title: Case C-238/12 P: Appeal brought on 16 May 2012 by FLSmidth & Co. A/S against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 6 March 2012 in Case T-65/06: FLSmidth & Co. A/S v European Commission

text:
               6.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/10

         Appeal brought on 16 May 2012 by FLSmidth & Co. A/S against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 6 March 2012 in Case T-65/06: FLSmidth & Co. A/S v European Commission
   (Case C-238/12 P)
   2012/C 303/20
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: FLSmidth & Co. A/S (represented by: M. Dittmer, advokat, J. Ratliff, Barrister, F. Louis, avocat)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   Relying on Article 256(1), second paragraph, Article 263 and Article 264 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union Article 31 of Council Regulation 1/2003 (1), and Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, FLSmidth & Co. A/S respectfully requests that the Court of Justice:

               —

               sets aside the judgment of 6 March 2012 in case T-65/06,

               —

               annuls the European Commission decision of 30 November 2005 in case COMP/F/38.354 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU in so far as it concerns FLS; or in the alternative, reduces the amount for which FLS is held liable in the decision.

               —

               orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the primary form of order sought, FLS raises two pleas in law, the last of which is supported by two sub-pleas.

               —

               The General Court erred in law as it did not apply the correct legal test for attributing liability to an (ultimate) parent company. Also, the General Court failed to draw the correct legal consequence from the evidence submitted to it seeing that it did not conclude that FLS had succeeded in rebutting the parent liability presumption.

               —

               The General Court failed to verify whether the Commission complied with its duty to state reasons.

                           —

                           The Commission itself erred by not complying with its duty to state reasons as it did not sufficiently address FLS’ submitted arguments and evidence in order to rebut the presumption of parent liability.

                           —

                           In addiction, the Commission did not comply with its duty to state reasons seeing that the decision contained no reasoning as to why FLS was to be liable for the period of December 1990 to December 1991.

         In support of the alternative form of order sought, FLS raises four pleas in law.

               —

               The General Court erred in law as it failed to apply the principle of proportionality and legality when reviewing the liability imposed on FLS; thus failing to reduce the liability in question accordingly.

               —

               The General Court erred in law as it failed to put an end to the unequal treatment adopted by the Commission when granting Trioplast Industrier AB — and not FLS — a reduction of 30 pct. under the Leniency Notice.

               —

               The General Court erred in law by misapplying Section D, second indent of the Leniency Notice, as it did not grant FLS a reduction on the grounds of non-contestation of the facts. In addition, the General Court failed to apply the principle of equal treatment as it did not take into account the fact that Bonar Technical Fabrics was granted a 10 pct. reduction, for at least the same behaviour.

               —

               The General Court infringed Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights as it did not hand down a judgment with9in a reasonable time.

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


title: Case T-44/13: Action brought on 29 January 2013 — AbbVie v EMA

text:
               16.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/31

         Action brought on 29 January 2013 — AbbVie v EMA
   (Case T-44/13)
   2013/C 79/53
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: AbbVie, Inc. (Wilmington, United States); and AbbVie Ltd (Maidenhead, United Kingdom) (represented by: P. Bogaert, G. Berrisch, lawyers, and B. Kelly, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Medicines Agency

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the Decision of the European Medicines Agency EMA/748792/2012 of 14 January 2013 granting access to documents from the marketing authorisation dossier of a medicinal product; and

               —

               Order the European Medicines Agency to pay the applicants’ costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Decision violates Article 4(2) of the Transparency Regulation (1) and the applicants’ fundamental rights to the protection of confidential commercial information.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Decision violates Article 4(4) of the Transparency Regulation and the principle of good administration.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Decision violates the obligation to state reasons as regards the application of Article 4(2) of the Transparency Regulation.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Decision violates the principle of legitimate expectations

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Decision violates Directive 2001/29/EC (2), the fundamental rights protecting property rights, including copyright and the principle of proportionality and good administration, insofar as the access is granted by providing a copy of the documents.

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

      (2)  Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10)


title: Case C-408/08 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 February 2010 — Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie SNC v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), CMS Hasche Sigle (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Articles 55(1)(a) and 7(1)(c) — Interest in bringing an application for a declaration of invalidity of a trade mark based on an absolute ground for invalidity — Law firm — Word sign COLOR EDITION — Descriptive character of a word mark composed of descriptive elements)

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/5

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 February 2010 — Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie SNC v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), CMS Hasche Sigle
   (Case C-408/08 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Articles 55(1)(a) and 7(1)(c) - Interest in bringing an application for a declaration of invalidity of a trade mark based on an absolute ground for invalidity - Law firm - Word sign ‘COLOR EDITION’ - Descriptive character of a word mark composed of descriptive elements)
   2010/C 100/07
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie SNC (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral), CMS Hasche Sigle

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 8 July 2008 in Case T-160/07 Lancôme v OHIM — CMS Hasche Sigle in which the Court of First Instance dismissed the action brought by the appellant against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 February 2007 declaring invalid the registration of the trade mark COLOR EDITION in respect of cosmetic and make-up goods — Infringement of Articles 7(1)(c) and 55(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1) — Legal standing to bring an application for a declaration of a trade mark’s invalidity — Law firm — No private economic interest to apply for a declaration of the invalidity of a cosmetics trade mark — Noticeable difference between the association created by the terms suggested for the purpose of a trade mark’s registration and the everyday language used by the target public to describe the goods and services at issue or their essential characteristics

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie SNC to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 6, 10.1.2009.


title: Case T-247/10: Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2011 — medi v OHIM — Deutsche Medien Center (deutschemedi.de) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark deutschemedi.de — Earlier Community word mark World of medi, earlier national figurative and word marks medi.eu, medi welt, medi-Verband and medi, and earlier trading name and company name medi — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               19.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 340/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2011 — medi v OHIM — Deutsche Medien Center (deutschemedi.de)
   (Case T-247/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark deutschemedi.de - Earlier Community word mark World of medi, earlier national figurative and word marks medi.eu, medi welt, medi-Verband and medi, and earlier trading name and company name medi - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2011/C 340/38
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: medi GmbH & Co. KG (Bayreuth, Germany) (represented by: H. Lindner, D. Terheggen and T. Kiphuth, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Deutsche Medien Center GmbH (Dortmund, Germany)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 March 2010 (Case R 1336/2008-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Weihermüller & Voigtmann GmbH & Co. KG and Deutsche Medi Präventions GmbH.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 16 March 2010 (Case R 1336/2008-4);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to bear, in addition to its own costs, the costs of Medi GmbH & Co. KG;

               3.

