title: Case T-24/07: Action brought on 6 February 2007 — ThyssenKrupp Stainless v Commission

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/39

         Action brought on 6 February 2007 — ThyssenKrupp Stainless v Commission
   (Case T-24/07)
   (2007/C 82/88)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: ThyssenKrupp Stainless AG (Duisburg, Germany) (represented by: M. Klusmann and S. Thomas)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Article 2 of the operative part of that decision;

               —

               in the further alternative, reduce 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 challenges Commission Decision C(2006) 6765 final of 20 December 2006 in Case COMP/39.234 — Alloy surcharge re-adoption. In the contested decision, which concerns the reopening of the proceeding in Case IV/35.814 — Alloy surcharge, a fine was imposed on the applicant for infringement of Article 65(1) CS by Thyssen Stahl GmbH (previously Thyssen Stahl AG) in that it agreed an alteration to the reference values used to calculate the alloy surcharge and applied that alteration.
   The applicant raises ten pleas in law in support of its action:

               —

               infringement of the principle of nulla poena sine lege, since, in the absence of transitional provisions, the Commission had no power to apply retroactively the CS Treaty which expired in 2002;

               —

               unlawful application of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1), since it grants entitlement only to apply Articles 81 EC and 82 EC, but not the CS Treaty;

               —

               infringement of the principal of res iudicata, since the Court of Justice has already given final judgment in the case to the effect that on the merits the applicant is not liable for the infringement of Thyssen Stahl AG which was alleged against it and attributed to it once more in the contested decision;

               —

               lack of responsibility of the applicant by way of a private declaration of assumption of liability, since such a declaration is declaratory at most;

               —

               infringement of the principle of legal certainty since the basis for the penalty and the basis for the attribution of liability are insufficiently certain;

               —

               infringement of the principle of ne bis in idem, because a fine has been imposed on the applicant already in the first proceedings on the same facts, a matter on which the Court has given final judgment;

               —

               the infringement is time barred;

               —

               infringement of the right of access to the file;

               —

               infringement of the right to be heard due to incomplete objections; and

               —

               miscalculation of the fine in the light of the 1996 Leniency Notice (2).

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

      (2)  Commission Notice of 18 July 1996 on the non-imposition or reduction of fines in cartel cases (OJ 1996 C 207, p. 4).


title: Case C-512/06 P: Order of the Court of 26 October 2007 — PTV Planung Transport Verkehr AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of distinctiveness — Word mark map&guide )

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/29

         Order of the Court of 26 October 2007 — PTV Planung Transport Verkehr AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-512/06 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctiveness - Word mark ‘map&guide’)
   (2008/C 51/49)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: PTV Planung Transport Verkehr AG (represented by: F. Nielsen, Rechtsanswalt)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: M.G. Schneider, Agent)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 10 October 2006 in Case T-302/03, PTV v OHIM (map&guide), dismissing the action for annulment of the decision which refused the application for registration of the word mark ‘map&guide’ in respect of certain goods and services in Classes 9, 41 and 42 — Distinctiveness of the mark
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               PTV Planung Transport Verkehr AG is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.


title: Action brought on 27 October 1995 by Bernard Connolly against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-203/95)

