title: Case T-412/13: Action brought on 9 August 2013 — Chin Haur Indonesia v Council

text:
               21.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/27

         Action brought on 9 August 2013 — Chin Haur Indonesia v Council
   (Case T-412/13)
   2013/C 274/43
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Chin Haur Indonesia, PT (Tangerang, Indonesia) (represented by: T. Müller-Ibold and F.-C. Laprévote, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Partially annul Articles 1(1) and 1(3) of the Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 (1) as far as they extend the anti-dumping duty to the applicant and deny the applicant’s exemption request;

               —

               Order the Council to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter; and

               —

               Take any other measures that the Court considers appropriate.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission and the Council failed to demonstrate circumvention with respect to Indonesian imports and thus committed a manifest error of assessment, as:

                           —

                           The conclusion that a change in the pattern of trade had occurred is manifestly erroneous;

                           —

                           The Council wrongly asserted that Indonesian producers, in particular the applicant, were transshipping bicycles from China to EU.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Council wrongly found that the applicant was non-cooperative and that such non-cooperation justified a denial of its exemption, as:

                           —

                           The applicant cooperated to the best of its ability;

                           —

                           The finding of non-cooperation is unwarranted;

                           —

                           The Council’s finding of non-cooperation constitutes a failure to state reasons;

                           —

                           The Council failed to take into account additional information provided by the applicant.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s due process rights have been violated in the investigation, as:

                           —

                           The Commission did not abide by its obligation to consider impartially the evidence before it;

                           —

                           The Commission’s investigation contained procedural irregularities.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the denial to grant the applicant an exemption constitutes a violation of the principle of equal treatment, as:

                           —

                           The Commission discriminated against the applicant by granting an exemption to similarly-placed exporters and by refusing the applicant’s exemption request;

                           —

                           The applicant was wrongly granted the same treatment as completely non-cooperating producers.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Implementing Regulation’s findings on injury and dumping are inconsistent with the basic anti-dumping regulation, as:

                           —

                           The finding of an undermining of the remedial effect of the anti-dumping duty is erroneous.

                           —

                           The Commission established dumping through unreliable and unsuitable data and wrongly refused to consider data on prices submitted by the applicant.

      (1)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 of 29 May 2013 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2011 on imports of bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia, whether declared as originating in Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia or not (OJ 2013 L 153, p. 1)


title: Case T-156/09: Order of the Court of First Instance of 24 June 2009 — Four Ace International v OHIM (skiken)

text:
               26.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 233/21

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 24 June 2009 — Four Ace International v OHIM (skiken)
   (Case T-156/09) (1)

   2009/C 233/44

      Language of the case: German

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

      (1)  OJ C 153, 4.7.2009.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 October 2004 in Case T-257/02, K v Court of Justice of the European Communities (Officials — Action for damages — Exposure to asbestos — Occupational disease — Damage)

text:
               18.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/16

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 14 October 2004
   in Case T-257/02, K v Court of Justice of the European Communities (1)

   (Officials - Action for damages - Exposure to asbestos - Occupational disease - Damage)
   (2004/C 314/42)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-257/02, K, an official of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, residing in Luxembourg (Luxembourg), represented by J. Iturriagagoitia Bassas and K. Delvolvé, lawyers, against Court of Justice of the European Communities (Agent: M. Schauss, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for damages for the physical harm and the non-material, professional and financial loss allegedly suffered by the applicant — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: H. Legal, President, V. Tiili and M. Vilaras, Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 October 2004, in which it:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 274 of 9.11.2002.


title: Case T-551/08: Action brought on 15 December 2008 — H & R ChemPharm v Commission

text:
               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/32

         Action brought on 15 December 2008 — H & R ChemPharm v Commission
   (Case T-551/08)
   (2009/C 55/60)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: H & R ChemPharm GmbH (Salzbergen, Germany) (represented by: M. Klusmann and S. Thomas, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the contested decision in so far as it relates to the applicant;

               —

               in the alternative, reduce as appropriate the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant in the contested decision;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant is challenging Commission Decision C(2008) 5476 final of 1 October 2008 in Case COMP/39.181 — Candle Waxes, in which the defendant found that certain undertakings, including the applicant, had participated in a continuing agreement and/or concerted practice in the paraffin waxes sector, contrary to Article 81(1) EC and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area.
   The applicant relies on four pleas in law in support of its action.
   In its first plea, the applicant alleges infringement of its rights of defence inasmuch as the contested decision does not differentiate between it and other companies which were fined separately, but instead refers uniformly to ‘H & R/Tudapetrol’. The applicant asserts that it does not understand which specific acts contributing to the offence are to be attributed to it. Its rights of defence are thereby infringed in so far as the grounds of complaint and the decision must indicate unambiguously which specific acts lead to the allegation of a breach of law and the resulting imposition of a fine.
   In the alternative, the applicant argues in its second plea in law that there is no evidence that it acted unlawfully. The Commission, on the basis of its broad-brush appraisal of the evidence in relation to all of the undertakings to which the decision was addressed, failed to have regard for the fact that there was no evidence of an infringement on the part of the applicant. The applicant submits that the Commission did not carry out a sufficiently discriminating and individual appraisal of the evidence which could, and would necessarily, have shown that the evidence adduced was insufficient to establish that the applicant had committed an offence.
   In the further alternative, the applicant claims in its third plea in law that, in the calculation of the fine, the initial amount was erroneously set too high.
   In the further alternative, the applicant claims in its fourth plea in law that the principle of proportionality and the prohibition of discrimination were breached by reason of the erroneous calculation of the fine. Specifically, the applicant asserts that an error of assessment was made when fixing at 17 % the percentage of turnover for the severity of the offence and the entry fee and that the level of the fine was disproportionate as a result of the disproportionate account taken of the size of the undertaking. Finally, the applicant points out that the 2006 Guidelines on fines were unlawfully applied retroactively in the present case, which predates those Guidelines.


title: Case T-829/14: Action brought on 29 December 2014  — Antrax It v OHIM — Vasco Group (Radiators for heating)

text:
               23.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/48

         Action brought on 29 December 2014 — Antrax It v OHIM — Vasco Group (Radiators for heating)
   (Case T-829/14)
   (2015/C 065/65)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Antrax It Srl (Resana, Italy) (represented by: L. Gazzola, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Vasco Group BVBA (Dilsen, Belgium)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: The applicant

      Design at issue: Community design for ‘thermosiphon’ products — Community design No 593959-0002

      Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 October 2014 in Case R 1273/2013-3

      Forms of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Join the present case to the action brought by the applicant against the decision in Case R 1272/2013-3 of OHIM, since that decision is identical to that contested in the present action;

               —

               Annul the contested decision in so far as Community design No 593959-0002 was declared invalid because it lacked individual character and, consequently, declare valid that design without remitting the matter to OHIM for the third time;

               —

               Annul the contested decision of OHIM in so far as it ordered Antrax It Srl to pay the costs;

               —

               Order OHIM and Vasco Group BVBA, jointly and severally, to pay Antrax It Srl, costs, compensation and legal fees, together with any additional sums required by law;

               —

               Order Vasco Group BVBA to pay Antrax It Srl the costs, compensation including technical compensation and legal fees incurred by the latter in the proceedings before OHIM together with any additional sums required by law;

               —

               Declare Article 1(d) of Regulation No 216/96 to be incompatible with Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               —

               The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those relied on in Case T-828/14.


title: Case C-571/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts (Latvia) lodged on 6 December 2012 — SIA Greencarrier Freight Services Latvia v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

text:
               9.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/15

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts (Latvia) lodged on 6 December 2012 — SIA Greencarrier Freight Services Latvia v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests
   (Case C-571/12)
   2013/C 38/21
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Augstākās tiesas Senāts

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: SIA Greencarrier Freight Services Latvia

      Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

      Questions referred

               1.