               Orders Deutsche Medien Center GmbH to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 31.7.2010.


title: Case C-497/06 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 30 April 2009 — CAS Succhi di Frutta SpA v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Non-contractual liability — Tendering procedure — Payment in kind — Payment of the tenderers in fruits other than those specified in the notice of invitation to tender — Causal link)

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/4

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 30 April 2009 — CAS Succhi di Frutta SpA v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-497/06 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Non-contractual liability - Tendering procedure - Payment in kind - Payment of the tenderers in fruits other than those specified in the notice of invitation to tender - Causal link)
   2009/C 153/07
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: CAS Succhi di Frutta SpA (represented by: F. Sciaudone, R. Sciaudone and R. Fioretti, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Cattabriga, Agent, and A. Dal Ferro, avvocato)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 13 September 2006 in Case T-226/01 CAS Succhi di Frutta v Commission, by which the Court dismissed the action for compensation for the alleged loss caused by the Commission’s Decisions C(96)1916 of 22 July 1996 and C(96)2208 of 6 September 1996, adopted within the framework of Commission Regulation (EC) No 228/96 of 7 February 1996 on the supply of fruit juice and fruit jams intended for the people of Armenia and Azerbaijan (OJ 1996 L 30, p. 18)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders CAS Succhi di Frutta SpA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 42 of 24.2.2007.


title: Case C-124/07: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 April 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — J.C.M. Beheer BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Sixth VAT Directive — Supply of services relating to insurance transactions — Insurance brokers and insurance agents)

text:
               24.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 128/14

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 April 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — J.C.M. Beheer BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-124/07) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Supply of services relating to insurance transactions - Insurance brokers and insurance agents)
   (2008/C 128/22)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: J.C.M. Beheer BV

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Article 13 B(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEG of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Supply by insurance brokers or insurance agents of services relating to insurance or reinsurance transactions — Taxable person acting as sub-agent in the name of a principal agent
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 13B(a) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that an insurance broker or agent does not have a direct relationship with the parties to the insurance or reinsurance contract in the conclusion of which he has been instrumental, but merely an indirect relationship with them through the intermediary of another taxable person who is, himself, in a direct relationship with one of those parties, and to whom the insurance broker or agent is contractually bound does not prevent the service provided by the latter from being exempt from value added tax under that provision.

      (1)  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.


title: Case T-126/08: Action brought on 20 March 2008 — Okalux v OHIM — Ondex (ONDACELL)

text:
               9.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 116/28

         Action brought on 20 March 2008 — Okalux v OHIM — Ondex (ONDACELL)
   (Case T-126/08)
   (2008/C 116/52)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Okalux GmbH (Marktheidenfeld, Germany) (represented by: M. Beckensträter, Rechtsanwältin)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Ondex S.A.S.
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 22 January 2008, received on 24 January 2008, and declare that the opposition of 29 August 2006 is admissible;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the allowable costs, including the costs of the original proceedings (including the costs of the intervener).

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Ondex S.A.S.

      Community trade mark concerned: The trade mark ‘ONDACELL’ for goods and services in Classes 6, 17 and 19 (application No 4 755 971).

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: The notice of opposition is deemed not to have been entered.

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

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 5 and 8 of Regulation (EC) No 2869/95 (1), Decision No EX-96-1 (2) and Communication No 5/96 (3).

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2869/95 of 13 December 1995 on the fees payable to the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 33).

      (2)  Decision No EX-96-1 of the President of the Office of 11 January 1996 concerning the conditions for opening current accounts at the Office (OHIM OJ 1996, 48).

      (3)  Communication No 5/96 of the President of the Office, of 8 August 1996, concerning current accounts (OHIM OJ 1996, 1461).


title: Case C-42/05: Order of the President of the Court of 14 September 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — Belgium) — Belgium State v Ring Occasions SA, in liquidation, Fortis Bank SA

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/24

         Order of the President of the Court of 14 September 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — Belgium) — Belgium State v Ring Occasions SA, in liquidation, Fortis Bank SA
   (Case C-42/05) (1)

   (2006/C 331/42)

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 93, 16.4.2005.


title: Case T-543/11: Action brought on 14 October 2011 — Ghreiwati v Council

text:
               3.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/27

         Action brought on 14 October 2011 — Ghreiwati v Council
   (Case T-543/11)
   2011/C 355/49
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Emad Ghreiwati (Al Maliki, Syria) (represented by: P.-F. Gaborit, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul Decision 2011/522/CFSP, Regulation (EU) No 878/2011, Decision 2011/628/PESC and Regulation (EU) No 950/2011 of the Council of the European Union in so far as they concern Mr Emad Ghreiwati;

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging insufficient statement of reasons, and infringement of the rights of the defence and of the right to an effective legal remedy, in so far as:

                           —

                           the contested measures, adding the name of the applicant to the list of persons concerned by the restrictive measures against Syria, do not show the reasons for the restrictive measure taken against the latter;

                           —

                           those decisions were not notified to the applicant; and

                           —

                           the evidence held against the applicant to justify the restrictive measures concerning him has still not been communicated, despite a request addressed to the Council of the European Union.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, a manifest error of assessment, inasmuch as neither the applicant’s position as President of the Damascus Chamber of Industry nor his capacity as a shareholder of the Zouheir Ghreiwati Company supports the allegation of economic support for the Syrian regime.


title: Case C-462/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 25 November 2009 — Stichting de Thuiskopie v Mijndert van der Lee and Others

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/38

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 25 November 2009 — Stichting de Thuiskopie v Mijndert van der Lee and Others
   (Case C-462/09)
   2010/C 24/66
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Stichting de Thuiskopie

      Respondents: Mijndert van der Lee, Hananja van der Lee, Opus Supplies Deutschland GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Directive 2001/29/EC, (1) in particular Article 5(2)(b) and (5) thereof, provide any assistance in determining who should be regarded under national law as owing the ‘fair compensation’ referred to in Article 5(2)(b)? If so, what assistance does it provide?

               2.

               In a case of distance selling in which the buyer is established in a different Member State to that of the seller, does Article 5(5) of Directive 2001/29/EC require national law to be interpreted so broadly that a person owing the ‘fair compensation’ referred to in Article 5(2)(b) of the directive who is acting on a commercial basis owes such compensation in at least one of the Member States involved in the distance selling?

      (1)  Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10)


title: ORDER OF THE COURT of 2 February 1996 in Case C-257/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratif, Clermont-Ferrand (France) Gérard Bresle v. Préfet de la Région Auvergne and Préfet du Puy-de-Dôme (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Inadmissibility)