text:
No C 351 / 16         EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  30 . 12 . 95
Action brought on 26 October 1995 by Dimitrios Coussios               Action brought on 27 October 1995 by Heinrich Gottmann
  against the Commission of the European Communities                  against the Council of the European Union and the
                        ( Case T-200/95                                         Commission of the European Communities
                          ( 95/C 351 /31 )                                                   ( Case T-202/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 351 /32 )
                 (Language of the case: Greek)                                       (Language of the case: German)
                                                                      An action against the Council of the European Union and
                                                                      the Commission of the European Communities was brought
An action against the Commission of the European                      before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                     Communities on 27 October 1995 by Heinrich Gottmann,
Instance on 26 October 1995 by Dimitrios Coussios,                    residing at Volkmarsen-Külte ( Federal Republic of
represented by Georgios Sakellaropoulos, of the Athens Bar,           Germany ), represented by Bernd Meisterernst, Mechtild
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers             Düsing, Dietrich Manstetten, Dr Frank Schulze and Dr
of Aloyse May, 31 Grand Rue .                                         Winfried Haneklaus, Rechtsanwälte, Münster, with an
                                                                      address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                      Dupong & Associés, 14a Rue des Bains .
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should :
— declare the application admissible,                                 ( 1 ) order the defendants jointly and severally to pay to the
                                                                             applicant milk quota compensation ( SLOM-III ) for the
                                                                             period from 2 April 1984 to 29 July 1993 , amounting
                                                                             to DM 41 078,16 , together with 8% interest from
— declare the implied refusal by the Commission to lift the
                                                                              19 May 1992 , and to pay the costs of the
     ban on the applicant's entering the Commission 's
     buildings invalid,                                                      proceedings;
                                                                       ( 2 ) join the present case to Case T-77/93 Hülseberg and
                                                                             Others v. Council and Commission of the EC, which is
— award the applicant an amount of ECU 300 000 for                           currently pending, and likewise stay the proceedings .
     non-material harm suffered,
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
— order the Commission to pay the costs .
                                                                       The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
                                                                       in Case T-20/94 .
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 The applicant is an official of the Commission who has
 incured the disciplinary penalty of dismissal ; that penalty          Action brought on 27 October 1995 by Bernard Connolly
 has been challenged before the Court of First Instance and               against the Commission of the European Communities
 the case is still pending. In the present action the applicant                                Case T-203 / 95 )
 seeks a declaration of invalidity with regard to the implied
 refusal by the Commission to allow him entry into its                                           ( 95 /C 351 /33 )
 buildings, although he works as a company representative
 and needs to come to meetings with the competent                                      (Language of the case: French)
 authorities of the Commission . In the applicant's view, the
 Commission's refusal constitutes an abuse of rights and                An action against the Commission of the European
 power, since it imposes a second ancillary punishment for              Communities was brought before the Court of First
 which no provision is made in the Staff Regulations of                 Instance of the European Communities on 27 October 1995
 officials . Furthermore, it constitutes a negation of the              by Bernard Connolly, residing at Everberg ( Belgium ),
 constitutional right to freedom of communication and free              represented by Jacques Sambon and Pierre-Paul van
 development of the personality . The applicant also claims             Gehuchten, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
 payment of financial compensation for the non-material                 in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du
  harm that he has suffered and is suffering as a result of the         Fort Rheinsheim .
  Commission 's conduct .
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         — annul the decisions of 6 and 27 September 1995 and
                                                                             4 October 1995 ,
 ---pagebreak--- 30 . 12 . 95            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 351 / 17
— order the Commission to pay the sum of Bfrs 750 000,                 Lastly, the applicant pleads infringement of Articles 25 and
      subject to increase or decrease in the course of the             88 of the Staff Regulations, in that the decision to suspend
      proceedings , by way of compensation for the combined            him did not fulfil the requirement to provide a statement of
      material and non-material damage suffered by the                 reasons in the light of the conditions governing the
      applicant as a result of the press campaign and malicious        application of the suspension provided for by the
      and defamatory allegations to which he has been                  aforementioned Article 88 .
      subjected ,
                                                                       As regards the application for compensation, the applicant
— order that the operative part of the judgment to be                  states, first, that the pursuit of irregular disciplinary
      delivered in the case be published, at the Commission's          proceedings constitutes wrongful conduct on the part of the
      expense, in the following newspapers : The Times, the            defendant and that he has suffered considerable material
      Daily Telegraph and the Financial Times,                         and non-material damage as a result of the matters set out.
                                                                       He maintains, second, that the publicity indulged in by the
— order the Commission to pay all of the costs .                       defendant in relation to him has caused him undeniable
                                                                       harm, and he seeks, by way of reparation, an order that the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    judgment to be delivered in the case be published at the
                                                                       expense of the Commission in the principal British
The applicant, who is a Head of Unit in the Commission's               newspapers which have taken up this matter.
Diectorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs,
states that he several times requested, without success,
permission to publish articles and contributions of an
analytical nature concerning the European monetary
system . Following the refusal by the Commission, he sought
and was granted leave on personal grounds, justified by
family reasons, in the course of which he completed a                  Action brought on 30 October 1995 by International
synthetical version of his analyses which was published                Express Carriers Conference ( IECC ) against Commission of
under the title : ' The rotten heart of Europe — The dirty war                           the European Communities
for Europe 's money '.                                                                          ( Case T-204/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 351 /34 )
The applicant states that the publication of the work met
with      an  immediate      reaction   from   the   Commission
 authorities : on 5 September 1995 , The Times published a                             (Language of the case: English)
 statement by the Commission's spokesman maintaining
 that there was no place in the Commission for an official              An action against the Commission of the European
 who had written such a work . On the day after that                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
 statement of principle was made, the appointing authority              Instance of the European Communities on 30 October 1995
 notified the applicant of its intention to institute disciplinary      by International Express Carriers Conference (IECC ),
 proceedings against him ( the first contested act ). On                represented by Eric Morgan de Rivery and Jacques Derenne,
 27 September 1995 a decision was taken to suspend him on               with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
 the basis of Article 88 of the Staff Regulations of officials          of Bonn & Schmitt, 62 Avenue Guillaume, L-1650 .
 ( the second contested act ). The applicant maintains that the
 Commission meanwhile took part in a press campaign
 which it substantially fuelled : a number of his 'colleagues'          The applicant claims that the Court should :
 were quoted by the press in support of statements which
 were mendacious , defamatory or derogatory and which                   — declare the Commission's letter No SG(95)D/10794
 concerned his person , his state of health and his professional            non-existent,
 reputation. On 4 October 1995 the Commission finally
 decided to bring the matter before the Disciplinary Board              — in the alternative, annul Commission Decision No
  ( the third contested act ).                                               SG(95)D/ 10794 of 14 August 1995 and order such
                                                                             further or other relief as the Court considers appropriate
 The applicant considers that the Commission has failed to                   in order for the Commission to comply with Article 176
  observe the second paragraph of Article 87 of the Staff                    of the EC Treaty ,
  Regulations of officials, Annex IX to those Regulations, in
  particular Article 1 and the second paragraph of Article 8 ,          — order the Commission to pay the costs .
  and the principles governing ' disciplinary policy' as
  expressed in the note of 24 November 1983 , in that it has
  prejudged the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings and              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
  has breached the principle of confidentiality inherent to
   proceedings of that kind .                                            The applicant, a professional organization composed of
                                                                         certain important private express companies, filed with the
   He also pleads a breach of the principle of equality, in that         Commission, on 13 July 1988 , a complaint under
   the Commission failed in his case to follow its usual practice,       Article 3 ( 2 ) of Regulation No 17/62 concerning the
   which is to authorize public utterances made without prior            infringement ( i ) of Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty by certain
   permission by officials who are not in active service .               European public postal operators and ( ii ) of Article 86 of the


title: Case T-277/07: Order of the General Court of 6 October 2011 — Secure Computing v OHIM — Investrónica (SECUREOS) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of opposition — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               26.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/31

         Order of the General Court of 6 October 2011 — Secure Computing v OHIM — Investrónica (SECUREOS)
   (Case T-277/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of opposition - No need to adjudicate)
   2011/C 347/50
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Secure Computing Corp. (Roseville, Minnesota, United States) (represented by: H. Kunz-Hallstein and R. Kunz-Hallstein, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Investrónica, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: initially E. López Leiva, subsequently J.L. Zurdo Rivas, subsequently J.L. Zurdo Rivas and E. López Camba, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 April 2007 (Case R 1063/2006-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Investrónica, SA and Secure Computing Corp.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The applicant and the intervener shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of the costs incurred by the defendant.

      (1)  OJ C 235, 6.10.2007.


13.10.2001            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 289/21
       Removal from the register of Case C-406/00 (1)                the register of Case C-26/01: Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities v French Republic.
                       (2001/C 289/51)
                                                                     (1) OJ C 61 of 24.2.2001.
By order of 11 July 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-406/00: Commission of the European
Communities v Hellenic Republic.
(1) OJ C 372 of 23.12.2000.                                                 Removal from the register of Case C-27/01 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 289/54)
                                                                     By order of 13 July 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                     of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
       Removal from the register of Case C-410/00 (1)                the register of Case C-27/01: Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
                       (2001/C 289/52)
By order of 30 April 2001 the President of the Court of Justice      (1) OJ C 61 of 24.2.2001.
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-410/00: Commission of the European
Communities v Kingdom of Sweden.
(1) OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001.                                                   Removal from the register of Case C-105/01 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 289/55)
                                                                     By order of 28 May 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
       Removal from the register of Case    C-26/01 (1)              of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                     the register of Case C-105/01: (reference for a preliminary
                       (2001/C 289/53)                               ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): André van der
                                                                     Plas v Wouter Guis.
By order of 19 June 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from             (1) OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.