               May the first subparagraph of Article 70(1) of Regulation No 2913/92 (1) be interpreted as meaning that it is possible to apply the results of the examination of part of the goods in a customs declaration also to goods included in earlier declarations which were not the subject of the partial examination, but which had been declared with the same Combined Nomenclature code, came from the same manufacturer and which, according to information concerning the name and composition of the goods on that manufacturer’s certificates, were identical to the goods in the declaration in respect of which samples had been taken for partial examination?
               In other words:
               Does the concept of ‘declaration’ within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 70(1) of Regulation No 2913/92 also include declarations in respect of which samples have not been taken for examination, but in which identical goods have been declared (that is, the goods are declared under the same Combined Nomenclature code, come from the same manufacturer and on the manufacturer’s certificates the same name and composition of goods are given)?

               2.

               If the first question is answered in the affirmative, may the results of the partial examination of the goods under the first subparagraph of Article 70(1) of Regulation No 2913/92 be applied also to declarations in respect of which, for objective reasons, the declarant is unable to request a further examination under the second subparagraph of Article 70(1) of Regulation No 2913/92 since it is not possible to produce the goods for examination pursuant to Article 78(2) of Regulation No 2913/92?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).


title: Case C-441/09: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 May 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Austria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Application of a reduced rate — Live animals normally intended for use in the preparation of foodstuffs for human and animal consumption — Supply, importation and acquisition of certain live animals, in particular horses)

text:
               9.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 204/8

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 May 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-441/09) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Application of a reduced rate - Live animals normally intended for use in the preparation of foodstuffs for human and animal consumption - Supply, importation and acquisition of certain live animals, in particular horses)
   2011/C 204/14
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and B.-R. Killmann, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: C. Pesendorfer, acting as Agent)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and B. Beaupère-Manokha, acting as Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C.M. Wissels and M. Noort, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Articles 96 and 98, read in conjunction with Annex III, of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Reduced rate — Supply, importation and acquisition of certain live animals (in particular horses) which are not intended for the preparation or production of foodstuffs for human or animal consumption.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by applying a reduced rate of value added tax to all supplies, imports and intra-Community acquisitions of horses, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 96 and 98 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with Annex III thereto;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the French Republic and the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.


title: Action brought on 30 April 1997 by Champion Stationery Mfg Co. Ltd., Sun Kwong Metal Manufacturer Co. Ltd and US Ring Binder Corporation against the Council of the European Union (Case T-147/97)

text:
28 . 6 . 97            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 199/39
     the revenue — including inter alia income from sales                    No L 22, 24 . 1 . 1997, p. 1 ) in so far as it concerns the
     and additions to his herd — which he would in the                       applicants, and
     ordinary course of events have received from the
     quantities of milk that he would have delivered if,                — order the Council to bear the costs of this proceeding.
     during the period from 1 April 1984 (the date on
     which Regulation ( EEC ) No 857/84 entered into force )            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     and 31 March 1994 ( the date of expiry of the 1993/94
     levy period ), had he been in possession of the milk               Champion Stationery Mfg Co . Ltd and Sun Kwong Metal
     reference quantity to which he was entitled, and, on               Manufacturer Co . Ltd produce ring binder mechanisms in
     the other hand, the income which he actually received              the People's Republic of China . Both companies sell ring
     during that period,                                                binder mechanisms to a related company in the United
                                                                        States, US Ring Binder Corporation which resells them to
— declare that interest at the rate of 8 % per annum, or                the Community.
     such other rate as the Court shall in its discretion
     think fit, is payable to the applicant on the                      On 20 January 1997, the Council adopted the contested
     compensation due to him, covering the period from                  Regulation, which set the definitive anti-dumping duty on
     the date of delivery of the Court's judgment to the                imports from the People's Republic of China at 39,4 per
     date of payment in full,                                           cent except for imports from World Wide Stationery
                                                                        which were subject to a definitive duty of 32,5 per cent.
— order the defendants to pay the costs.
                                                                        The applicants claim that, by failing to provide definitive
                                                                        disclosure, the Community institutions have denied them
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                        an opportunity to be effectively heard. The adoption of a
                                                                        significantly higher duty without any prior definitive
On 18 February 1994, the applicant, who in 1982 had                     disclosure and opportunity to comment resulted,
taken a lease of a SLOM holding the SLOM undertaking                    corresponding to the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice
in respect of which expired on 9 June 1984, was granted a               of the European Communities, in a denial of the
milk quota pursuant to Regulation ( EEC ) No 2055/93 (');               applicants' fundamental right to be informed of the facts
however, he was unable to use that quota until the                      and considerations on the basis of which the authority is
commencement of the 1994/95 levy period .                               minded to act. The Community Institutions have failed to
                                                                        make every effort to provide the applicants with
(') Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2055/93 of 19 July 1993               information relevant to the defence of its interests .
    allocating a special reference quantity to certain producers of
    milk and milk products ( OJ No L 187, 29 . 7. 1993 , p. 8 ).        For the above reasons, the contested Regulation should be
                                                                        annuled, since the Community institutions have failed to
                                                                        comply with fundamental procedural rules in violation
                                                                        with Community law which affect its validity.
Action brought on 30 April 1997 by Champion Stationery
Mfg Co. Ltd., Sun Kwong Metal Manufacturer Co. Ltd
and US Ring Binder Corporation against the Council of
                       the European Union                               Action brought on 5 May 1997 by David T. Keeling
                         ( Case T-147/97)                               against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
                                                                                Market (Trade Marks and Designs )
                           ( 97/C 199/90 )
                                                                                ( Case T-148/97 )
                 (Language of the case: English)                                                  ( 97/C 199/91 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European               An action against the Office for Harmonization in the
Communities on 30 April 1997 by Champion Stationery                      Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs ) was brought
Mfg Co. Ltd, Sun Kwong Metal Manufacturer Co. Ltd                        before the Court of First Instance of the European
and US Ring Binder Corporation, represented by Richard                   Communities on 5 May 1997 by David T. Keeling,
Luff, of Van Bael & Bellis, with an address for service in
                                                                         represented by Professor A. A. Dashwood, instructed by
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 11 , rue                  Edward Lewis with an address for service in Luxembourg
 Goethe .
                                                                         at the Chambers of Arsene Kronshagen, 22 , rue Marie
                                                                         Adelaide .
The applicants claim that the Court should :
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul Council Regulation ( EC ) No 119/97 of
      20 January 1997 imposing a definitive anti-dumping                 — annul Decision No ADM-97-3 of the President of
      duty on imports of ring binder mechanisms originating                   the Office of 21 February 1997 concerning the
      in Malaysia and the People's Republic of China ( OJ                     organization of the Boards of Appeal, as revised on


title: Case C-269/08: Action brought on 20 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Malta

text:
               2.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 197/16