text:
No C 95/4               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    30 . 3 . 96
                  ORDER OF THE COURT                                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                        of 2 February 1996
                                                                       — Infringement of essential procedural requirements, first
in Case C-257/95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from                paragraph of Article 33 of the ECSC Treaty:
the Tribunal Administratif, Clermont-Ferrand ( France )
Gérard Bresle v. Préfet de la Région Auvergne and Préfet du               — inaccurate, incomplete finding of the facts on which
                          Puy-de-Dôme ( 1 )                                   the Commission's decision is based,
   (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Inadmissibility)
                                                                          — infringement of the duty to state reasons and of the
                              96/C 95/06 )                                    principle audi alteram partem :
                (Language of the case: French)                                — the Commission has not dealt with the argument
                                                                                put forward in the alternative by the Federal
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                      Government to the effect that the closure of
         published in the European Court Reports)                                 capacity undertaken by the purchaser of the
                                                                                privatized undertaking justified the aid of the
In Case C-257/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                                amount declared according to the practice
of the EC Treaty from the Tribunal Administratif                                  adopted by the Commission ( see 1993 Report on
( Administrative Court ), Clermont-Ferrand (France ) for a                        Competition Policy ),
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Gerard Bresle and Préfet de la Region                           — the Commission did not deal with the essential
Auvergne and Préfet du Puy-de-Dome — on the                                       arguments put forward by the applicant with
interpretation of Article 95 of the EC Treaty — the Court,                        regard to the commercial considerations
composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C. N.                           connected with the loan decision of December
Kakouris, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet and G. Hirsch                         1993 ,
(Presidents of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, F. A.
Schockweiler, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn,                    — the Commission omitted to examine to what
C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm, L. Sevón                         extent a bank acting in the private sector, and not
and M. Wathelet ( Rapporteur ), Judgess; G. Cosmas,                               in a position akin to a shareholder, would have
Advocate-General ; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on                          acted in the actual situation obtaining in
2 February 1996 , the operative part of which is a                                December 1993 . The assumption that no private
follows :                                                                         bank would have granted a loan replacing capital
                                                                                does not in any event constitute sufficient reason
The reference for a preliminary ruling submitted by the                           for refraining from discussing other financing
Tribunal Administratif de Clermont-Ferrand by judgment                            possibilities,
of 27 June 1995 is inadmissible.
                                                                      — infringement of the substantive law on aid ( Article 4 ( c )
(') OJ C 248 , 23 . 9 . 1995 .                                            of the ECSC Treaty and Article 1 ( 2 ) of Commission
                                                                          Decision 3855/91 /ECSC — the Steel Aid ( Code ):
                                                                          — Article 1 of the contested decision wrongly describes
                                                                              the loan of DM 20 million granted in 1984 by
Action brought on 22 December 1995 by the Federal                             Hamburgische Landesbank Girozentrale ( HLB ) on
Republic of Germany against the Commission of the                             behalf of Hamburg to the shareholders of the
                    European Communities                                      successor company in order to raise the share capital
                          Case C-404/95                                       of the Neue Hamburger Stahlwerke Gmbh ( HSW ) as
                            ( 96/C 95/07 )                                    a subsidy within the meaning of Article 4 (c ) of the
                                                                              ECSC Treaty. Given the state of knowledge at the
An action against the Commission of the European                              material time, the City of Hamburg had a substantial
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the                    financial interest in the undertaking's continuing in
European Communities on 22 December 1995 by the                               being through a successor company, the actual
Federal Republic of Germany, represented by Ernst Röder,                      course of events confirmed this assessment,
Ministerialrat in the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs,
D-53107 Bonn, Michael Schütte, Rechtsanwalt at the                            Even if the Commission regards the DM 20 million
Kammergericht Berlin, 99— 10 Rue de la Loi, B-1040                            loan as an aid authorized in 1984/85 , the applicant,
                                                                              as a Member State, is entitled to contest the
Brussels, and Wolfgang Mueller-Stöfen, Rechtsanwalt at the
Oberlandesgericht Hamburg.                                                    erroneous interpretation of the concept of aid by an
                                                                              action for annulment pursuant to Article 33 ( 1 ) of
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   the ECSC Treaty,
1 . annul Commission Decision C(95 ) 2754 final of                        — the Commission wrongly regards the DM 20 million
     31 October 1995 on aid from the Freie and Hansestadt                     increase in December 1992 in the credit line made
    Hamburg to the ECSC steel undertaking Hamburger                           available to HSW by HLB — under a credit contract
    Stahlwerke Gmbh;                                                          subscribed by the City of Hamburg — as an aid
                                                                              within the meaning of Article 4 ( c ) of the ECSC
2 . order the Commission to pay the costs .                                   Treaty: in the circumstances prevailing at the


title: Case T-492/07 P: Appeal brought on 28 December 2007 by Carlos Sanchez Ferriz and Others against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 17 October 2007 in Case F-115/06, Sanchez Ferriz and Others v Commission

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/47

         Appeal brought on 28 December 2007 by Carlos Sanchez Ferriz and Others against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 17 October 2007 in Case F-115/06, Sanchez Ferriz and Others v Commission

   (Case T-492/07 P)
   (2008/C 64/77)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellants: Carlos Sanchez Ferriz (Brussels, Belgium), Isabele Chantraine (Brussels), José De Viana Costa Ribeiro (Meise, Belgium), Brigitte Housiaux (Ramillies, Belgium), Chantal Vellemans (Brussels), Sylvie Schaack (Remich, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg), Andrea Losito (Sandweiler, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg), Marie-Josée Gaspar-Lis (Luxembourg, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg), Otálka Ferreira-Nielsen (Gostingen, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg) (represented by F. Frabetti, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               Annul the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 17 October 2007 in Case F-115/06;

               —

               Grant the claims of the applicants at first instance and, accordingly, declare the action in Case F-115/06 admissible and well-founded;

               —

               In the alternative, refer the matter back to the Civil Service Tribunal;

               —

               Rule on the costs and order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In their appeal, the appellants seek the annulment of the order of the Civil Service Tribunal rejecting as inadmissible their action for, principally, annulment of the list of officials promoted in the 2005 promotion year, in that that list does not include the names of the appellants, and, as a subsidiary plea, annulment of the decisions attributing priority points to them for that year.
   In support of their appeal, the appellants submit that, contrary to the findings in the contested order, the general implementing provisions of 26 April 2002, whose unlawfulness was raised at first instance, are directly connected in law to the present dispute.
   Furthermore, they claim that the Tribunal erred in law in declaring the complaint alleging breach of the GIP 45 of 23 December 2004 inadmissible because it was raised late at the stage of the reply. They submit that that complaint had already been mentioned in the claim and in the application, and that the reply merely contains its amplification.
   Finally, the appellants submit that, contrary to the findings of the Civil Service Tribunal, they are affected in a concrete manner and individually by the breach of the first paragraph of Article 6 and of Article 10 (2) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations and that accordingly their interest in bringing proceedings is clear.


title: Case T-333/15: Action brought on 24 June 2015 — Josel v OHIM — Nationale-Nederlanden Nederland (NN)

text:
               10.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/37

         Action brought on 24 June 2015 — Josel v OHIM — Nationale-Nederlanden Nederland (NN)
   (Case T-333/15)
   (2015/C 262/51)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Josel, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nationale-Nederlanden Nederland BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘NN’ — Application for registration No 1 066 097

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 April 2015 in Case R 1531/2014-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision, insofar as, in dismissing in part the appeal brought by the applicant for the trade mark, it upholds the decision of the Opposition Division rejecting opposition B 1 887 887 and granting Community trade mark (international registration) No 1 066 097 ‘NN’, Class 36, (word mark);

               —

               order the party or parties opposing this action to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-282/15: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Braunschweig — Germany) — Queisser Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Free movement of goods — Articles 34 to 36 TFEU — Purely domestic situation — Food safety — Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 — Article 6 — Principle of risk analysis — Article 7 — Precautionary principle — Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 — Member State legislation prohibiting the manufacture and sale of food supplements containing amino acids — Situation in which a temporary derogation to that prohibition is at the discretion of the national authority)

text:
               6.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 70/3

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Braunschweig — Germany) — Queisser Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
   (Case C-282/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of goods - Articles 34 to 36 TFEU - Purely domestic situation - Food safety - Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 - Article 6 - Principle of risk analysis - Article 7 - Precautionary principle - Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 - Member State legislation prohibiting the manufacture and sale of food supplements containing amino acids - Situation in which a temporary derogation to that prohibition is at the discretion of the national authority))
   (2017/C 070/03)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Braunschweig

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Queisser Pharma GmbH & Co. KG

      Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which prohibits the manufacture, processing or marketing of any food supplement containing amino acids, unless a derogation has been issued by a national authority with discretion in that respect, where that legislation is based on a risk analysis which concerns only certain amino acids, which it is for the referring court to verify. In any event, those articles must be interpreted as precluding such national legislation, where that legislation lays down that the derogations to the prohibition covered by it may only be granted for a specific period even in cases where the safety of a substance is established.