title: Case C-336/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Craiova (Romania) lodged on 6 July 2010 — Administrația Finanțelor Publice a Municipiului Târgu-Jiu, Administrația Fondului Pentru Mediu v Victor Vinel Ijac

text:
               9.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Craiova (Romania) lodged on 6 July 2010 — Administrația Finanțelor Publice a Municipiului Târgu-Jiu, Administrația Fondului Pentru Mediu v Victor Vinel Ijac
   (Case C-336/10)
   ()
   2010/C 274/11
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Craiova

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Administrația Finanțelor Publice a Municipiului Târgu-Jiu, Administrația Fondului Pentru Mediu

      Defendant: Victor Vinel Ijac

      Question referred

   Is the first paragraph of Article 110 TFEU (formerly Article 90 EC) to be interpreted as precluding a Member State from introducing a tax with the characteristics of the pollution tax governed by Government Emergency Order No 50/2008, which levies a pollution tax on the registration in Romania of imported second-hand motor vehicles already registered in other Member States of the European Union, while that tax is not levied on second-hand motor vehicles registered in Romania in the event of their re-sale and consequent re-registration, in that such a tax could amount to a domestic tax on goods from other Member States which is indirectly discriminatory when compared with the tax treatment of domestic goods?


title: Case C-513/13 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 4 December 2014  — Kingdom of Spain v European Commission (Appeal — Cohesion Fund — Project concerning the drainage and purification of the urban water of Zaragoza (Spain) — Reduction in the financial assistance — Existence of a time-limit — Failure to comply with the prescribed time-limit — Consequences)

text:
               9.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/13

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 4 December 2014 — Kingdom of Spain v European Commission
   (Case C-513/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Cohesion Fund - Project concerning the drainage and purification of the urban water of Zaragoza (Spain) - Reduction in the financial assistance - Existence of a time-limit - Failure to comply with the prescribed time-limit - Consequences))
   (2015/C 046/17)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: G. Valero Jordana and A. Steiblytė, Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Case T-358/08 Spain v Commission;

               2.

               Annuls Commission decision C(2008) 3249 of 25 June 2008, relating to a reduction of the aid granted by virtue of the Cohesion Fund to the Kingdom of Spain for project No 96/11/61/018 — ‘Saneamiento de Zaragoza’;

               3.

               Orders the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the Kingdom of Spain and declares that the Commission is to bear its own costs both in the proceedings at first instance and in the present appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 336, 16.11.2013.


title: Case C-339/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale (Italy) lodged on 23 July 2008 — General Beverage Europe B.V. v Agenzia delle Entrate — Ufficio di Alba

text:
               11.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale (Italy) lodged on 23 July 2008 — General Beverage Europe B.V. v Agenzia delle Entrate — Ufficio di Alba
   (Case C-339/08)
   (2008/C 260/12)
   Language of the case: Itailan
   Referring court
   Commissione Tributaria Regionale
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: General Beverage Europe B.V.

      Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate — Ufficio di Alba
   Questions referred

               1.

               Whether the withholding tax levied on the dividend adjustment constitutes withholding tax on profits prohibited under Article 5 of Directive 90/435/EEC (1),

               2.

               Whether the protective clause referred to in Article 7(2) of that Directive applies, in particular whether Article 7(2) of Directive 435/90/EEC of 23 July 1990 must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may decide not to apply the exemption referred to in Article 5(1) of the Directive in the case that the State of residence of the parent company grants the latter a tax credit by virtue of a bilateral convention.

      (1)  OJ L 225, p. 6.


title: Case T-122/16: Action brought on 22 March 2016 — Tulliallan Burlington v EUIPO — Burlington Fashion (Burlington)

text:
               17.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/26

         Action brought on 22 March 2016 — Tulliallan Burlington v EUIPO — Burlington Fashion (Burlington)
   (Case T-122/16)
   (2016/C 175/30)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Tulliallan Burlington Ltd (St Helier, Jersey) (represented by: A. Norris, (Barrister

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Burlington Fashion GmbH (Schmallenberg, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark containing the word element ‘Burlington’ — International registration designating the European Union No 982 021

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 January 2016 in Case R 2409/2013-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision and reject the contested mark in respect of all of the contested goods;

               —

               order the payment of the costs incurred by the applicant in connection with this appeal.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 8(5), 8(4) and 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 6 June 1996 in Case T-382/94: Confederazione Generale dell'Industria Italiana (Confindustria) and Aldo Romoli v. Council of the European Union (Appointment of the members of the Economic and Social Committee)