         Action brought on 20 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Malta
   (Case C-269/08)
   (2008/C 197/28)
   Language of the case: Maltese
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Condou-Durande and K. Xuereb, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Malta
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/83/EC (1) of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted or, in any event, by failing to notify those provisions to it, the Republic of Malta has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive;

               —

               order the Republic of Malta to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period within which the directive had to be transposed expired on 10 October 2006

      (1)  OJ L 304, p. 12.


title: Case T-184/17: Action brought on 21 March 2017 — Leifheit v EUIPO (Representation of four green squares)

text:
               22.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/33

         Action brought on 21 March 2017 — Leifheit v EUIPO (Representation of four green squares)
   (Case T-184/17)
   (2017/C 161/47)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Leifheit AG (Nassau, Germany) (represented by: G. Hasselblatt, V. Töbelmann and P. Schneider, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: International registration of the EU figurative mark (Representation of four green squares) — Application No 14 781 819

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 January 2017 in Case R 1115/2016-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 May 2000 in Case C-82/98 P, Max Kögler v Court of Justice of the European Communities and Council of the European Union (Appeal — Staff Case — Weighting applicable to retirement pension)

text:
C 247/2                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                           26.8.2000
3.    Neither Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1995 on               of the procedures for the sale of shareholdings held by the
      waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of                  State and public bodies in joint stock companies (GURI
      18 March 1991, nor Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93                 No 177 of 30 July 1994), and the decrees concerning the
      of 1 February 1993 on the supervision and monitoring of               ‘special powers’ laid down in the case of the privatisation of
      shipments of waste within, into and out of the European               ENI SpA and Telecom Italia SpA, the Italian Republic has failed
      Community requires that Member States conclude contracts              to fulfil its obligations under Articles 52 and 59 of the EC
      with all the undertakings authorised, within the meaning of           Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 43 EC and 49 EC) and
      Article 10 of that directive, to receive and recover environmen-      Article 73b of the EC Treaty (now Article 56 EC) — the Court
      tally non-hazardous building waste.                                   composed of G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, D.A.O Ed-
                                                                            ward, L Sevón and R. Schintgen, Presidents of Chambers,
4.    Article 7(3) of Directive 75422, as amended by Directive              P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet,
      91/156, is to be interpreted as meaning that it allows a              G. Hirsch, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet, Judges;
      Member State to take measures in relation to the shipment of          J. Misco, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal
      waste, including measures which prohibit the shipment of non-         Administrator, for the Registrar has given a judgment on
      hazardous building waste destined for recovery, if the shipment       23 May 2000 in which it:
      is not in accordance with its waste management plan, on
      condition that that plan is compatible with the rules of the          1.    Declares that, by adopting Articles 1(5) and 2 of the consoli-
      Treaty and of that directive.                                               dated text of Decree Law No 332 of 31 May 1994, converted,
                                                                                after amendment, into Law No 474 of 30 July 1994, providing
5.    Article 7(3) of Directive 75422, as amended by Directive                    for acceleration of the procedures for the sale of shareholdings
      91/156, is to be interpreted as meaning that it does not confer             held by the State and public bodies in joint stock companies,
      on individuals any right on which they might rely before the                and the decrees concerning the ‘special powers’ laid down in the
      national courts for the purpose of challenging a measure                    case of the privatisation of ENI SpA and Telecom Italia SpA,
      designed to prevent movements of waste which are not in                     the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      accordance with a waste management plan, on the ground that                 Articles 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
      that measure has not been notified to the Commission.                       Articles 43 EC and 49 EC) and Article 73b of the EC Treaty
                                                                                (now Article 56 EC);
(1) OJ C 234 of 25.7.1998.                                                  2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 121 of 1.5.1999.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          of 23 May 2000
                                                                                (Fourth Chamber)
in Case C-58/99 Commission of the European Communi-                                                   of 25 May 2000
                     ties v Italian Republic (1)
                                                                            in Case C-82/98 P, Max Kögler v Court of Justice of the
(Privatisation of public undertakings — Grant of special                    European Communities and Council of the European
                               powers)                                                                     Union (1)
                          (2000/C 247/02)                                   (Appeal — Staff Case — Weighting applicable to retirement
                                                                                pension)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                                                   (2000/C 247/03)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive version will be published in the
In Case C-58/99, Commission of the European Communities                                            European Court Reports)
(Agents: A. Aresu and M. Patakia) v Italian Republic (Agents:
Professor U. Leanza and I.M. Braguglia) — Application for a                 In Case T-95/98: Max Kögler, a former official of the Court of
declaration that, by adopting Articles 1(5) and 2 of the                    Justice of the European Communities, resident at Konz,
consolidated text of Decree Law No 332 of 31 May 1994                       Germany, represented by T. Baltes, of the Trier Bar, with an
(GURI No 126 of 1 June 1994), converted, after amendment,                   address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
into Law No 474 of 30 July 1994, providing for acceleration                 R. Weber, 3 Rue de la Loge v Court of Justice of the European
 ---pagebreak--- 26.8.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 247/3
Communities (Agent: T. Millett) and Council of the European                D.A.O. Edward, President of the Chamber, J.C. Moitinho de
Union (Agents: M. Bauer and D. Canga Fano) — Appeal against                Almeida (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet and
the order of the Court of First Instance of the European                   M. Wathelet, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate Gen-
Communities (Third Chamber) of 20 January 1998, Kögler v                   eral; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the
Court of Justice (T-160/96, [1998] ECR I-A-15 and II-35),                  Registrar, has given a judgment on 25 May 2000, in which it:
seeking to have that order annulled — the Court of First
Instance of the European communities (Fourth Chamber),                     1.    Declares that:
composed of D.A.O. Edward, President of the Chamber and
A. La Pergola and H. Rangemalm (Rapporteur), Judges; H. von                      —     by excluding, without proper justification, from the scope
Holstein, Deputy Registrar and subsequently R. Grass, Regis-                           of Council Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975
trar, has given a judgment on 25 May 2000, in which it:                                concerning the quality of bathing water numerous inland
                                                                                bathing areas, and
1.    Dismisses the appeal;
                                                                                —     by not adopting, within 10 years following notification of
2.    Orders M. Kögler to pay the costs;                                               the directive, the measures needed to ensure that the
                                                                                quality of bathing water conforms to the limit values fixed
3.    Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own the                     in accordance with Article 3 of that directive and by not
      costs.                                                                           attaining the results prescribed by it,
                                                                                the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
(1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.                                                        under Article 4(1) of the directive;
                                                                           2.    For the rest, dismisses the application;
                                                                           3.    Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Fifth Chamber)
                          of 25 May 2000
in Case C-307/98: Commission of the European Communi-                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                 ties v Kingdom of Belgium (1)
                                                                                (Second Chamber)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
           76/160/EEC — Quality of bathing water)                                                     of 25 May 2000
                          (2000/C 247/04)                                  in Case C-359/98 P: Ca’ Pasta Srl v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           (Appeal — Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86 — Community
                                                                           financial aid — Procedure for discontinuing the aid —
                                                                           Suspension of payment of the aid originally granted —
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                             Actionable measure)
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (2000/C 247/05)
In Case C-307/98: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: F. de Sousa Fialho and O. Couvert-Castéra) v Kingdom
of Belgium (Agents: initially J. Devadder, then Y. Houyet) —
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the
necessary measures to ensure that the quality of bathing water
conforms to the limit values set in accordance with Article 3
of Council Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975 con-                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
cerning the quality of bathing water (OJ 1976 L 31, p. 1)                                      in the European Court Reports)
within 10 years following the notification of that directive, the
Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under              In Case C-359/98 P: Ca’ Pasta Srl, established in Padua, Italy,
Article 4 of Directive 76/160/EEC and the third paragraph of               represented by P. Piva, of the Venice Bar, and G. Arendt, of the
Article 189 of the EC Treaty (now the third paragraph of                   Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
Article 249 EC) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:                  at the Chambers of G. Arendt, 7 Val Sainte-Croix — appeal


