title: Case T-81/12: Judgment of the General Court of 12 February 2014 — Beco v Commission (Dumping — Imports of stainless steel fasteners originating in China and Taiwan — Application for recovery of charges levied — Second subparagraph of Article 11(8) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Legal certainty)

text:
               29.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 February 2014 — Beco v Commission
   (Case T-81/12) (1)

   (Dumping - Imports of stainless steel fasteners originating in China and Taiwan - Application for recovery of charges levied - Second subparagraph of Article 11(8) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Legal certainty)
   2014/C 93/37
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Beco Metallteile-Handels GmbH (Spaichingen, Germany) (represented by: T. Pfeiffer, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2011) 9112 final of 13 December 2011, concerning an application for a refund of anti-dumping duties paid on imports of stainless steel fasteners originating in the People's Republic of China and Taiwan.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision C(2011) 9112 final of 13 December 2011, concerning an application for a refund of anti-dumping duties paid on imports of stainless steel fasteners originating in the People's Republic of China and Taiwan;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 118, 21.4.2012.


title: Case F-45/15: Action brought on 19 March 2015 — ZZ v Europol

text:
               8.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/34

         Action brought on 19 March 2015 — ZZ v Europol
   (Case F-45/15)
   (2015/C 190/39)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: J.-J. Ghosez, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Police Office (Europol)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the implied decision of the defendant not to respond to the applicant’s request for a contract for an indefinite period.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the implied rejection decision taken by the defendant on 31 May 2014 and the decision rejecting the applicant’s claim dated 22 December 2014 both refusing him a contract for an indefinite period;

               —

               In consequence, and principally, declare that, at the end of the contract currently running, the applicant will be offered a contract for an indefinite period;

               —

               In the alternative, if it were to prove appropriate to take account only of the sole contract concluded under the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the EU (CEOS), declare that the applicant will be offered a second fixed-term contract under CEOS by Europol at the end of the contract currently running;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay all the costs of the proceedings.


title: Case T-539/15: Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2016 — LLR-G5 v EUIPO Glycan Finance (SILICIUM ORGANIQUE G5 LLR-G5) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for figurative EU trade mark SILICIUM ORGANIQUE G5 LLR-G5 — Earlier international word marks Silicium Organique G5- Glycan 5-Si-Glycan-5-Si-G5 and Silicium Organique G5 — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               7.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 410/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2016 — LLR-G5 v EUIPO Glycan Finance (SILICIUM ORGANIQUE G5 LLR-G5)
   (Case T-539/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for figurative EU trade mark SILICIUM ORGANIQUE G5 LLR-G5 - Earlier international word marks Silicium Organique G5- Glycan 5-Si-Glycan-5-Si-G5 and Silicium Organique G5 - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 410/25)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: LLR-G5 Ltd (Castlebar, Ireland) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Glycan Finance Corp. Ltd (Sheffield, United Kingdom)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 June 2015 (Case R 291/2014-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Glycan Finance Corp. and LLR-G5.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders LLR-G5 Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 381, 16.11.2015.


title: Case T-331/16: Action brought on 28 June 2016 — Hello Media v EUIPO — Hola (#hello media group)

text:
               16.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/32

         Action brought on 28 June 2016 — Hello Media v EUIPO — Hola (#hello media group)
   (Case T-331/16)
   (2016/C 296/41)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Hello Media, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Alejos Cutuli, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hola, SL (Madrid, Spain)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘#hello media group’ — Application for registration No 12 441 317

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21/04/2016 in Case R 2012/2015-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               reject opposition B 2 336 371 to the application for a European Union trade mark No 12 441 317;

               —

               order the grant of European Union trade mark No 12 441 317 ‘#hello media group’ (with graphic);

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 June 2000 in Case C-375/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo): Ministério Público and Fazenda Pública v Epson Europe BV (Harmonisation of tax laws — Parent companies and subsidiaries — Exemption, in the Member State of the subsidiary, from withholding tax on profits distributed by the subsidiary to the parent company)

