brussels. The nature
                                                                     and effect of those infringements was to distort
                                                                     competition to the detriment of undertakings from other
                                                                     Member States and to dissuade in the long term non-
                                                                     Belgian undertakings from taking part in Belgian public
                                                                     procurement contracts. Essentially, that complaint was
Action brought on 19 January 1998 by Impregilo SpA and               directed against an agreement, arrangement or concerted
Others against the Commission of the European                        practice between a large number of the major Belgian
                        Communities                                  construction and public works undertakings which
                       (Case T-19/98)                                enabled them to penalise' the members of CDK, one of
                        (98/C 72/59)                                 which is an Italian undertaking and another German,
                                                                     which dared' to attempt to penetrate the Belgian
               (Language of the case: French)                        construction and public works market by submitting
                                                                     tenders for the construction of the Council's new
An action against the Commission of the European                     buildings.
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 19 January
1998 by Impregilo SpA, established in Milan (Italy),                 Such conduct was made possible largely by the action of
Dyckerhoff & Widmann AG (Dywidad), established in                    the Belgian State itself. By conferring on the EGC
Ascheim (Federal Republic of Germany) and Entreprises                consortium an economically and legally dominant position
Koeckelberg SA, established in Charleroi (Belgium),                  with respect to its competitor CDK, in particular by
represented by Chantal Bonnard, of the Paris Bar, with an            granting it excessive powers and an unprecedented
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                 plurality of roles, the Belgian State infringed the
Aloyse May, 31 Grand'rue.                                            Community competition rules and created a situation
                                                                     which inevitably led to manifest, serious and repeated
The applicants claim that the Court should:                          abuses.
Ð annul the decision of the Commission of 13 November
    1997 whereby the latter rejected the applicants'                 The Commission rejected that complaint by way of the
    requests that the infringements of Articles 5, 85, 86            contested decision.
    and 90 of the EC Treaty committed by Belgian
    construction undertakings and the Belgian State during           The applicants plead infringement of Articles 5, 85, 86
    the construction of the new Council of Ministers                 and 90 of the EC Treaty.
    building be penalised,
Ð order the Commission to pay the entire costs incurred              By failing to carry out an investigation, despite all the
    by the applicants in the present action for annulment.           circumstantial and factual evidence in its possession
                                                                     pointing to the existence of a collective dominant position,
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                     the Commission has infringed Article 86 and failed to
The applicants, three construction undertakings, are                 fulfil its obligations with regard to the application of the
members of CDK', a consortium governed by Belgian                   competition rules.
law, set up in order to participate in the construction of
the new building complex intended to accommodate the                 The granting of exclusive and special powers to EGC by
Council's staff. EGC' is a consortium governed by Belgian           the Belgian State is a breach of the Belgian State's
law, under which are grouped the members of four                     obligations flowing from 90 of the EC Treaty.
consortia consisting mainly of Belgian contractors, formed
for the purpose of constructing the Council's buildings.
The members of the EGC are among the major                           Moreover, the contested decision is contrary to Article 85
construction companies in Belgium.                                   of the EC Treaty inasmuch as it considers that the setting
                                                                     up of EGC is not incompatible with that provision. The
On 28 February 1996 the members of CDK lodged a                      rejection of the complaint on the ground that the
complaint with the defendant against 16 Belgian                      applicants have not suffered any damage as a result of the
undertakings in the construction industry which form part            consortium with regard to some lots is likewise contrary
of the EGC consortium and against the Belgian State.                 to Article 85.


title: Case C-514/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky (Czech Republic) lodged on 2 November 2010 — Wolf Naturprodukte GmbH v Sewar spol. s r. o.

text:
               15.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky (Czech Republic) lodged on 2 November 2010 — Wolf Naturprodukte GmbH v Sewar spol. s r. o.
   (Case C-514/10)
   ()
   2011/C 13/37
   Language of the case: Czech

      Referring court

   Nejvyšší soud České republiky

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Wolf Naturprodukte GmbH

      Respondent: Sewar spol. s r. o.