title: Case T-196/10: Order of the General Court of 14 July 2011 — Apotheke DocMorris v OHIM (Representation of a green and white cross)

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/49

         Order of the General Court of 14 July 2011 — Apotheke DocMorris v OHIM (Representation of a green and white cross)
   (Case T-196/10) (1)

   2011/C 282/90
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 179, 3.7.2010.


title: Case C-186/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division), by order of that court of 18 November 1997, in the case of 1) Boston Scientific Ltd, 2) Boston Scientific International B.V., 3) Scimed Life Systems Inc. against 1) Cordis Corporation, 2) Cordis (UK) Ltd

text:
12.8.2000              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 233/15
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal              5.    Does the fact that two patents registered in different
(England & Wales) (Civil Division), by order of that court                   Contracting States stem from the same European patent
of 18 November 1997, in the case of 1) Boston Scientific                     application provide a sufficient connection for jurisdic-
Ltd, 2) Boston Scientific International B.V., 3) Scimed Life                 tion to be claimed under Article 6 in respect of a person
Systems Inc. against 1) Cordis Corporation, 2) Cordis                        not domiciled in the state where litigation is pending
                             (UK) Ltd                                        against a defendant who is so domiciled where the
                                                                             allegations in that litigation are:
                         (Case C-186/00)
                                                                             a)    of infringment of both patents by the domiciled
                                                                                person;
                         (2000/C 233/27)
                                                                             b)    or infringement only of the patent in the state where
                                                                                litigation is pending by the domiciled person, but
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                             the non-domiciled person is alleged to infringe the
European Communities by an order of the Court of Appeal                            other patent?
(England & Wales) (Civil Division) of 18 November 1997,
which was received at the Court Registry on 18 May 2000, for           6.    Are the answers to any of the preceding questions
a preliminary ruling in the case of 1) Boston Scientific Ltd, 2)             different (and if so, which) if the proceedings are kort
Boston Scientific International B.V., 3) Scimed Life Systems                 geding proceedings in the Netherlands in respect of a
Inc. against 1) Cordis Corporation, 2) Cordis (UK) Ltd, on the               European patent and the designated state is other than
following questions:                                                         the Netherlands?
1.    In the case of patents granted pursuant to European
      applications pursuant to the European Patent Convention,
      are the provisions of Article 2 and/or 64 of the European
      Patent Convention provisions which govern jurisdiction
      in relation to particular matters (i.e. proceedings for
      infringement of such patents) within the meaning of
      Article 57 of the Brussels Convention?
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht
                                                                       Trier, Federal Republic of Germany, by order of that
2.    If the answer to question 1 is ‘yes’, is the effect that,
                                                                       court of 17 May 2000 in the case of Urszula Ruhr v
      notwithstanding any other provision of the Brussels
                                                                                Bundesanstalt für Arbeit
      Convention, proceedings for infringement of a patent
      granted pursuant to a European application can only be
      brought in the courts of the country in which the patent                                   (Case C-189/00)
      is registered?
                                                                                (2000/C 233/28)
3.    Where, under the national law of the state in which a
      patent is registered, the question of infringement of the
      patent depends upon the validity of the patent (so that,         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      where validity is in issue, the questions of infringement        European Communities by an order of the Sozialgericht (Social
      and validity would be tried together in the courts of the        Court) Trier, of 17 May 2000, which was received at the Court
      state):                                                          Registry on 22 May 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case
                                                                       of Urszula Ruhr v Bundesanstalt für Arbeit, on the following
                                                                       question:
      a)    do the courts of the state in which the patent is
            registered have exclusive jurisdiction in respect of
            both questions pursuant to Articles 16(4) and/or 19        Is the interpretation of Article 2(1) of Council Regulation (EEC)
            of the Brussels Convention?                                No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social
                                                                       security schemes to employed persons and their families
                                                                       moving within the Community (1), which was given by the
      b)    should the courts of the state in which the patent         Court of Justice in Case 40/76 Kermaschek v Bundesanstalt für
            is not registered decline jurisdiction pursuant to         Arbeit [1976] ECR 1669, still authoritative even when it also
            Article 19?                                                indirectly affects the freedom of movement of a Member State
                                                                       national?
4.    Does article 24 enable a court not otherwise having
      jurisdiction in a matter to grant provisional relief in          (1) OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2.
      circumstances where there are no proceedings seeking
      final relief pending or imminent before any court having
      jurisdiction under the Brussels Convention as to the
      substance of the matter?


title: Case C-194/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus (Estonia) lodged on 7 April 2016 — Bolagsupplysningen OÜ, Ingrid Ilsjan v Svensk Handel AB

text:
               13.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/35

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus (Estonia) lodged on 7 April 2016 — Bolagsupplysningen OÜ, Ingrid Ilsjan v Svensk Handel AB
      (Case C-194/16)
      (2016/C 211/45)
      Language of the case: Estonian

         Referring court

      Riigikohus

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellants: Bolagsupplysningen OÜ, Ingrid Ilsjan

         Respondent: Svensk Handel AB

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Is Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters to be interpreted as meaning that a person who alleges that his rights have been infringed by the publication of incorrect information concerning him on the internet and by the failure to remove comments relating to that information can bring an action for rectification of the incorrect information and removal of the harmful comments before the courts of any Member State in which the information on the internet is or was accessible, in respect of the harm sustained in that Member State?

                  2.