text:
20 . 7. 96             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                              No C 21 0/ 13
4 , orders the applicants jointly and severally to bear the            with an address for service in Luxembourg a the Chambers
      costs, with the exception of those of the intervener,            of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim v. Council of the
      which shall bear its own costs .                                 European Union ( Agents : Giorgio Maganza and Antonio
                                                                       Tanca ) — application for annulment of Council Decision
(!) OJ No C 246 , 24 . 9 . 1992 .                                      94/660/EC, Euratom, of 26 September 1994 appointing the
                                                                       members of the Economic and Social Committee for the
                                                                       period from 21 September 1994 to 20 September 1998 ( OJ
                                                                       No L 257, 1994 , p . 20 ) — the Court of First Instance
                                                                       ( Fourth Chamber ), composed of K. Lenaerts , President, P.
                                                                       Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez,
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                       Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 6 June
                          of 5 June 1996                               1996 , in which it:
in     Case   T-75 /95 :      Giinzler Aluminium      GmbH     v.
        Commission of the European Communities (')                     1 , rejects the application;
(Action for annulment — Commission decision refusing
                  remission of import duties)
                                                                       2 , orders the applicants jointly and severally to pay the
                           ( 96/C 210/31 )                                  costs .
                (Language of the case: German)                         (') OJ No C 386 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .
In Case T-75/95 : Giinzler Aluminium GmbH, established at
Ostfildern, Germany, represented by Jurgen StrauE,
Rechtsanwalt, 11 Uhlandstrafêe, Stuttgart, against
Commission of the European Communities ( Agent: Claudia
Schmidt ) — application for annulment of the Commission's
decision of 14 November 1994, document K(91 1)3006                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
final, concerning remission of import duties, which is
addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany — the Court                                       of 11 June 1996
of First Instance (Third Chamber ), composed of C. P. Briët,           in Case T-l 10/94 : Beatriz Sanchez Mateo v . Commission of
President, B. Vesterdorf and A. Potocki, Judges; B. Pastor,                            the European Communities ( 1 )
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment            (Officials — Transfers ofpart of an official's remuneration
on 5 June 1996 , in which it:                                          in the currency of a Member State other than that in which
                                                                               the institution has its seat — Inadmissibility)
1 , dismisses the application as inadmissible in so far as it                                      96/C 210/33 )
      seeks that directions be issued to the Commission;
2 , dismisses the remainder of the application as                                     (Language of the case: Spanish)
      unfounded;
                                                                       In Case T-l 10/94 : Beatriz Sanchez Mateo, an official of the
3 , orders the applicant to pay the costs.                             Commission of the European Communities , represented by
                                                                       Antonio Creus, of the Barcelona Bar, and Bonifacio Garcia
( ] ) OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 .                                      Porras, of the Salamanca Bar v . Commission of the
                                                                       European Communities ( Agents : Amparo Alcover San
                                                                       Pedro, Ana Maria Alves Vieira and Carlos Gômez de la
                                                                       Cruz ) — application for ( 1 ) annulment of the decision
                                                                       rejecting the complaint concerning the transfer of part of the
                                                                       applicant's remuneration to a building account in Danish
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               crowns ( 2 ) confirmation of the applicant's entitlement to
                           of 6 June 1996                              such a transfer ( 3 ) damages — the Court of First Instance
in Case T-3 82/94 : Confederazione Generale dell'Industria              ( Third Chamber ), composed of C. P. Briët, President, B.
Italiana ( Confindustria ) and Aldo Romoli v. Council of the           Vesterdorf and A. Potocki, Judges ; B. Pastor, Principal
                       European Union ( 1 )                            Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on
                                                                         11 June 1996 , the operative part of which is as follows :
 (Appointment of the members of the Economic and Social
                              Committee)
                            ( 96/C 210/32 )                             1 , the application is dismissed as inadmissible;
                 (Language of the case: Italian)                        2 , each of the parties shall bear its own costs.
 In Case T-382/94 : Confederazione Generale dell'Industria
                                                                        (') OJ No C 120 , 30 . 4 . 1994 .
 Italiana ( Confindustria ), established in Rome , and Aldo
 Romoli, residing in Milan, represented by Fausto Capelli, of
 the Milan Bar, and Louis Schiltz, of the Luxembourg Bar,


title: Case C-83/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 15 February 2017 — KP v LO

text:
               29.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 168/20

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 15 February 2017 — KP v LO
   (Case C-83/17)
   (2017/C 168/26)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: KP

      Defendant: LO

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the rule of subsidiarity set out in Article 4(2) of the 2007 Hague Protocol on the law applicable to maintenance obligations to be interpreted as meaning that that rule is applicable only where an application initiating maintenance proceedings is lodged in a State other than the State in which the maintenance creditor is habitually resident?
               If that question is answered in the negative:

               2.

               Is Article 4(2) of the 2007 Hague Protocol on the law applicable to maintenance obligations to be interpreted as meaning that the expression ‘unable … to obtain maintenance’ also refers to cases in which, on the ground of mere failure to comply with certain formal legislative conditions, the law of the previous place of residence does not provide for a right to retroactive maintenance?


title: Case C-166/11: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 1 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Oviedo — Spain) — Ángel Lorenzo González Alonso v Nationale Nederlanden Vida Cia De Seguros y Reaseguros SAE (Consumer protection — Contracts negotiated away from business premises — Directive 85/577/EEC — Scope — Not included — Unit-linked insurance contracts)

text:
               21.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/7

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 1 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Oviedo — Spain) — Ángel Lorenzo González Alonso v Nationale Nederlanden Vida Cia De Seguros y Reaseguros SAE
   (Case C-166/11) (1)

   (Consumer protection - Contracts negotiated away from business premises - Directive 85/577/EEC - Scope - Not included - Unit-linked insurance contracts)
   2012/C 118/11
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Audiencia Provincial de Oviedo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ángel Lorenzo González Alonso

      Defendant: Nationale Nederlanden Vida Cia De Seguros y Reaseguros SAE

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Audiencia Provincial de Oviedo — Interpretation of Article 3(2)(d) of Council Directive 85/577/EEC of 20 December 1985 to protect the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away from business premises (OJ 1985 L 372, p. 31) — Contract, concluded away from business premises, under which life assurance is offered in return for payment of a monthly premium invested in various products of the company itself

      Operative part of the judgment

   A contract concluded away from business premises, under which life assurance is offered in return for payment of a monthly premium to be invested, in varying proportions, in fixed-rate investments, variable-rate investments and financial investment products of the company offering the contract falls outside the scope of Council Directive 85/577/EEC of 20 December 1985 to protect the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away from business premises, in accordance with Article 3(2)(d) thereof.

      (1)  OJ C 173, 11.6.2011.


title: Case T-123/16: Action brought on 22 March 2016 — Tulliallan Burlington v EUIPO — Burlington Fashion (BURLINGTON)

text:
               17.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/27

         Action brought on 22 March 2016 — Tulliallan Burlington v EUIPO — Burlington Fashion (BURLINGTON)
   (Case T-123/16)
   (2016/C 175/31)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant(s): Tulliallan Burlington Ltd (St Helier, Jersey) (represented by: A. Norris, Barrister)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Burlington Fashion GmbH (Schmallenberg, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the mark word mark ‘Burlington’ — International registration designating the European Union No 982 020

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 January 2016 in Case R 1635/2013-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision and reject the contested mark in respect of all of the contested goods;

               —

               order the payment of the costs incurred by the applicant in connection with this appeal.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 8(5), 8(4) and 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 October 1999 in Case C-233/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof): Hauptzollamt Neubrandenburg v Lensing & Brockhausen GmbH (Community transit — Offence —Recovery of duties — Competent State)