      (1)  OJ 2015 C 294, p. 30.


title: Case T-387/10: Action brought on 9 September 2010 — Goutier v OHIM — Eurodata (ARANTAX)

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/45

         Action brought on 9 September 2010 — Goutier v OHIM — Eurodata (ARANTAX)
   (Case T-387/10)
   ()
   2010/C 301/72
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Klaus Goutier (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: E.E. Happe, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Eurodata GmbH & Co KG (Saarbrücken, Germany)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 July 2010 in Case R 126/2009-4, to the extent that the Community trade mark application was, by setting aside the contested decision, rejected in respect of the following services:
               Class 35– Tax consultancy, tax preparation, accounting, auditing, professional business consultancy, business consultancy
               Class 36– Fiscal assessments, mergers and acquisitions, namely financial consultancy with regard to the purchase or sale of companies and company shares;
               Class 42– Provision of legal services, legal research;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Klaus Goutier.

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘ARANTAX’ for services in Classes 35, 36 and 42.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Eurodata GmbH & Co KG.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: German word mark ‘ANTAX’ for services in Classes 35, 36, 41, 42 and 45.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partial setting aside of the decision of the Opposition Division and partial rejection of the Community trade mark application.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 15 and 43 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) because proof of use had not been provided, and infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, because there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.

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


title: Case F-38/10: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 13 April 2011 — Vakalis v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Pension — Transfer of pension rights acquired in Greece to the pension scheme of officials of the European Union — Calculation of the pensionable years — Objection of illegality concerning the general implementing provisions for Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of the neutrality of the Euro)

text:
               28.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 160/28

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 13 April 2011 — Vakalis v Commission
   (Case F-38/10) (1)

   (Civil Service - Officials - Pension - Transfer of pension rights acquired in Greece to the pension scheme of officials of the European Union - Calculation of the pensionable years - Objection of illegality concerning the general implementing provisions for Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Principle of equal treatment - Principle of the neutrality of the Euro)
   2011/C 160/43
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Ioannis Vakalis (Luvinate, Italy) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Martin and J. Baquero Cruz, agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of the decision of the Office for Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements determining the pension rights of the applicant on his transfer to the European Union scheme

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The application is dismissed partly as inadmissible and partly as unfounded.

               2.

               The European Commission is ordered to bear its own costs and half of the applicant’s costs.

               3.

               Mr Vakalis is to bear half of his own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 31.7.2010, p. 54.


title: Case T-103/02: Action brought on 5 April 2002 by Ineos Phenol GmbH & Co KG against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
29.6.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 156/33
Therefore, the applicant puts forward the same pleas and                   The contested Decision contains, according to the applicant,
arguments as in Case T-100/02, which are again the same as                 several errors of assessment and errors in law. Firstly, the
those put forward in Case T-99/02.                                         Commission erred in concluding that the merchant supply of
                                                                           cumene to one of the applicant’s production sites does
                                                                           not constitute a separate economic market. Secondly, the
                                                                           Commission failed to consider whether a dominant position
(1) Under the operation examined by the Commission in this case,           would be created in this market and failed to conclude that
    Deutsche Shell would acquire sole control of the undertaking           a dominant position had been created. Alternatively, the
    DEA Mineraloel. The decision in case no. COMP/M. 2389-Shell/           Commission failed to define a wider relevant market for the
    DEA is also contested by this applicant in Case T-100/02.              sale of cumene and failed to analyse the creation of a dominant
                                                                           position in such a market.
                                                                           The applicant also puts forward a plea concerning the
                                                                           infringement of an essential procedural requirement, the
Action brought on 5 April 2002 by Ineos Phenol GmbH                        misuse of powers and the violation of the principle of sound
& Co KG against the Commission of the European                             administration. According to the applicant, the Commission
                           Communities                                     should have requested information from third parties in
                                                                           relation to the sale of cumene by BP and Veba Oel.
                          (Case T-103/02)
                          (2002/C 156/62)                                  Finally, the applicant claims that there was a lack of reasoning
                                                                           in the contested Decision since the Commission failed to
                                                                           analyse the supply of merchant cumene by BP and Veba Oel
                   (Language of the case: English)                         and failed to address the issues raised in the present application.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 5 April 2002 by Ineos Phenol
GmbH & Co KG, represented by Mr Julian Ellison, Mr Mark
Clough QC and Mr Matthew Hall of Ashurst Morris Crisp,
Brussels (Belgium).
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           Action brought on 8 April 2002 by SFT Gondrand Frères
—     annul under Article 230 of the EC Treaty the Commission
                                                                             against the Commission of the European Communities
      Decision in case no. COMP/M.2533-BP/E.ON insofar as
      it relates implicitly to the merchant supply of cumene;
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                                                        (Case T-104/02)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                     (2002/C 156/63)
The applicant is a significant purchaser of a petrochemical                                   (Language of the case: French)
product called cumene from BP and Veba Oel AG.
The applicant contests the Decision of the Commission
declaring an operation where BP, together with E.ON, would
acquire joint control of Veba Oel under certain conditions
compatible with the common market and the EEA Agreement.                   An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
The grounds of the present application relate to the omission of           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
the Commission to consider, in this Decision, the competition              European Communities on April 2002 by SFT Gondrand
issues raised by the combination of BP and Veba Oel, so far as             Frères of Paris, represented by Mireille Famchon, lawyer, with
their supply of merchant cumene is concerned.                              an address for service in Luxembourg.


title: Case C-477/14: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (England and Wales) (United Kingdom) made on 27 October 2014 — Pillbox 38 (UK) Limited, trading as ‘Totally Wicked’ v Secretary of State for Health

text:
               12.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/16

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (England and Wales) (United Kingdom) made on 27 October 2014 — Pillbox 38 (UK) Limited, trading as ‘Totally Wicked’ v Secretary of State for Health
   (Case C-477/14)
   (2015/C 007/21)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Justice Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Pillbox 38 (UK) Limited, trading as ‘Totally Wicked’

      Defendant: Secretary of State for Health

      Questions referred

   Is Article 20 of Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of April 2014 (1) on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products and repealing Directive 2001/37/EC (2) invalid, either in whole or in a relevant part, for one or more of the following reasons:

               —

               It imposes either as a whole or in a relevant part a series of obligations on electronic cigarette manufacturers and/or retailers which infringe the principle of proportionality, read in conjunction with the principle of legal certainty?