                  Is Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters to be interpreted as meaning that a legal person which alleges that its rights have been infringed by the publication of incorrect information concerning it on the internet and by the failure to remove comments relating to that information can, in respect of the entire harm that it has sustained, bring proceedings for rectification of the information, for an injunction for removal of the comments and for damages for the pecuniary loss caused by publication of the incorrect information on the internet before the courts of the State in which that legal person has its centre of interests?

                  3.

                  If the second question is answered in the affirmative: is Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters to be interpreted as meaning that:

                              —

                              it is to be assumed that a legal person has its centre of interests in the Member State in which it has its seat, and accordingly that the place where the harmful event occurred is in that Member State, or

                              —

                              in ascertaining a legal person’s centre of interests, and accordingly the place where the harmful event occurred, regard must be had to all of the circumstances, such as its seat and fixed place of business, the location of its customers and the way and means in which its transactions are concluded?

         (1)  OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1.


C 211/16              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   22.7.2000
       Removal from the register of Case C-33/98 (1)               European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain
                                                                   and Northern Ireland.
                       (2000/C 211/27)
                                                                   (1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.
By order of 26 January 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-33/98: Commission of the
European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
(1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.                                                 Removal from the register of Case C-60/99 (1)
                                                                                (2000/C 211/31)
                                                                   By order of 20 March 2000 the President of the Court of
                                                                   Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
       Removal from the register of Case C-386/99 (1)              from the register of Case C-60/99 (reference for a preliminary
                                                                   ruling from the Supreme Court of Dublin): Carmen Proetta v
                       (2000/C 211/28)                             Andrew Neil.
By order of 29 February 2000 the President of the Court of         (1) OJ C 121 of 1.5.1999.
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-386/99: Commission of the
European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
(1) OJ C 366 of 18.12.1999.
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case C-48/99 (1)
                                                                                (2000/C 211/32)
                                                                   By order of 30 March 2000 the President of the Sixth Chamber
       Removal from the register of Case C-385/98 (1)              of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has
                                                                   ordered the removal from the register of Case C-48/99:
                       (2000/C 211/29)                             Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of
                                                                   Luxembourg.
By order of 15 March 2000 the President of the Fifth Chamber
of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has            (1) OJ C 100 of 10.4.1999.
ordered the removal from the register of Case C-385/98:
Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 378 of 5.12.1998.
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case C-287/99 (1)
                                                                                (2000/C 211/33)
       Removal from the register of Case C-455/99 (1)              By order of 30 March 2000 the President of the Sixth Chamber
                                                                   of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has
                       (2000/C 211/30)                             ordered the removal from the register of Case C-287/99:
                                                                   Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of
By order of 15 March 2000 the President of the Court of            Belgium.
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-455/99: Commission of the              (1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.


title: Case C-220/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Hannover — Germany) — Andreas Ingemar Thiele Meneses v Region Hannover (Citizenship of the Union — Articles 20 TFEU and 21 TFEU — Right of free movement and residence — National of a Member State — Studies pursued in another Member State — Education or training grant — Permanent residence requirement — Place of education or training located in the applicant’s State of residence or in a neighbouring State — Limited exception — Applicant’s specific circumstances)

text:
               14.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 367/15

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Hannover — Germany) — Andreas Ingemar Thiele Meneses v Region Hannover
   (Case C-220/12) (1)

   (Citizenship of the Union - Articles 20 TFEU and 21 TFEU - Right of free movement and residence - National of a Member State - Studies pursued in another Member State - Education or training grant - Permanent residence requirement - Place of education or training located in the applicant’s State of residence or in a neighbouring State - Limited exception - Applicant’s specific circumstances)
   2013/C 367/24
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Hannover

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Andreas Ingemar Thiele Meneses

      Defendant: Region Hannover

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht Hannover — Interpretation of Articles 20 and 21 TFEU — Education or training grant (‘BAföG’) — Member State’s legislation making its award subject to the condition that its nationals who are resident abroad show ‘special circumstances’ and restricting the place of education or training to the Member State of residence or a neighbouring State

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 20 TFEU and 21 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, as a rule, makes the award of an education or training grant for studies pursued in another Member State subject to the sole condition of having established a permanent residence, within the meaning of that legislation, on national territory and which, in a case where the applicant is a national of that State with no permanent residence within that State, provides for a grant for education or training abroad only in the applicant’s State of residence or in a neighbouring State thereof and only where specific circumstances justify such a grant.

      (1)  OJ C 287, 22.9.2012.


title: Case C-137/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that Court of 23 January 2002 in the case of Finanzamt Offenbach am Main-Land against Faxworld Vorgründungsgesellschaft Peter Hünninghausen und Wolfgang Klein GbR

text:
13.7.2002               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 169/15
Court Registry on 15 March 2002, for a preliminary ruling                 consideration of the procured goods and services to the
in the case of Finanzamt Gummersbach against Gerhard                      subsequently founded limited company and, from the outset,
Bockemühl on the following questions:                                     did not intend to carry out any other output transactions, and
                                                                          if, in the Member State concerned, a transfer of a totality of
                                                                          assets is not deemed to be a supply of goods or services (first
1.    Is it necessary under Article 18(1)(a) of Directive 77/388/         sentence of Article 5(8) and Article 6(5) of the Sixth Council
      EEC (1) for a person to whom services are supplied, who             Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation
      is liable to pay tax under Article 21(1) of Directive 77/           of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —
      388/EEC and who has been charged to tax as such, to be              Common system of value added tax) (1)?
      in possession of an invoice issued in accordance with
      Article 22(3) of Directive 77/388/EEC in order to exercise
      his right to deduct input tax?                                      (1) OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1.
2.    If the answer to this question is in the affirmative, what
      details must the invoice contain? Is it detrimental if,
      instead of the supply of staff, the work carried out using
      that staff is given as the service supplied?
3.    What would be the consequences in law of inextinguish-              Appeal brought on 15 April 2002 by the Commission of
      able doubts that the person issuing the invoice supplied            the European Communities against the judgment deliver-
      the service invoiced?                                               ed on 30 January 2002 by the Court of First Instance of
                                                                          the European Communities (Second Chamber, Extended
                                                                          Composition) in Case T-54/99 max.mobil Telekommuni-
                                                                          kation Service GmbH v Commission of the European
(1) OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1.                                          Communities, supported by the Kingdom of the Nether-
                                                                                lands
                                                                                (Case C-141/02 P)
                                                                                (2002/C 169/28)
                                                                          An appeal against the judgment delivered on 30 January 2002
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-
                                                                          by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
hof by order of that Court of 23 January 2002 in the case                 (Second Chamber, Extended Composition), in Case T-54/99
of Finanzamt Offenbach am Main-Land against Faxworld                      max.mobil Telekommunikation Service GmbH v Commission
Vorgründungsgesellschaft Peter Hünninghausen und
                                                                          of the European Communities(1), supported by the Kingdom
                       Wolfgang Klein GbR                                 of the Netherlands, was brought before the Court of Justice
                                                                          of the European Communities on 15 April 2002 by the
                          (Case C-137/02)                                 Commission of the European Communities, represented by
                                                                          Walter Mölls and Klaus Wiedner, of the Commission’s Legal
                                                                          Service, with an address for service at the office of Luis Escobar
                          (2002/C 169/27)                                 Guerrero, also of the Legal Service, Wagner Centre, C 254,
                                                                          Luxembourg.
                                                                          The appellant claims that the Court should:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof                      —     set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
(Federal Finance Court) of 23 January 2002, received at the                     the European Communities of 30 January 2002 in Case
Court Registry on 12 April 2002, for a preliminary ruling in                    T-54/99 (max.mobil v Commission) in so far as it
the case of Finanzamt Offenbach am Main-Land against                            declares admissible the action for annulment brought by
Faxworld Vorgründungsgesellschaft Peter Hünninghausen und                       max.mobil against the Commission’s letter of 11 Decem-
Wolfgang Klein GbR on the following question:                                   ber 1998;
                                                                          —     dismiss as inadmissible the action for annulment brought
Is a partnership which has been established for the sole purpose                by max.mobil against the Commission’s letter of
of forming a company limited by shares (Aktiengesellschaft)                     11 December 1998;
entitled to deduct the value added tax paid on goods and
services procured by it, if, after that company has been                  —     order max.mobil to pay the costs of the proceedings
formed, that partnership effects by formal act a transfer for                   before the Court of Justice.