text:
C 34/2                    EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                              5.2.2000
(Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending                   1. Fishing rights or fishing permits do not constitute ‘goods’ within
before that court between Questore di Verona and Diego                             the meaning of the provisions of the EC Treaty relating to the
Zenatti — on the interpretation of the provisions of the EC                        free movement of goods but form a ‘provision of a service’ within
Treaty concerning the freedom to provide services — the                            the meaning of the Treaty provisions relating to the freedom to
Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President,                           provide services.
J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, D.A.O. Edward, R. Schintgen (Presi-
dents of Chambers), P.J.G. Kapteyn, J.-P. Puissochet (Rappor-                 2. The provisions of the Treaty relating to the freedom to provide
teur), G. Hirsch, P. Jann and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; N. Fennel-                     services are not applicable to a situation, such as that in the main
ly, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Regis-                    proceedings, which is confined in all respects within a single
trar, has given a judgment on 21 October 1999, in which it                         Member State.
held that:
                                                                              (1) OJ C 166 of 30.5.1998.
The EC Treaty provisions on the freedom to provide services do not
preclude national legislation, such as the Italian legislation, which
reserves to certain bodies the right to take bets on sporting events if
that legislation is in fact justified by social-policy objectives intended
to limit the harmful effects of such activities and if the restrictions
which it imposes are not disproportionate in relation to those
objectives.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(1) OJ C 151 of 16.5.1998.
                                                                                (First Chamber)
                                                                                of 21 October 1999
                                                                              in Case C-233/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                              the Bundesfinanzhof): Hauptzollamt Neubrandenburg v
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       Lensing & Brockhausen GmbH (1)
                           (Sixth Chamber)                                    (Community transit — Offence —Recovery of duties —
                                                                                Competent State)
                         of 21 October 1999
                                                                                (2000/C 34/04)
in Case C-97/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Pargas Tingsrätt): Peter Jägerskiöld v Torolf Gustafs-
                                   son (1)                                                        (Language of the case: German)
(Free movement of goods — Definition of ‘goods’ — Angling
              rights — Freedom to provide services)                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                            (2000/C 34/03)
                                                                              In Case C-233/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                                                                              the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Bundesfinanzhof
                    (Language of the case: Swedish)                           (Federal Finance Court), Germany, for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                              the proceedings pending before that court between Hauptzol-
                                                                              lamt Neubrandenburg and Lensing & Brockhausen GmbH —
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published        on the interpretation of Article 36 of Council Regulation (EEC)
                     in the European Court Reports)                           No 222/77 of 13 December 1976 on Community transit (OJ
                                                                              1977 L 38, p. 1) as amended by Council Regulation (EEC)
In Case C-97/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                  No 474/90 of 22 February 1990 with a view to abolishing
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Pargas Tingsrätt                  lodgement of the transit advice note on crossing an internal
(District Court, Pargas), Finland, for a preliminary ruling in                frontier of the Community (OJ 1990 L 51, p. 1), and of
the proceedings pending before that court between Peter                       Article 11a of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1062/87 of
Jägerskiöld and Torolf Gustafsson — on the interpretation of                  27 March 1987 on provisions for the implementation of the
the rules of the EC Treaty on the free movement of goods and                  Community transit procedure and for certain simplifications
the freedom to provide services — the Court (Sixth Chamber),                  of that procedure (OJ 1987 L 107, P. 1) as amended by
composed of: G. Hirsch, President of the Second Chamber,                      Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1429/90 of 29 May 1990
acting as President of the Sixth Chamber, H. Ragnemalm                        (OJ 1990 L 137, p. 21) — the Court (First Chamber), composed
and R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate                  of: L. Sevón, President of the Chamber, P. Jann and M. Wathelet
General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,               (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,
has given a judgment on 21 October 1999, in which it has                      Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
ruled:                                                                        on 21 October 1999, in which it has ruled:
 ---pagebreak--- 5.2.2000                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 34/3
1. Article 36(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 222/77 of                  Nana Dafniou and I. Chalkias) — application for a declaration
    13 December 1976 on Community transit, as amended by                   that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws,
    Council Regulation (EEC) No 474/90 of 22 February 1990                 regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply
    with a view to abolishing lodgement of the transit advice note on      with Council Directive 93/43/EEC of 14 June 1993 on the
    crossing an internal frontier of the Community, in conjunction         hygiene of foodstuffs (OJ 1993 L 175, p. 1), the Hellenic
    with Article 11a(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC)                     Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive
    No 1062/87 of 27 March 1987 on provisions for the                      — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn,
    implementation of the Community transit procedure and for              acting as President of the Sixth Chamber, G. Hirsch and
    certain simplifications of that procedure, as amended by Com-          H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate Gen-
    mission Regulation (EEC) No 1429/90 of 29 May 1990, is to              eral; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 October
    be interpreted as meaning that the Member State to which the           1999, in which it:
    office of departure belongs may recover duty on import only if it
    has indicated to the principal that he has three months in which       1. Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the
    to prove where the offence or irregularity was actually committed          laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
    and such proof has not been provided within that period.                   comply with Council Directive 93/43/EEC of 14 June 1993 on
                                                                               the hygiene of foodstuffs, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil
2. The third subparagraph of Article 36(3) of Regulation                       its obligations under that directive;
    No 222/77 as amended by Regulation No 474/90 is to be
    interpreted as not applying to a case in which the Member State        2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
    to which the office of departure belongs has recovered duty in
    respect of goods cleared for the Community transit procedure even
    though the principal has not been set a time-limit for furnishing      (1) OJ C 397 of 19.12.1998.
    proof of the place where the offence or irregularity was actually
    committed, in accordance with Article 11a(2) of Regulation
    No 1062/87 as amended by Regulation No 1429/90, and in
    such a case the refund of the duty irregularly recovered is not
    subject to the condition that the duty due from the principal has
    been paid in the Member State where the offence was committed.
(1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.                                                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 21 October 1999
                                                                           in Case C-430/98: Commission of the European Communi-
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ties v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)
                          (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                           (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                           Directive 94/45/EC — Failure to transpose within the
                        of 21 October 1999                                                          prescribed period)
in Case C-391/98: Commission of the European Communi-                                                (2000/C 34/06)
                    ties v Hellenic Republic (1)
(Failure by a member State to fulfil its obligations —                                         (Language of the case: French)
Directive 93/43/EEC — Failure to transpose within the
                         prescribed period)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                           (2000/C 34/05)                                                     in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           In Case C-430/98: Commission of the European Communities
                     (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                           (Agents: P.J. Kuijper and N. Yerrell) v Grand Duchy of Luxem-
                                                                           bourg (Agent: P. Steinmetz) — application for a declaration
                                                                           that, by failing to adopt and/or to communicate to the
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     Commission the laws, regulations and administrative pro-
                   in the European Court Reports)                          visions necessary to comply with Council Directive 94/45/EC
                                                                           of 22 September 1994 on the establishment of a European
In Case C-391/98: Commission of the European Communities                   Works Council or a procedure in Community-scale undertak-
(Agent: Maria Condou-Durande) v Hellenic Republic (Agents:                 ings and Community-scale groups of undertakings for the


title: Case C-394/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d'Appello di Milano (Italy) lodged on 22 August 2007 — Marco Gambazzi v Daimler Chrysler Canada Inc and CIBC Mellon Trust Company

text:
               24.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d'Appello di Milano (Italy) lodged on 22 August 2007 — Marco Gambazzi v Daimler Chrysler Canada Inc and CIBC Mellon Trust Company
   (Case C-394/07)
   (2007/C 283/19)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Corte d'Appello di Milano
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Marco Gambazzi

      Respondents: Daimler Chrysler Canada Inc, CIBC Mellon Trust Company
   Questions referred

               1.