               —

               For equivalent or similar reasons, it fails to comply with the principle of equality and/or unlawfully distorts competition?

               —

               It fails to comply with the principle of subsidiarity?

               —

               It infringes the rights of electronic cigarette manufacturers or retailers under Articles 16 and/or 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights?

      (1)  OJ L 127, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ L 194, p. 26.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 28 October 2004 in Case T-76/03 Herbert Meister against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Officials — Reassignment of a head of service — Interest of the service — Equivalence of posts — Right to freedom of expression — Duty to have regard for the interests of officials — Statement of reasons — Right to be heard — Non-contractual liability)

text:
               8.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/35

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 28 October 2004
   in Case T-76/03 Herbert Meister against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Officials - Reassignment of a head of service - Interest of the service - Equivalence of posts - Right to freedom of expression - Duty to have regard for the interests of officials - Statement of reasons - Right to be heard - Non-contractual liability)
   (2005/C 6/68)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-76/03: Herbert Meister, official of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), residing at Muchamiel (Spain), represented by G. Vandersanden, lawyer, against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: O. Waelbroeck) – application for, first, annulment of the OHIM's decision PERS-AFFECT-02-30 of 22 April 2002 appointing the applicant, in the interest of the service, with his post, as legal adviser to the Vice-President for Legal Affairs and, second, for damages – the Court, composed of J. Azizi, President, M. Jaeger and E. Cremona, Judges; D. Christiansen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 October 2004 in which it:

               1.

               Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) to pay the applicant EUR 5 000 by way of damages for breach of administrative duty;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the OHIM to pay its own costs and one fifth of the costs incurred by the applicant;

               4.

               Orders the applicant to pay four fifths of his own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 101 of 26.4.2003.


title: Case C-265/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte Suprema di Cassazione by order of that Court of 11 April 2002 in the appeal brought by Frahuil SA against Assitalia SpA

text:
28.9.2002                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 233/15
Thus, the criticisms made by the Court of First Instance                     —       If not, on a proper construction of those directives is the
concerning the ineffectiveness of the legal remedies conferred                       court to uphold the interpretation of its law according to
on individuals by the Community legal order are without any                          which it is authorised to set aside a provision of its
foundation in law.                                                                   national law which prohibits the consumer or the court
                                                                                of its own motion from raising a plea of illegality
                                                                                vitiating the formation or extension of a consumer credit
( 1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1162/2001 of 14 June 2001                         agreement after a time-limit which derogates from the
     establishing measures for the recovery of the stock of hake in                  general law, in so far as it constitutes an exceptional
     ICES sub-areas III, IV, V, VI and VII and ICES divisions VIII a, b, d,          restriction on the right of action of the consumer and
     e and associated conditions for the control of activities of fishing            undermines the effectiveness of consumer protection?
     vessels (OJ 2001 L 159, p. 4).
                                                                             (1 ) Council Directive 87/102/EEC of 22 December 1986 for the
                                                                                approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative pro-
                                                                                visions of the Member States concerning consumer credit (OJ
                                                                                L 42, 12.2.1987, p. 48).
                                                                             (2 ) Council Directive 90/88/EEC of 22 February 1990 amending
                                                                                Directive 87/102/EEC for the approximation of the laws, regu-
                                                                                lations and administrative provisions of the Member States
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal d’In-                          concerning consumer credit (OJ L 61, 10.3.1990, p. 14).
stance de Vienne by judgment of that Court of 5 July
2002 in the case of S.A. Cofinoga Mérignac against Sylvain
                             Sachithanathan
                            (Case C-264/02)
                            (2002/C 233/23)                                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte Suprema
                                                                             di Cassazione by order of that Court of 11 April 2002 in
                                                                                the appeal brought by Frahuil SA against Assitalia SpA
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal d’Instance                                            (Case C-265/02)
de Vienne of 5 July 2002, received at the Court Registry on
18 July 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of S.A.                                             (2002/C 233/24)
Cofinoga Mérignac against Sylvain Sachithanathan on the
following questions:
—      On a proper construction of Council Directive 87/102/                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
       EC ( 1) of 22 December 1986 and Council Directive 90/                 European Communities by order of the Corte Suprema di
       88/EC ( 2) of 22 February 1990 must the national court                Cassazione (Supreme Court of Cassation) of 11 April 2002,
       uphold the interpretation of its law which requires lenders           received at the Court Registry on 18 July 2002, for a
       of consumer credit to inform the consumer-borrower in                 preliminary ruling in the appeal brought by Frahuil SA against
       writing of the current annual percentage charge before                Assitalia SpA on the following question:
       each extension of an agreement for credit renewable in
       instalments at an interest rate that is stipulated to be              ‘Is Article 5(1) of the Brussels Convention of 27 September
       variable?                                                             1968, as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on
                                                                             the accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the
—      On a proper construction of those directives must the                 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, by the
       national court uphold the interpretation of its law                   Convention of 25 October 1982 on the accession of the
       which requires lenders of consumer credit to inform the               Hellenic Republic, by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the
       consumer of the clause concerning the variation of that               accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese
       annual percentage charge before the extension of that                 Republic and by the Convention of 29 November 1996 on the
       agreement?                                                            accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland
                                                                             and the Kingdom of Sweden, to be interpreted as subsuming
                                                                             under the expression “matters relating to a contract” the
—      On a proper construction of those directives is the
                                                                             obligation which a guarantor who paid customs duties under
       national court to uphold the interpretation of its law
                                                                             a guarantee obtained by the forwarding agent seeks to enforce
       which authorises it to allow, without any time-limit, a
                                                                             in legal proceedings by way of subrogation to the financial
       plea of illegality vitiating the formation or extension of a
                                                                             authorities and by way of recourse against the third-party
       consumer credit agreement, such as that arising from
                                                                             debtor who is the owner of the imported goods but was
       failure to state the annual percentage charge, raised by
                                                                             unconnected with the guarantee?’
       the consumer or by the court of its own motion, in a
       dispute arising from an action for payment brought by
       the lender?


title: Case T-113/16: Action brought on 21 March 2016 — Arctic Cat v EUIPO — Slazengers (Representation of a panther)

text:
               17.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/22

         Action brought on 21 March 2016 — Arctic Cat v EUIPO — Slazengers (Representation of a panther)
   (Case T-113/16)
   (2016/C 175/26)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Arctic Cat, Inc. (Thief River Falls, Minnesota, United States) (represented by: M. Hartmann and S. Fröhlich, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Slazengers Ltd (Burnham, United Kingdom)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark (Representation of a panther) — International registration designating the European Union No 941 684

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 January 2016 in Case R 2953/2014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision insofar as the appeal was dismissed and the partial refusal of protection of IR No 941 684 in respect of the European Union for the goods claimed in class 25 (‘Power sport vehicle-specific clothing, including protective outwear, balaclavas and face masks’) was confirmed;

               —

               allow protection of IR No 941 684 in respect of the European Union also for the goods claimed in class 25 (‘Power sport vehicle-specific clothing, including protective outwear, balaclavas and face masks’);

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings;

               —

               order Slazengers Ltd to pay the costs of the proceedings before EUIPO.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-110/04: Actionbrought on 16 March 2004 by Paulo Sequeira Wandschneideragainst Commission of the European Communities