title: Case T-139/08: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 29 September 2009 — The Smiley Company v OHIM (Representation of half a smiley smile) (Community trade mark — International registration designating the European Community — Figurative mark representing half a smiley smile — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 146(1) and Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 151(1) and Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/63

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 29 September 2009 — The Smiley Company v OHIM (Representation of half a smiley smile)
   (Case T-139/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - International registration designating the European Community - Figurative mark representing half a smiley smile - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 146(1) and Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 151(1) and Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2009/C 267/112
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: The Smiley Company SPRL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Deutsch, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 February 2008 (R 958/2007-4) concerning the international registration, designating the European Community, of the figurative mark representing half a smiley smile

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders The Smiley Company SPRL to pay the costs, including those connected with its substitution for Mr Franklin Loufrani.

      (1)  OJ C 142, 7.6.2008.


title: Case C-146/16: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 30 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb eV v DHL Paket GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Unfair business practices — Advertisement in a print medium — Omission of material information — Access to that information via the website by means of which the products concerned are distributed — Products sold by the person who published the advertisement or by a third party)

text:
               22.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/4

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 30 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb eV v DHL Paket GmbH
   (Case C-146/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Unfair business practices - Advertisement in a print medium - Omission of material information - Access to that information via the website by means of which the products concerned are distributed - Products sold by the person who published the advertisement or by a third party))
   (2017/C 161/04)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant on a point of law: Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb eV

      Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: DHL Paket GmbH

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 7(4) of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council must be interpreted as meaning that an advertisement, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which falls within the definition of an ‘invitation to purchase’ within the meaning of that directive, may satisfy the obligation regarding information laid down in that provision. It is for the referring court to examine, on a case-by-case basis, first, whether the limitations of space in the advertisement warrant information on the supplier being provided only upon access to the online sales platform and, secondly, whether, so far as the online sales platform is concerned, the information required by Article 7(4)(b) of that directive is communicated simply and quickly.

      (1)  OJ C 243, 4.7.2016.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 6 May 1997 in Case T-169/95: Agustin Quijano v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Sick leave - Medical certificate - Medical examination - Conclusions at variance with the medical certificate)

text:
No C 199/22             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                  28 . 6 . 97
                                                        COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               Communities (Agents : initially, Franscisco Enrique
                           of 6 May 1997                                 Gonzalez Diaz and Guy Charrier, and subsequently
                                                                         Giuliano Marenco and Guy Charrier ) — action for
in Case T-169/95 : Agustin Quijano v. Commission of the                  damages based on the alleged failure of the Commission
                    European Communities (')                             to act, in so far as its failure to take a decision on a
(Officials — Sick leave — Medical certificate — Medical                  complaint submitted by the applicant has caused the latter
examination — Conclusions at variance with the medical                   damage — the Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber,
                                certificate)                             Extended Composition ), composed of: C. W. Bellamy,
                                                                         President, C. P. Briët and A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges; A.
                            ( 97/C 199/61 )                              Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
                                                                         judgment on 6 May 1997, in which it:
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         1 . dismisses the claims for compensation as inadmissible;
In Case T-169/95 : Agustin Quijano, an official of the
Commission of the European Communities, represented
by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane                         2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs, including those
Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                   relating to the proceedings concerning the claim for a
Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 30                       declaration of failure to act.
Rue de Cessange, against Commission of the European
 Communities ( Agents: Ana Maria Alves Vieira and                        (') OJ No C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .
Alberto Dal Ferro ) — application for the annulment of a
 decision of 21 September 1994, by which the Commission
treated as unauthorized the applicant's absence from
 8 August to 23 August 1994 and imputed 10 days against
 his annual leave entitlement — the Court of First Instance
 ( Second Chamber ), composed of: C. W. Bellamy,                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 President, A. Kalogeropoulos and R. M. Moura Ramos,
Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has                                             of 14 May 1997
 given a judgment on 6 May 1997, the operative part of                   in Joined Cases T-70/92 and T-71/92 : Florimex BV and
 which is as follows :                                                   Vereniging van Groothandelaren in Bloemkwekerijproduk
                                                                              ten v. Commission of the European Communities ( 1 )
 1 . The decision of 21 September 1994, by which the                      (Competition — Decision rejecting a complaint sent to the
       Commission treated as unauthorized the applicant 's                complainants ' lawyer's postoffice box — Calculation of
       absence from 8 August to 23 August 1 994 and                       time-limit for bringing an action — Compatibility with
       imputed 10 days against his annual leave entitlement,              Article 2 of Regulation No 26 of a fee charged to external
       is annulled.
                                                                          suppliers on floricultural products supplied to wholesalers
                                                                          established on the premises of a cooperative society of
 2 . The Commission is ordered to pay the costs.                                      auctioneers — Statement of reasons)
  (') OJ No C 299 , 11 . 11 . 1995 .
                                                                                ( 97/C 199/63 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                          In Joined Cases T-70/92 and T-71 /92 : Florimex BV and
                                                                          Vereniging van Groothandelaren in Bloemkwekerijproduk
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               ten, established in Aalsmeer ( Netherlands ), represented
                            of 6 May 1997                                 initially by D. J. Gijlstra, of the Amsterdam Bar, then by
                                                                          J. A. M. P. Keijser, of the Nijmegen Bar, with an address
  in Case T-195/95 : Guérin Automobiles v. Commission of
                                                                          for service in Luxembourg care of Stanbrook and Hooper,
                  the European Communities ( 1 )                          at the Chambers of A. Kronshagen, 12 Boulevard de la
     (Competition — Action for damages — Inadmissibility)                 Foire, against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                          ( Agent: B. J. Drijber ), supported by Cooperatieve Vereni
                              ( 97/C 199/62 )                             ging De Verenigde Bloemenveilingen Aalsmeer ( VBA ) BA,
                                                                          established in Aalsmeer, represented by G. van der Wal, a
                  (Language of the case: French)                          lawyer with right of audience before the Hoge Raad der
                                                                          Nederlanden, with an address for service in Luxembourg
  In Case T- 195/95 : Guérin Automobiles, with its registered             at the Chambers of A. May, 31 Grand Rue — application
  office at Alençon ( France ), represented by Jean-Claude                for the annulment of the Commission Decision ( IV/32.751
  Fourgoux, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in              — Florimex/Aalsmeer II and IV/32.990 — VGB/Aalsmeer )
  Luxembourg at the Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4 Rue                    notified to the applicants by letter SG(92)D/8782 of 2 July
  Beatrix de Bourbon, against Commission of the European                   1992, rejecting the applications which they had each made