               On the basis of the public-policy clause in Article 27(1) of the Brussels Convention, may the court of the State requested to enforce a judgment take account of the fact that the court of the State which handed down that judgment denied the unsuccessful party — which had entered an appearance — the opportunity to present any form of defence following the issue of a debarring order as described [in the grounds of the present Order]?

               2.

               Or does the interpretation of that provision in conjunction with the principles to be inferred from Article 26 et seq. of the Convention, concerning the mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments within the Community, preclude the national court from finding that civil proceedings in which a party has been prevented from exercising the rights of the defence, on grounds of a debarring order issued by the court because of that party's failure to comply with a court injunction, are contrary to public policy within the meaning of Article 27(1)?


title: Case C-321/09 P: Appeal brought on 10 August 2009 by the Hellenic Republic against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) on 11 June 2009 in Case T-33/07 Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               10.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 244/3

         Appeal brought on 10 August 2009 by the Hellenic Republic against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) on 11 June 2009 in Case T-33/07 Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-321/09 P)
   2009/C 244/05
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Appellant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: I. Khalkias)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               uphold this appeal and the grounds of appeal put forward;

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance;

               —

               uphold the action in part;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   The Hellenic Republic submits:

               1.

               that the Court of First Instance misinterpreted and misapplied the principle of legal certainty, given that, while holding in the judgment under appeal that the bilateral clearance procedure was undoubtedly particularly long — since it began on 9 November 1999 with the first investigation and was completed on 15 December 2006 when the contested decision was published — it considered, however, in the Hellenic Republic’s view mistakenly, that that finding should be qualified given the context of the FEOGA account clearance procedure and held that the principle of legal certainty was not infringed;

               2.

               that the judgment under appeal delivered by the Court of First Instance contains incorrect and contradictory reasoning given that, although the Court accepted that the Commission misinterpreted and misapplied Article 12(1)(a) of Regulation No 1201/89 and that the plea for annulment put forward by the Hellenic Republic was well founded and had to be upheld, it held that the validity of the financial correction was neverthless not affected.


title: Case C-561/10 P: Appeal brought on 26 November 2010 by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2010 in Case T-387/08: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Commission

text:
               5.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/3

         Appeal brought on 26 November 2010 by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2010 in Case T-387/08: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Commission
   (Case C-561/10 P)
   2011/C 72/05
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, M. Dermitzakis, Attorneys at Law)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the decision of the General Court;

               —

               annul OPOCE's (Publications Office of the European Union) decision to reject the bid of the Appellant, and to award the same Call for Tender to another bidder and to award damages;

               —

               refer the case to the General Court in order that the latter examines the remaining issues in both Lots, including the request for Damages, not examined yet by the General Court;

               —

               order the OPOCE to pay the Appellant's legal and other costs including those incurred in connection with the initial procedure, even if the current Appeal is rejected as well as those of the current Appeal, in case it is accepted.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Appellant submits that in the contested Judgment the General Court erred in law and wrongly interpreted Article 100 (2) of the Financial Regulation (1) and Article 149 of the Implementing Rules by accepting that, since the Appellant's tender did not reach the 70 % threshold, the Commission rightfully did not communicate to the Appellant the relative merits of the winning tenderer. Furthermore, the Appellant submits that the Judgment is insufficiently motivated since the General Court failed to examine thoroughly and individually the plea concerning the infringement of the principle of transparency and equal treatment.
   The Appellant also submits that the General Court breached the obligation to state reasons, since, although it acknowledged that in numerous sub-criteria the comments in the contested decision were vague and generic and do not explain the marks awarded to the applicant's tender, and that the contested decision is vitiated by an inadequate statement of reasons with regard to specific award sub-criteria, it concluded that the ‘statement of reasons in respect of numerous other award criteria and sub-criteria is adequate’. Further, the General Court erred in its interpretation of the obligation to state reasons, by considering that several of the comments of the Evaluation Committee fulfilled its obligation to state reasons, and it did not examine thoroughly and failed to motivate individually and sufficiently the arguments of the Appellant concerning the infringement of the principle of transparency and equal treatment.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities
   OJ L 248, p. 1


title: Case T-125/16: Action brought on 23 March 2016 — Léon Van Parys v Commission

text:
               17.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/28

         Action brought on 23 March 2016 — Léon Van Parys v Commission
   (Case T-125/16)
   (2016/C 175/32)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Firma Léon Van Parys NV (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented by: P. Vlaemminck, B. Van Vooren and R. Verbeke, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul Decision C(2016) 95 final of the European Commission of 20 January 2016 concerning Case REC 07/07(REV) finding that post-clearance entry in the accounts of import duties is justified and that remission of those duties is justified with regard to a debtor and is in part justified in the particular case of another debtor but in another part not justified with regard to that particular debtor, and modifying Commission Decision C(2010)2858 of 6 May 2010;

               —

               declare that Article 909 of Regulation No 2454/93 (1) has fully taken effect in favour of the present applicant following the Court’s judgment in Case T-324/10, in which the Court annulled, in favour of the (present and former) applicant, Article 1(3) of the initial Decision C(2010)2858, with the result that the present applicant, in accordance with Article 909 of Regulation No 2454/93, enjoys full remission of the customs debt, as well as of all interest or costs linked directly or indirectly to that debt;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 907 and 909 of Regulation No 2454/93 and of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
               The applicant submits that the legal effects of the judgment of 19 March 2013 in Firma Van Parys v Commission (T-324/10, EU:T:2013:136) in favour of the present applicant are, in themselves, sufficient. Consequently, no new Commission decision is required to vitiate the illegality found by the Court and the applicant must benefit from the operation of Article 909 of Regulation No 2454/93.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 907 of Regulation No 2454/93 and of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
               The applicant argues that the Commission misused its power to request additional information on the basis of Article 907 of Regulation No 2454/93 in order to circumvent the application of Article 909 of Regulation No 2454/93. More specifically, the applicant argues that the Commission already had the requested information in its possession.

               3.