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/86

         Action brought on 16 March 2004 by Paulo Sequeira Wandschneider against Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-110/04)
   (2004/C 106/170)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 16 March 2004 by Paulo Sequeira Wandschneider, residing in Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersanden and Aurore Finchelstein, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the report on the development of career in respect of the reference period running from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002;

               —

               in so far as necessary, annul the decision rejecting the applicant's complaint of 11 July 2003;

               —

               order the defendant to pay damages and compensation for the material and non-material damage suffered by the applicant ex aequo et bono of up to EUR 2 500;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant in the present case is challenging the validity of his progress report (rapport d'évolution de carrière (REC)) in respect of the reference period running form 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002.
   In support of his claims, the applicant alleges:

               —

               infringement of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations, its general implementing provisions and the Guide to Assessment;

               —

               breach of the duty to provide reasons and the existence, in the present case, of a manifest error of assessment and misuse of powers;

               —

               failure to observe the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials and breach of the principle of sound administration;

               —

               breach of the rights of defence and failure to observe the time-limits laid down in the relevant provisions of the Staff Regulations.


title: Case T-227/12: Order of the General Court of 24 October 2012 — Saobraćajni institut CIP v Commission (Action for annulment and damages — Public service contracts — Exclusion of the applicant from the tendering procedure — Annulment of the tendering procedure after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               12.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/37

         Order of the General Court of 24 October 2012 — Saobraćajni institut CIP v Commission
   (Case T-227/12) (1)

   (Action for annulment and damages - Public service contracts - Exclusion of the applicant from the tendering procedure - Annulment of the tendering procedure after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate)
   2013/C 9/67
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher and E. Georgieva, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for, first, annulment of a contract notice published on 3 April 2012 concerning the preparation of technical documentation for a rail modernisation project, excluding the applicant from participating in the tender procedure, and, second, damages.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no further need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the applicant in these proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 227, 28.7.2012.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 12 May 1998 in Case T-159/96: Rüdiger Wenk v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Recruitment - Post of Head of a Commission delegation - Notice of vacancy - Legality - Decision rejecting an application for a post - Obligation to provide a statement of reasons - Comparative examination of the merits of the candidates - Discretion of the appointing authority - Protection of legitimate expectations - Duty to have regard for the welfare and interests of officials)

text:
C 209/38             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   4.7.98
Laure Levi, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service        1. Orders the Commission to pay the applicant the sum
in Luxembourg at Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de                       of ECU 400 by way of compensation for
Cessange, against the Commission of the European                        maladministration.
Communities (Agent: Julian Currall) Ð application for
annulment of a decision to reassign the applicant dated
20 July 1995, an express decision of 16 February 1996               2. Dismisses the remainder of the action.
dismissing the complaint lodged by the applicant against
that decision, an implied decision dismissing the claim for
damages submitted by the applicant on 19 October 1995               3. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to
and, in so far as necessary, a decision of 26 June 1996 not             pay the costs incurred by the applicant up to date of
to uphold in its entirety the complaint lodged by the                   receipt by him of the decision rejecting his complaint.
applicant against the last-mentioned decision Ð the Court               The applicant is ordered to bear his own costs
of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of J. Azizi,                incurred as from the date of receipt of the decision
President, R. García-Valdecasas and M. Jaeger, Judges; H.               rejecting his complaint.
Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on 28 May 1998, the
operative part of which is as follows:                              (1) OJ C 40, 8.2.1997.
1. The actions are dismissed.
2. Each party shall bear its own costs.
                                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
( ) OJ C 233, 10.8.1996 and OJ C 388, 21.12.1996.
 1
                                                                                of 26 May 1998
                                                                    in Case T-177/96: Mario Costacurta v. Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
                                                                    (Officials Ð Remuneration Ð Weighting Ð Special
                                                                    derogations applying to officials posted to non-member
                                                                    countries Ð Contrary to the principles of the equivalence
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   of purchasing power and equal treatment)
                      of 12 May 1998                                                        (98/C 209/81)
in Case T-159/96: Rüdiger Wenk v. Commission of the
                  European Communities (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(Officials Ð Recruitment Ð Post of Head of a
Commission delegation Ð Notice of vacancy Ð Legality
Ð Decision rejecting an application for a post Ð                    In Case T-177/96: Mario Costacurta, an official of the
Obligation to provide a statement of reasons Ð                      Commission of the European Communities, residing in
Comparative examination of the merits of the candidates             Luxembourg, represented by Nicolas Decker, of the
Ð Discretion of the appointing authority Ð Protection of            Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in
legitimate expectations Ð Duty to have regard for the               Luxembourg at the latter's Chambers, 16 Avenue Marie-
              welfare and interests of officials)                   TheÂreÁse v. Commission of the European Communities
                                                                    (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and Florence Clotuche) Ð
                        (98/C 209/80)                               application for (1) annulment of the Commission's
                                                                    decision of 22 July 1996 refusing to apply to the applicant
                                                                    the weightings for Zaïre in respect of the period of his
               (Language of the case: French)                       assignment to the Commission's delegation in that country
                                                                    and (2) compensation for the damage thereby caused Ð
                                                                    the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of
In Case T-159/96: Rüdiger Wenk, an official of the                  J. Azizi, President, R. García-Valdecasas and M. Jaeger,
Commission of the European Communities, residing in                 Judges; J. Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for the
Caracas, represented by Nicolas LhoeÈst, of the Brussels            Registrar, gave a judgment on 26 May 1998, the operative
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the               part of which is as follows:
office of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange, v.
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Julian
Currall and Christine Berardis-Kayser) Ð application for            1. The application is dismissed.
annulment of the decision of the Commission of
2 February 1996 rejecting the application by the applicant
for the post of Head of the Commission's delegation in              2. Each of the parties shall bear its own costs.
San JoseÂ Ð the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber),
composed of: J. Azizi, President, and R. García-Valdecasas          (1) OJ C 9, 11.1.1997.
and M. Jaeger, Judges; J. Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 May 1998,
in which it:


title: Case T-289/09: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2011 — Omnicare v OHIM — Astellas Pharma (OMNICARE CLINICAL RESEARCH) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark OMNICARE CLINICAL RESEARCH — Earlier national figurative mark OMNICARE — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Similarity of the services — Genuine use of the earlier mark)

text:
               22.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/41

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2011 — Omnicare v OHIM — Astellas Pharma (OMNICARE CLINICAL RESEARCH)
   (Case T-289/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark OMNICARE CLINICAL RESEARCH - Earlier national figurative mark OMNICARE - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Similarity of the services - Genuine use of the earlier mark)
   2011/C 311/74
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Omnicare, Inc. (Covington, Kentucky, United States) (represented by: M. Edenborough QC)

      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, intervening before the General Court: Astellas Pharma GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: C. Gutiérrez Martínez, H. Granado Carpenter and M. Polo Carreño, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 May 2009 (Case R 401/2008-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Yamanouchi Pharma GmbH and Omnicare, Inc.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Omnicare, Inc. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 244, 10.10.2009.