title: Case C-88/03: Action brought on 27 February 2003 by Portuguese Republic against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
10.5.2003                EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 112/11
Action brought on 27 February 2003 by Portuguese                                      selectiveness element with regard to State aid cannot
Republic against the Commission of the European Com-                                  necessarily have as its frame of reference the whole
                                munities                                              of the territory of the Member State.
                             (Case C-88/03)
                           (2003/C 112/20)                                      —     Erroneous description of the measures in question
                                                                                as State aid inasmuch as it disregards the fact that
                                                                                they are justifiable by the nature and the scheme of
                                                                                the tax system in general:
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 27 February 2003 by the Portuguese Repub-                              the scheme laid down in Decreto Legislativo
lic, represented by L. Fernandes, acting as Agent, and by J.L. da                     Regional (Regional Legislative Decree) No 2/99/A
Cruz Vilaça and L.M. Romão, lawyers, with an address for                              on tax reductions for natural and legal persons does
service in Luxembourg.                                                                not amount to an exception to the application of
                                                                                the tax system but rather an adaptation which falls
                                                                                within the founding and guiding principles of the
                                                                                Portuguese tax system, which is applicable to all
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                           economic operators having their tax residence in
                                                                                the Autonomous Region of Azores. Moreover, it
1.     find the present application admissible;                                       constitutes the corollary to a tax system which
                                                                                follows a redistributive approach based on the
                                                                                special situation of the Autonomous Region of
2.     declare the present application well-founded and, accord-                      Azores as an outermost region rendering it materi-
       ingly, annul the decision of the Commission of the                             ally different from other parts of Portugal, as well
       European Communities C(2002) 4487 final (State Aid C                           as on the constitutional principles of autonomy,
       35/02 (ex NN 10/2000) — Portugal), of 11 December                              solidarity and equality among all Portuguese
       2002 on the part of the scheme adapting the national tax                       nationals.
       system to the specific characteristics of the autonomous
       region of the Azores with regard to the tax reductions
       insofar as it takes the view that the tax reductions for
       natural and legal persons having their tax residence in the
       Autonomous Region of the Azores constitute State aid;
                                                                           —    Inadequate statement of reasons with regard to the effect
3.     in the alternative, declare the present application well-                on intra-Community trade and significant restrictions on
       founded and annul in part the contested decision insofar                 competition:
       as it finds incompatible with the common market the tax
       reductions applicable to undertakings operating in the
       financial sector and orders the applicant to recover the
       amount concerned;                                                        The contested decision provides inadequate reasons inas-
                                                                                much as it neither explains nor justifies the impact of
                                                                                reductions in personal income tax (IRS) and in corpor-
4.     order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings,                 ation tax (IRC), applicable to any person having their tax
       including those incurred by the applicant.                               residence in the Autonomous Region of Azores, on trade
                                                                                between the Member States or the significant distortion
                                                                                of competition which will arise from the abovementioned
                                                                                measures. It merely states that, because some of the
                                                                                undertakings pursue economic activities involving trade
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 between the Member States, it follows, by some obscure
                                                                                fatalistic logic, that the condition regarding the effect on
—      Errors of law in the application of Article 87(1) EC:                    trade is met.
       —      Erroneous description of the measures in question
              as State aid by reference to the concept of territorial
              selectiveness:
                                                                           —    Manifest error of assessment of the facts for the purposes
              The constitutional and legal circumstances of the                 of Article 87(3)(a) EC, breach of the principles of
              relationship between the Portuguese State and its                 sound administration, equality and proportionality and
              autonomous regions mean that analysis of the                      infringement of Article 299(2) EC:
 ---pagebreak--- C 112/12             EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                        10.5.2003
    The additional costs of transport and related infrastruc-                Furthermore, the defendant infringed the principle of
    ture, energy, health, education, industry and services                   proportionality inasmuch as, in view of the elementary
    resulting from the remoteness and insularity of the                      finding that the situation was absolutely identical with
    Autonomous Region of the Azores also affect all under-                   regard to the abovementioned structural costs for under-
    takings in the financial sector. Thus, the elevated cost of              takings in the region which operate in the financial sector,
    transporting goods to and from mainland Portugal and                     it should have similarly considered compatible with
    between the islands is also reflected in that type of                    the common market the tax reductions applicable to
    activity, since much of the equipment which banking and                  undertakings which operate in the financial sector, just as
    insurance activities require is not available on the local               it did in respect of undertakings not operating in the
    market and must be imported and, in certain cases,                       financial sector and in the same terms.
    transported between various islands. Furthermore, in
    view of the dearth of specialists and qualified staff in the
    Azores and the problems facing the educational system
    there, certain specialised services which banks need are
    not available in the region. They therefore have to
    be provided by specialists from continental Portugal
    (maintenance of equipment, auditing, consulting, trainers
    for courses, etc.) In such cases, it is clear that anyone
    employing such specialists ends up bearing air transport,          Action brought on 28 February 2003 by the Commission
    accommodation and subsistence costs. Likewise, short-              of the European Communities against the Portuguese
    comings in the education system and the lack of special-                                        Republic
    ists and qualified staff in the region results in a lack of
    specific training being offered, the alternative being to
    send staff to continental Portugal. However, undertakings                                    (Case C-92/03)
    operating outside the financial sector are, in the main,
    small- and medium-sized enterprises operating in or for
                                                                                (2003/C 112/21)
    the local market, with establishments or installations on
    only one island. Consequently, the additional costs arising
    from ‘the effect of the special circumstances of the
    Azores’ affect them much less than banking or insurance
    institutions which have offices spread out across various          An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
    islands. Moreover, the region’s economic underdevelop-             before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
    ment and the lower income and purchasing power of its              28 February 2003 by the Commission of the European
    population penalise, to a greater extent, that kind of             Communities, represented by A. Caeiros and M. Konstantinidis,
    activity.                                                          acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       1.    Declare that, by failing to adopt the provisions necessary
                                                                             to attribute priority to the treatment of waste oils by
                                                                             regeneration, irrespective of whether technical, economic
    By failing to take account of studies previously submitted               or administrative constraints make it possible, the Portu-
    in State aid cases relating to the Autonomous Region of                  guese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
    Madeira and the correlation with all the additional costs                Article 3(1) of Council Directive 75/439/EEC ( 1) of
    quantified and set out and which arise directly from the                 16 June 1975 on the disposal of waste oils (as amended
    structural deficiencies of the Autonomous Region of the                  by Directive 87/101/EEC), as amended by Directive 87/
    Azores so far as concern also those undertakings which                   101/EEC (2) of 22 December 1986;
    operate in the financial sector, the defendant manifestly
    infringed the principle of sound administration.                   2.    Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                       None of the legislative or regulatory provisions referred to by
    By the same token, the contested decision further                  the Portuguese authorities as having been adopted in order to
    infringes the principle of equality, since it flagrantly           implement Directive 75/439/EEC attributes priority to the
    discriminates against undertakings operating in the finan-         treatment of waste oils by regeneration. The Portuguese
    cial sector, which are affected just as much as or more            authorities themselves confirm that, 12 years after the date set
    than others by the ‘the effect of the special circumstances        by Directive 87/101/EEC, they have still not adopted the
    of the Azores’.                                                    necessary measures to attribute such priority.