               Third plea in law, in the alternative, alleging infringement of the principles of sound administration in so far the judgment of 19 March 2013 in Firma Van Parys v Commission (T-324/10, EU:T:2013:136) ought to have been given effect to within a reasonable period which could not exceed the original nine-month period prescribed by Article 907 of Regulation No 2454/93.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, in the further alternative, alleging misuse of powers by reason of the Commission’s conduct of an entirely new investigation in which it reached a conclusion that is at variance with the findings made by the Court in the judgment of 19 March 2013 in Firma Van Parys v Commission (T-324/10, EU:T:2013:136).

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, in the further alternative, alleging an incorrect interpretation of the regulatory framework governing the organisation of the banana market and infringement of the principle of equality.

                           —

                           The applicant’s use of a lease deal in order to acquire the use of import licences was, in its opinion, statutorily possible in view of Regulation No 2362/98 (2) and of the standard commercial practices recognised by the WTO.

                           —

                           This cannot be regarded as negligence on the part of an importer when that is not the case for the customs agent or for another importer that used non-transferable licences.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2362/98 of 28 October 1998 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 regarding imports of bananas into the Community (OJ 1998 L 293, p. 32).


title: Case T-506/11: Judgment of the General Court of 18 April 2013 — Peek & Cloppenburg v OHIM — Peek & Cloppenburg (Peek & Cloppenburg) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark Peek & Cloppenburg — Earlier national commercial name Peek & Cloppenburg — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/41

         Judgment of the General Court of 18 April 2013 — Peek & Cloppenburg v OHIM — Peek & Cloppenburg (Peek & Cloppenburg)
   (Case T-506/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark Peek & Cloppenburg - Earlier national commercial name Peek & Cloppenburg - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 156/75
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Peek & Cloppenburg KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: initially S. Abrar, then P. Lange, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Peek & Cloppenburg (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: A. Renck, V. von Bomhard, T. Heitmann, M. Petersenn, lawyers, and I. Fowler, solicitor)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 February 2011 (Case R 262/2005-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Peek & Cloppenburg and Peek & Cloppenburg KG.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Peek & Cloppenburg KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 362, 10.12.2011.


title: Case C-246/07: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 20 April 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Sweden (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Articles 10 EC and 300(1) EC — Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants — Unilateral proposal by a Member State to list a substance in Annexe A to that convention)

text:
               19.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/3

      Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 20 April 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Sweden
      (Case C-246/07) (1)

      (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Breach of Articles 10 EC and 300(1) EC - Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants - Unilateral proposal by a Member State to list a substance in Annexe A to that convention)
      (2010/C 161/03)
      Language of the case: Swedish

         Parties

         Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Valero Jordana and C. Tufvesson, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Kruse and A. Falk, acting as Agents)

         Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by C. Pilgaard Zinglersen and R. Holdgaard, acting as Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by C.M. Wissels and D.J.M. de Grave, acting as Agents), Republic of Finland (represented by J. Heliskoski, acting as Agent), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by V. Jackson, acting as Agent, and by D. Anderson QC)

         Re:

      Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Articles 10 EC and 300(1) EC — Unilateral proposal to list a substance, perfluoroctane sulfonate, in Annex A to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Declares that, by unilaterally proposing that a substance, perfluoroctane sulfonate, be listed in Annex A to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, the Kingdom of Sweden failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 10 EC;

                  2.

                  Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

                  3.

                  Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the European Commission’s costs;

                  4.

                  Orders the Kingdom of Denmark, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Finland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland to bear their own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 183, 4.8.2007.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 March 2005 in Case C-172/03 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) Wolfgang Heiser v Finanzamt Innsbruck (VAT — Exemption for medical care provided in the exercise of the profession of medical practitioner — Adjustment of deductions)

text:
               30.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/5

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 3 March 2005
   in Case C-172/03 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) Wolfgang Heiser v Finanzamt Innsbruck (1)

   (VAT - Exemption for medical care provided in the exercise of the profession of medical practitioner - Adjustment of deductions)
   (2005/C 106/09)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-172/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria), made by decision of 31 March 2003, received at the Court on 14 April 2003, in the proceedings pending before that court between Wolfgang Heiser and Finanzamt Innsbruck — the Court: (Second Chamber) composed of C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen, J. Makarczyk and J. Klučka, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General, K. Sztranc, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 3 March 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               Article 92 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87 EC) must be interpreted as meaning that a rule, such as that laid down by Paragraph XIV(3) of Federal Law 21/1995, as amended by Federal Law 756/1996, providing that the changeover for medical practitioners from taxable to exempt status for the purposes of VAT does not, in relation to goods that continue to be used in the business, entail the reduction of input tax already deducted that is prescribed by Article 20 of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, must be classified as State aid.

      (1)  OJ C 158 of 5.7.2003.


title: Case C-62/05 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 October 2007 — Nordspedizionieri di Danielis Livio & C. Snc, in liquidation, Domenico D'Alessandro v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 — Remission of import duties — Consignment of cigarettes destined for Spain — Fraud committed in a Community transit operation)

text:
               22.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/5

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 October 2007 — Nordspedizionieri di Danielis Livio & C. Snc, in liquidation, Domenico D'Alessandro v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-62/05 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 - Remission of import duties - Consignment of cigarettes destined for Spain - Fraud committed in a Community transit operation)
   (2007/C 315/07)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Appellants: Nordspedizionieri di Danielis Livio & C. Snc, in liquidation, Livio Danielis and Domenico D'Alessandro (represented by: G. Leone, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: X. Lewis, Agent, and G. Bambara, lawyer)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 14 December 2004, in Case T-332/02 Nordspedizionieri di Danielis Livio and Others v Commission dismissing an action for the annulment of the Commission decision (REM 14/01) of 28 June 2002 informing the Italian authorities that there is no ground for the remission of import duties on a cargo of cigarettes destined for Spain on the ground that a fraud committed by third parties in the course of a Community transit operation does not constitute a special situation justifying the remission of import duties
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2)

               Orders Nordspedizionieri di Danielis Livio & C. Snc, in liquidation, and Mr Danielis and Mr D'Alessandro to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 2.4.2005.


title: Case T-232/10: Action brought on 21 May 2010 — Couture Tech Limited v OHMI (representation of an escutcheon containing the globe, a star, the hammer and sickle)

text:
               17.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/29

         Action brought on 21 May 2010 — Couture Tech Limited v OHMI (representation of an escutcheon containing the globe, a star, the hammer and sickle)
   (Case T-232/10)
   2010/C 195/46
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Couture Tech Ltd (Tortola, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: B. Whyatt, Barrister)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 5 March 2010 in case R 1509/2008-2; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: A figurative mark in colour representing an escutcheon with the globe, a star, the hammer and sickle for goods and services in classes 3, 14, 18, 23, 26 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 5585898