title: Case T-298/13: Action brought on 3 June 2013 — LemonAid Beverages/OHIM — Pret a Manger (Europe) (Lemonaid)

text:
               27.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 215/16

         Action brought on 3 June 2013 — LemonAid Beverages/OHIM — Pret a Manger (Europe) (Lemonaid)
   (Case T-298/13)
   2013/C 215/23
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: LemonAid Beverages GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: U. Lüken and J. Natzel, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Prêt à Manger (Europe) Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 March 2013 (Case R 276/2012-2) by which the Second Board of Appeal upheld the decision of the Cancellation Division to declare the CTM No 007089444 invalid with regard to the contested goods in classes 32 and 33 and the corresponding decision of the Cancellation Division of OHIM of 20 December 2011 (Case 4123 C);

               —

               Dismiss the application for a declaration of invalidity dated 7 January 2010 against the CTM No 007089444 in its entirety;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The word mark ‘Lemonaid’– Community trade mark registration No 7 089 444

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The grounds of the request for a declaration of invalidity were those laid down in Articles 53(1)(c) and 8(4) of Council Regulation No 207/2009

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the contested Community trade mark invalid

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 53(1) in conjunction with 8(4) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-362/10: Judgment of the General Court of 5 November 2014  — Vtesse Networks v Commission (State aid — Aid to support the deployment of next generation broadband networks in the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly region — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market — Article 107(3)(c) TFEU — Action for annulment — No substantial effect on the competitive position — Locus standi — Procedural rights of the interested parties — Partial inadmissibility — No doubts which justify initiating the formal investigation procedure)

text:
               15.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 448/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 5 November 2014 — Vtesse Networks v Commission
   (Case T-362/10) (1)

   ((State aid - Aid to support the deployment of next generation broadband networks in the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly region - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market - Article 107(3)(c) TFEU - Action for annulment - No substantial effect on the competitive position - Locus standi - Procedural rights of the interested parties - Partial inadmissibility - No doubts which justify initiating the formal investigation procedure))
   (2014/C 448/20)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Vtesse Networks Ltd (Hertford, United Kingdom) (represented by: H. Mercer QC)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and L. Armati, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Republic of Poland (represented: initially by M. Szpunar and B. Majczyna, and subsequently by B. Majczyna, Agents); United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented: initially by S. Behzadi-Spencer and L. Seeboruth, and subsequently by L. Seeboruth, J. Beeko and L. Christie, Agents, and initially by K. Bacon, and subsequently by S. Lee, Barristers); and British Telecommunications plc (London, United Kingdom) (represented: initially by M. Nissen and J. Gutiérrez Gisbert, then by M. Nissen and G. van de Walle de Ghelcke and lastly by G. van de Walle de Ghelcke, J. Rivas Andrés, lawyers, and J. Holmes, Barrister)

      Re:

   Application for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 3204 of 12 May 2010 declaring the aid measure ‘Cornwall & Isles of Scilly Next Generation Broadband’, providing aid from the European Regional Development Fund to support the deployment of next generation broadband networks in the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly region, compatible with Article 107(3)(c) TFEU (State Aid No 461/2009 — United Kingdom).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders Vtesse Networks Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission and British Telecommunications plc;

               3)

               Orders the Republic of Poland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.2010.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 7 March 1996 in the case of Hauptzollamt München v. Wacker Werke GmbH & Co. KG (Case C-142/96)

text:
22 . 6 . 96             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      No C 180/25
3 . Can the recipient of a credit note, in the circumstances          Knubben Speditions GmbH v. Hauptzollamt ( Principal
     set out in Question 2, rely on Article 21 ( 1 ) (c ) of the      Customs Office ) Mannheim on the following question :
     Sixth Directive if the value-added tax mentioned in the
     credit note is claimed from him as a tax debt to the             How is subheading 0904 20 of the Common Customs Tariff
     extent of the difference between the tax mentioned and           — combined nomenclature 1989 and 1990 — to be
     the tax owed by reason of taxable transactions ?                 interpreted ? Does the term 'sonst zerkleinert' used therein
                                                                      signify merely a fineness similar to the 'gemahlen' (crushed )
(!) OJ No L 145 , 1977, p . 1 .                                       product, or does it also cover a product cut into pieces, such
                                                                      as a product cut into pieces measuring between 4 and
                                                                      8 mm ?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 7 March 1996 in
the case of Hauptzollamt Miinchen v. Wacker Werke                     Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du Travail
                        GmbH & Co . KG                                de Bruxelles by judgment of that court of 25 April 1996 in
                                                                          the case of Office National des Pensions v. Cirotti
                         ( Case C-142/96 )
                                                                                Case C- 1 44/96 )
                           ( 96/C 180/55 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 180/57)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Seventh                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Chamber of the Bundesfinanzhof ( Federal Finance Court) of            European Communities by a judgment of the Cour du
7 March 1996, which was received at the Court Registry on             Travail de Bruxelles ( Higher Labour Court, Brussels ) of
29 April 1996, for a preliminary ruling in the case of                25 April 1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on
Hauptzollamt Miinchen ( Principal Customs Office,                     3 May 1 996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Office
Munich ) v . Wacker Werke GmbH & Co . KG on the                       National des Pensions ( National Pensions Office ) v. Cirotti
following questions:                                                  on the following question :
1 . Is the second alternative provided for in the second              Must     Articles     46     and   51     of   Regulation    ( EEC )
     subparagraph of Article 13 ( 2 ) of Council Regulation           No 1408/71 (*) be interpreted as applying in the event of an
     ( EEC ) No 2473/86 of 24 July 1986 on outward                    invalidity benefit, calculated under the legislation of one
     processing relief arrangements ( OJ No L 212 , 1986 ,            Member State, overlapping with an old-age benefit,
     p . 1 ) to be interpreted as meaning that a method of            calculated under the legislation of another Member State,
     determining processing costs is reasonable only if the           that grants a person a share of the employed person's
     resulting value of the temporary export goods                    old-age benefit payable to his or her spouse from whom that
     corresponds approximately to the purchase price paid             person is living apart, even if this would give migrant
     by the holder of an outward processing authorization or          workers an advantage over non-migrant workers, when
     to the production costs ?                                        Article 3 ( 1 ) of the Regulation provides for equal treatment
                                                                      of all nationals of the Member States ?
2 . If the answer to the first question is in the negative, can
     reference be made to the purchase price for the inputs           (') OJ, English Special Edition 1971 ( II ), p . 416 .
     inclusive of uplifts paid by the processor to the holder of
     an outward processing authorization in determining the
     processing costs, and does that apply equally where
     there is a tariff anomaly resulting in a higher rate of duty
     for the unprocessed goods than for the compensating              Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di
     products ?                                                       Genova, Sezione Prima Civile, by order of that court of
                                                                       11 April 1996 in the case of ICAT FOOD SRL and
                                                                                Amministrazione delle Finanze
                                                                                ( Case C-155/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 180/58 )
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 7 March 1996 in             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
the case of Leonhard Knubben Speditions GmbH v.                       European Communities by order of the Tribunale di
                    Hauptzollamt Mannheim                             Genova, Sezione Prima Civile ( District Court, Genoa, First
                         ( Case C-143/96 )                            Civil Section ) of 11 April 1996 which was received at the
                                                                      Court Registry on 7 May 1996, for a preliminary ruling in
                            ( 96/C 180/56                             the case of ICAT FOOD SRL and Amministrazione delle
                                                                      Finanze on the same questions as in Joined Cases C-47/95
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                and Others ( 1 ).
European Communities by order of the Seventh Chamber of
the Bundesfinanzhof ( Federal Finance Court) of 7 March               (!) OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 , p . 5 .
 1996, which was received at the Court Registry on 29 April
 1996, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Leonhard