title: Appeal brought on 18 December 1995 by Dimitrios Coussios against the order made on 11 October 1995 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-302/94 between Dimitrios Coussios and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-397/95 P)

text:
 16 . 3 . 96            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                         No C 77/5
 1 . In a case of temporary importation of certain means of             European Communities in Case T-302/94 between
      transport for private use within the Community, within            Dimitrios Coussios and the Commission of the European
      the meaning of Article 3 of Council Directive                     Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
      83/182/EEC ( 1 ) of 28 March 1983 , is the exemption              European Communities on 18 December 1995 by Dimitrios
      from taxes granted for a single private vehicle or for            Coussios, represented by Georges Sakellaropoulos and
      more than one ? Does the above Directive in fact                  residing at 3rd September Street, Athens .
      introduce a distinction between the number of private
      vehicles that it is possible to import temporarily on a           The appellant claims that the Court should:
      tax-exempt basis according to whether they are
      intended for private use or business use ?
                                                                        — declare the appeal admissible,
2. Is a specific obligation laid down in the Directive to the           — set aside jhe order of the Court of First Instance of
      effect that the competent Greek authorities should not                  11 October 1995 ('),
      restrict by legislation the parallel or simultaneous
      temporary importation tax-exempt of more than one                 — declare the application lodged on 28 September 1994 ( in
      private vehicle for private use by the same person ? Is it              Case T-302/94 ( 2 ) admissible,
      possible for an individual to rely on the provisions of
      Articles 3 and 9 of Directive 83/182/EEC against the
      authorities before a national court, claiming that the           — order the Commission to pay all of the costs .
      rules contained in a provision of law are incompatible
      with those Articles ?                                             Pleas in law and main arguments:
3 . Is it compatible with the purpose and terms of the                  Infringement of Community law:
      Directive in question for the national legislature to
      provide that in a case of infringement of certain                — as regards the plea concerning the principle of sound
      provisions of a ministerial decision ( such as Article 8 ( 4 ),         administration :         the    Court  of First Instance had
      which does not allow the importation of a second means                  previously held that plea to be well founded in Case
      of transport by the same person ) adopted in order to                   T-68/92 ( 3 ), and could not legitimately consider that the
      bring national law into line with the provisions of the                 award to the applicant of ECU 2 000 extinguished the
      Directive, the applicable duties and other taxes, as well               plea ,
      as additional duty of the same amount, are payable
      immediately, in as much as it is shown that the                  — as regards the application of the principle of
      importation of a private vehicle is temporary and not                   proportionality,
      definitive ?
                                                                       — as regards the applicant's legal interest in bringing
4 . Is it compatible with the Community principle of                          proceedings : although the applicant's name did not
      proportionality for it to be provided that in the above                 appear on the list of suitable candidates in the open
      case additional duties equal to 100 % of the applicable                 competition, he at all times reserved his position
      duties and other taxes should be levied, regardless of the             concerning his participation in that competition.
      period that the second private vehicle remained in
      Greece ?                                                         ( ] ) Order of 11 October 1995 in Case T-302/94 ( OJ No C 353 ,
                                                                             9 . 12 . 1995 , p . 14 ).
                                                                       ( 2 ) OJ No C 351 , 10 . 12 . 1994, p . 14 .
(') Council Directive 83/182/EEC of 28 March 1983 on tax
                                                                       ( 3 ) Judgment of 23 February 1994 ( OJ No C 90, 26 . 3 . 1994 ,
     exemptions within the Community for certain means of                    p. 15 ).
     transport temporarily imported into one Member State from
     another ( OJ No L 105 , 1983 , p. 59 ).
                                                                       Action brought on 21 December 1995 by the Federal
Appeal brought on 18 December 1995 by Dimitrios                        Republic of Germany against the Commission of the
Coussios against the order made on 11 October 1995 by the                                        European Communities
Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                                                   ( Case C-3 99/95 )
European Communities in Case T-302/94 between
                                                                                ( 96/C 77/11 )
Dimitrios Coussios and the Commission of the European
                          Communities
                       ( Case C-397/95 P)                              An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
                           ( 96/C 77/ 10 )
                                                                       European Communities on 21 December 1995 by the
                                                                       Federal Republic of Germany, represented by Dr Ernst
An appeal against the order made on 11 October 1995 by                 Roder, Ministerialrat, Federal Ministry of Economic
the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the               Affairs, D-53107 Bonn.


title: Case T-346/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  24 November 2005  — Sadas v OHIM (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark ARTHUR ET FELICIE — Earlier figurative mark including the word element  Arthur  — Relative ground of refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               28.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/13

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 24 November 2005 — Sadas v OHIM
   (Case T-346/04) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark ARTHUR ET FELICIE - Earlier figurative mark including the word element 'Arthur' - Relative ground of refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2006/C 22/25)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Sadas SA (Tourcoing, France) (represented by: A. Bertrand, lawyer)

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

      Other party or parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: LTJ Diffusion SA (Colombes, France) (represented by: F. Fajgenbaum and S. Lederman, lawyers)
   Action
   brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 June 2004 (Case R 393/2003-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Sadas SA and LTJ Diffusion SA
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs, with the exception of those incurred by the intervener;

               3.

               Orders the intervener to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 262, 23.10.2004.


title: Case T-213/17: Action brought on 5 April 2017 — Romantik Hotels & Restaurants v EUIPO — Hotel Preidlhof (ROMANTIK)

text:
               29.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 168/33

         Action brought on 5 April 2017 — Romantik Hotels & Restaurants v EUIPO — Hotel Preidlhof (ROMANTIK)
   (Case T-213/17)
   (2017/C 168/43)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Romantik Hotels & Restaurants AG (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: S. Hofmann and W. Göpfert, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hotel Preidlhof GmbH (Naturns, Italy)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘ROMANTIK’ — EU trade mark No 2 527 109

      Procedure before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 February 2017 in Case R 1257/2016-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision, in so far as the declaration that EU trade mark No 2 527 109 ‘ROMANTIK’ (a word mark) is invalid is confirmed in that decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Article 52(1)(a) thereof;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Article 52(2) thereof.