      Decision of the examiner: Refused registration of the application for a Community trade mark

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: The applicant advances two pleas in law in support of its application
   On the basis of its first plea, the applicant claims that the contested decision infringes Articles 7(1) and 7(2) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly applied these articles to the Community trade mark application
   By its second plea, the applicant considers that the contested decision fails to apply the rules of natural justice by not recognising the applicant's right to legitimate expectations that its Community trade mark application would be registered.


title: Case T-415/11: Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2012 — Hartmann v OHIM (Nutriskin Protection Complex) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark Nutriskin Protection Complex — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 — OHIM’s decision-making practice — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               22.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2012 — Hartmann v OHIM (Nutriskin Protection Complex)
   (Case T-415/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark Nutriskin Protection Complex - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 - OHIM’s decision-making practice - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)
   2012/C 399/35
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Paul Hartmann AG (Heidenheim an der Brenz, Germany) (represented by: N. Aicher, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: K. Klüpfel and A. Poch, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 May 2011 (Case R 1524/2010-1), concerning an application for registration of the sign Nutriskin Protection Complex as a Community trade mark

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Paul Hartmann AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 298, 8.10.2011.


title: Case C-49/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 1 February 2017 — Koppers Denmark ApS v Skatteministeriet

text:
               10.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/25

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 1 February 2017 — Koppers Denmark ApS v Skatteministeriet
   (Case C-49/17)
   (2017/C 112/35)
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Østre Landsret

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Koppers Denmark ApS

      Defendant: Skatteministeriet

      Questions referred

               ‘1.

               Is Article 21(3) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC (1) of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity to be interpreted as meaning that the consumption of self-produced energy products for the production of other energy products is tax exempt in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, in which the energy products produced are not used as motor fuels or as heating fuels?

               2.

               Is Article 21(3) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity to be interpreted as meaning that the Member States may restrict the scope of the exemption so as to cover only consumption of an energy product used in the production of an equivalent energy product (i.e. an energy product which, like the energy product consumed, is also subject to tax)?’

      (1)  Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (Text with EEA relevance).

      OJ 2003 L 283, p. 51.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 30 June 2005 in Case C-286/04 P: Eurocermex SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Article 7(1)(b) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Three-dimensional shape of a long-neck bottle in the neck of which a slice of lemon has been plugged — Absolute ground for refusal — Distinctive character)

text:
               20.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/5

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 30 June 2005
   in Case C-286/04 P: Eurocermex SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Article 7(1)(b) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Three-dimensional shape of a long-neck bottle in the neck of which a slice of lemon has been plugged - Absolute ground for refusal - Distinctive character)
   (2005/C 205/09)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-286/04 P, appeal under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, brought on 29 June 2004, Eurocermex SA, established in Evere (Belgium), represented by A. Bertrand, lawyer, appellant, the other party to the proceedings being: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), represented by A. Rassat, acting as Agent, defendant at first instance — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts, K. Schiemann, E. Juhász and M. Ilešič (Rapporteur), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 30 June 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Eurocermex SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 217 of 28.08.2004


title: Case T-282/02: Action brought on 11 September 2002 by Cementbouw Handel & Industrie B.V. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
9.11.2002              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 274/37
Decision of the Board of       Decision of the examiner set aside          Pleas in law and main arguments
Appeal:                        in so far as it applies to services in
                               Class 35. Dismissal of the remain-
                               der of the appeal.
                                                                           The applicant contests Commission Decision C(2002) 2315,
Pleas in law:                  —     Infringement of Article               of 26 June 2002.
                                     7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC)
                                     No 40/94 ( 2);
                               —     Infringement of Article
                                     7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)            The applicant is active in the building materials sector. In
                                     No 40/94.                             1999, the applicant and Franz Haniel & Cie GmbH acquired
                                                                           from Ruhrkohle AG its shares in certain factories which were
                                                                           members of the ‘Coöperatieve verkoop en produktievereniging
                                                                           van kalkzandsteenproducenten’ (CVK), a co-operative organ-
( 1) Case R 239/2002-3.                                                    ization for Dutch calcium silicate producers. According to the
( 2) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the           contested Decision, the applicant and Franz Haniel thereby
     Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).                            gained joint control of CVK. The Decision further states that
                                                                           the second set of commitments offered by the applicant and
                                                                           Franz Haniel are sufficient to ensure that the concentration
                                                                           would be compatible with the common market.
                                                                           In support of its application, the applicant submits that the
                                                                           Commission has infringed Article 3 of Council Regulation
                                                                           No 4064/89 (1). According to the applicant, the Commission
Action brought on 11 September 2002 by Cementbouw                          erred in concluding that the applicant and Franz Haniel have
Handel & Industrie B.V. against the Commission of the                      joint control of CVK. The applicant furthermore claims that
                     European Communities                                  the Commission did not provide sufficient evidence for this
                                                                           conclusion and failed to give reasons for it, in breach of
                                                                           Article 253 of the EC Treaty.
                          (Case T-282/02)
                         (2002/C 274/64)                                   The applicant also submits that the Commission has infringed
                                                                           Article 2 of Regulation No 4064/89. According to the
                                                                           applicant, the Commission erred in concluding that the
                   (Language of the case: English)                         transaction under which the shares in Ruhrkohle AG were
                                                                           acquired by the applicant and Franz Haniel led to a dominant
                                                                           position for CVK on the market for building materials for
                                                                           load-bearing walls in the Netherlands. Nor, the applicant
                                                                           claims, did the Commission provide sufficient evidence in
                                                                           support of this conclusion or provide a statement of its reasons
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 for it, in breach of Article 253 of the EC Treaty.
European Communities on 11 September 2002 by
Cementbouw Handel & Industrie B.V., Amsterdam, Nether-
lands, represented by W. Knibbeler, Advocaat and
O. W. Brouwer, Advocaat.                                                   The applicant finally claims that Article 3 and 8(2) of
                                                                           Regulation 4064/89 were misapplied, and the principle of
                                                                           proportionality was breached by the Commissions failure to
                                                                           accept the first set of commitments submitted by the applicant
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                and Franz Haniel.
—      annul Article 1 of the contested Decision;
                                                                           (1 ) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on
—      annul Article 2 of the contested Decision;                               the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ L 395,
                                                                                p. 1) (republished in OJ 1990, L 257, p. 13).
—      annul Article 3 of the contested Decision;
—      order the Commission to pay the costs.