title: Case T-154/01: Action brought on 9 July 2001 by Fallimento Distilleria F. Palma SpA against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 259/14               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                         15.9.2001
Action brought on 9 July 2001 by Fallimento Distilleria                    this and other efforts, the proper fulfilment of the requirements
F. Palma SpA against Commission of the European Com-                       for performance laid down by the European Commission was
                            munities                                       hindered by new and unforeseeable obstacles.
                         (Case T-154/01)
                                                                           In support of its arguments, the applicant claims that the
                                                                           contested decision is contrary to the principle exonerating
                         (2001/C 259/24)                                   economic operators on grounds of ‘force majeure’, which is
                                                                           expressly referred to in Regulation No 416/96 (3). Thus, the
                                                                           defendant showed itself to have been perfectly aware of having
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                        changed both times and means of giving effect to the tender
                                                                           offer by two subsequent regulations. Notwithstanding all this,
                                                                           and despite reasons beyond the control of the undertaking
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  which was awarded the tender, the Commission, ex abrupto,
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 interpreted particularly strictly the conditions laid down, most
European Communities on 9 July 2001 by Fallimento Distil-                  recently, in Regulation No 416/96.
leria F. Palma SpA, represented by Francesco Caruso, lawyer.
                                                                           Finally, the extreme, unreasonable and disproportionate nature
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           of the contested decision is even more evident on careful
                                                                           consideration of the reason for the substantial security (a hefty
—     order the Commission to make good the damage allegedly               ECU 90 per hectolitre of alcohol), which the applicant lodged
      suffered by the applicant as a result of the Commission’s            at the time, which was to guarantee that it had removed the
      unlawful action which took the form of a memorandum                  alcohol for food use. In the present case, it had pursued
      sent to the Italian Ministero delle Risorse Agricole                 the objective, in guarantee of which it had provided the
      Alimentari e Forestali in November 1996, forwarded by                abovementioned security, and there was no likelihood that the
      that ministry to Distilleria Palma on 3 February 1997;               market in alcohol for food use would be disrupted if the
                                                                           request to destroy the quantity remaining in storage had been
—     order the Commission to pay all the costs.                           acceded to.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            (1) OJ 1990 C 296, p. 10.
                                                                           (2) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2710/93 of 30 September
                                                                               1993 concerning certain special sales by tender of vinous alcohol
The applicant in the present case contests the Commission’s                    held by intervention agencies, for use as motor fuel within the
                                                                               Community; OJ L 245, 01.10.1993, p. 131.
refusal, conveyed by the memorandum to the AIMA (Azienda
                                                                           (3) Commission Regulation (EC) No 416/96 of 7 March 1996
di Stato per gli Interventi nel Mercato Agricolo — State
                                                                               amending Regulation (EEC) No 2710/93 concerning certain
Organization for Interventions in the Agricultural Market) of                  special sales by tender of vinous alcohol held by intervention
11 November 1995 and forwarded by the AIMA to Distilleria                      agencies, for use as motor fuel within the Community; OJ L 59,
on 3 February 1997, to allow the destruction of the residual                   8.3.1996, p. 5.
alcohol not used in accordance with the conditions laid down
in tender No 8/90/EC (1).
It states in that connection that immediately after the award of
the tender the first problems began to arise with regard to the
disposal of the processed alcohol in accordance with the
Commission’s requirements (boycotts by the oil transport
companies, a proposal for a directive on tax exemptions for                Action brought on 9 July 2001 by Laboratorios R.T.B.,
biofuels), which led to an extraordinary increase in storage               S.L. against Office for the Harmonization of the Internal
costs, made it more difficult to find sites for the alcohol                          Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)
removed from the intervention agencies, made it impossible
to remove further quantities of alcohol and had a negative
impact on the applicant’s plans for its use.                                                         (Case T-156/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 259/25)
Moreover, after the adoption of Regulation No 2710/93 (2) the
‘serious and persistent difficulty’, which had heavily affected
the market in recent times, and the ‘special circumstances’,
which had prompted the Commission to cancel the tenders in                                  (Language of the case: to be decided)
respect of the lots of alcohol not taken out of intervention
storage, did not change at all. The applicant, none the less,
took the initiative and removed the second lot of alcohol,                 An action against Office for Harmonization in the Internal
which had already been paid for since the May 1992. Despite                Market (trade marks and designs (OHIM) was brought before


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 July 2004 in Case C-144/02: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 77/388/EC — VAT — Article 11(A)(1)(a) — Taxable amount — Subsidy directly linked to the price — Regulation (EC) No 603/95 — Aid granted in the dried fodder sector)

text:
               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/4

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 15 July 2004
   in Case C-144/02: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 77/388/EC - VAT - Article 11(A)(1)(a) - Taxable amount - Subsidy directly linked to the price - Regulation (EC) No 603/95 - Aid granted in the dried fodder sector)
   (2004/C 228/07)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-144/02: Commission of the European Communities (Agent: E. Traversa and K. Gross ) v Federal Republic of Germany (Agent: M. Lumma), supported by Republic of Finland (Agents: T. Pynnä and E. Bygglin) and by Kingdom of Sweden (Agents: Kruse and A. Falk) — application for a declaration that, by failing to levy value added tax on aid paid under Council Regulation (EC) No 603/95 of 21 February 1995 on the common organisation of the market in dried fodder (OJ 1995 L 63, p. 1), the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11 of the Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and N. Colneric, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 July 2004 in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 156 of 29.6.2002.


title: Case T-89/11: Action brought on 16 February 2011 — Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp v OHIM — Vincci Hoteles (NANU)

text:
               9.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/17

         Action brought on 16 February 2011 — Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp v OHIM — Vincci Hoteles (NANU)
   (Case T-89/11)
   2011/C 113/35
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp GmbH & Co. KG (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: A. Nordemann, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Vincci Hoteles S.A. (Alcobendas, Spain)

      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 25 November 2010 in case R 641/2010-1;

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘NANU’, for goods and services in classes 3, 4, 6, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 26 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 6218879

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 5238704 of the word mark ‘NAMMU’, for goods and services in classes 3, 32 and 44

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Partly upheld the opposition and consequently partly rejected the Community trade mark application for goods and services in classes 3, 4, 16, 21 and 35 and rejected the opposition for goods and services in classes 6, 9, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 26 and 35

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled in part the decision of the Opposition Division and rejected the opposition for goods in classes 4, 16 and 21 and dismissed the appeal for the remainder and confirms the rejection of the Community trade mark application for goods and services in classes 3, 21 and 35

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly assessed that there was likelihood of confusion on the part of the relevant public.