      Question referred

   Must Article 66(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (‘the Brussels I Regulation’) be interpreted as meaning that for that regulation to take effect it is necessary that at the time of delivery of a judgment the regulation was in force both in the State whose court delivered the judgment and in the State in which a party seeks to have that judgment recognised and enforced?

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.


title: Case T-256/11: Action brought on 20 May 2011 — Ezz and Others/Council

text:
               9.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 204/28

         Action brought on 20 May 2011 — Ezz and Others/Council
   (Case T-256/11)
   2011/C 204/50
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Ahmed Abdelaziz Ezz (Giza, Egypt), Abla Mohammed Fawzi Ali Ahmed (London, United Kingdom), Khadiga Ahmed Ahmed Kamel Yassin (London, United Kingdom) and Shahinaz Abdel Azizabdel Wahab Al Naggar (Giza, Egypt) (represented by: M. Lester, Barrister, and J. Binns, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP of 21 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (OJ 2011 L 76, p. 63) and Council Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 of 21 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (OJ 2011 L 76, p. 4), insofar as they apply to the applicants.

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By means of their application the applicants seek, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, the annulment of Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP of 21 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt and Council Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 of 21 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt, insofar as they apply to the applicants.
   In support of the action, the applicants rely on five pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the criterion for adopting restrictive measures against the applicants, as set out in Article 1 of Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP and in Article 2 of Council Regulation (EU) No 270/2011, is not fulfilled. In addition, it is being alleged that the grounds used by the defendant as justification for the adoption of restrictive measures against the applicants are entirely vague, non-specific, unsubstantiated, unjustified, and insufficient to justify the application of such measures.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant has violated the applicants’ rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection, as:

                           —

                           The restrictive measures provide no procedure for communicating to the applicants the evidence on which the decision to freeze their assets was based, or for enabling them to comment meaningfully on that evidence;

                           —

                           The reasons given in the contested measures contain a general, unsupported, vague allegation of judicial proceedings; and

                           —

                           The defendant has not given sufficient information to enable the applicants effectively to make known their views in response, which does not permit a Court to assess whether the Council’s decision and assessment was well founded and based on compelling evidence.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant has failed to give the applicants sufficient reasons for their inclusion in the contested measures, in violation of its obligation to give a clear statement of the actual and specific reasons justifying its decision, including the specific individual reasons that led it to consider that the applicants were responsible for misappropriating Egyptian State funds.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant has infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicants’ right to property and to reputation, as:

                           —

                           The asset freezing measures have a marked and long-lasting impact on their fundamental rights;

                           —

                           They are unjustified in their application to the applicants; and

                           —

                           The defendant has not demonstrated that a total asset freeze is the least onerous means of ensuring such an objective, nor that the very significant harm to the applicants is justified and proportionate.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that defendant’s inclusion of the applicants in the list of persons against whom restrictive measures will apply is based on a manifest error of assessment.


title: Case T-130/08: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 September 2009 — Gres La Sagra v OHIM — Ceramicalcora (VENATTO MARBLE STONE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark VENATTO MARBLE STONE — Earlier national figurative marks VENETO CERÁMICAS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/62

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 September 2009 — Gres La Sagra v OHIM — Ceramicalcora (VENATTO MARBLE STONE)
   (Case T-130/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark VENATTO MARBLE STONE - Earlier national figurative marks VENETO CERÁMICAS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2009/C 267/111
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Gres La Sagra, SL (Alameda de la Sagra, Spain) (represented by: T. Villate Consonni and J. Calderón Chavero, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Ceramicalcora, SA (Alcora, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Chamber of the Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 January 2008 (Case R 1609/2006-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Ceramicalcora, SA and Gres La Sagra, SL.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Gres La Sagra, SL to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 116, 9.5.2008.