text:
C 273/2                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          23.9.2000
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                                            (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 8 June 2000
                            of 8 June 2000
                                                                           in Case C-396/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
in Case C-375/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling                       the Bundesfinanzhof): Grundstückgemeinschaft Schloß-
from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo): Ministério                                  straße GbR v Finanzamt Paderborn (1)
    Público and Fazenda Pública v Epson Europe BV (1)
                                                                           (Turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax —
(Harmonisation of tax laws — Parent companies and                          Article 17 of the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC — Deduction
subsidiaries — Exemption, in the Member State of the                       of input tax — Deduction precluded by an amendment to
subsidiary, from withholding tax on profits distributed by                 national legislation removing the possibility of opting for
              the subsidiary to the parent company)                                 taxation of the letting of immovable property)
                           (2000/C 273/02)                                                             (2000/C 273/03)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: German)
                  (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                          in the European Court Reports)
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           In Case C-396/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
In Case C-375/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of              the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Bundesfinanzhof
                                                                           (Germany), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Supremo Tribunal
                                                                           before that court between Grundstückgemeinschaft Schloß-
Administrativo, Portugal, for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings pending before that court between Ministério                   straße GbR and Finanzamt Paderborn — on the interpretation
                                                                           of Article 17 of the Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of
Público, Fazenda Pública and Epson Europe BV — on the
                                                                           17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member
interpretation of Article 5(4) of Council Directive 90/435/EEC
of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable                States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value
                                                                           added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1)
in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different
                                                                           — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J. C. Moitinho de
Member States (OJ 1990 L 225, p. 6) — the Court (Fifth
Chamber), composed of: D. A. O. Edward, President of the                   Almeida (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, R Schintgen,
                                                                           G. Hirsch, V. Skouris and F. Macken, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo
Chamber, L. Sevón, P. J. G. Kapteyn, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and
M. Wathelet, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General; H. A. Rühl,              Colomer, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment           for the Registrar, has given a judgement on 8 June 2000 in
                                                                           which it has ruled:
on 8 June 2000, in which it has ruled:
                                                                           Article 17 of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May
Article 5(4) of Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on            1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States
the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent             relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:
companies and subsidiaries of different Member States, in so far as it     uniform basis of assessment must be interpreted as meaning that a
limits to 15 % and 10 % the amount of the withholding tax on               taxable person’s right to deduct VAT paid in respect of goods or
profits distributed by subsidiaries established in Portugal to their       services supplied to him with a view to his carrying out certain letting
parent companies in other Member States, must be interpreted as            operations is retained where a legislative amendment post-dating the
meaning that that derogation relates not only to corporation tax but       supply of those goods or services but pre-dating the commencement
also to any taxation, of whatever nature or however described, which       of such operations deprives the taxable person concerned of the right
takes the form of a withholding tax on dividends distributed by such       to waive exemption thereof, even if the VAT was assessed subject to
subsidiaries.                                                              subsequent review.
(1) OJ C 378 of 5.12.1998.                                                 (1) OJ C 1 of 4.1.1999.


title: Case T-261/14 P: Appeal brought on 25 April 2014 by Robert Walton against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 27 February 2014 in Case F-32/13, Walton v Commission

text:
               21.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/25

         Appeal brought on 25 April 2014 by Robert Walton against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 27 February 2014 in Case F-32/13, Walton v Commission
   (Case T-261/14 P)
   2014/C 235/34
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Robert Walton (Oxford, United Kingdom) (represented by F. Moyse, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 27 February 2014 in Case F-32/13 Walton v Commission;

               —

               refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal so that it may examine the third plea in law raised in the application initiating proceedings and adjudicate on the two other pleas in accordance with the judgment on appeal;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the appeal and the proceedings at first instance.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on four pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 36 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union in that the European Union Civil Service Tribunal did not give reasons for its decision and failed to adjudicate on a plea raised at first instance.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of res judicata in that the Civil Service Tribunal provided an incorrect legal characterisation of the subject-matter of the decisions and judgments cited in relation to the object of the application at first instance.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to a fair trial.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right of the defence and of legitimate expectations, giving rise to an excusable error on the part of the appellant.


title: Case C-536/07: Action brought on 30 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/33

         Action brought on 30 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-536/07)
   (2008/C 51/56)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Kukovec and R. Sauer, Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany
   Form of order sought

               —

               The Federal Republic of Germany has infringed its obligations under Article 7 in conjunction with Article 11 of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts (1), as a result of the conclusion by the city of Cologne of the contract of 6 August 2004 with the Grundstücksgesellschaft Köln Messe 15-18 GbR (in the meantime Grundstücksgesellschaft Köln Messe 8-11) without carrying out a procedure for the award of contracts involving a Europe-wide invitation to tender in compliance with the above-mentioned provisions;

               —

               The Federal Republic of Germany is to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Article 7 of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts (‘the Directive’) obliged the contracting authorities when awarding public works contracts to observe certain procedures. In that regard, the negotiated procedure applies only in exceptional cases and only subject to very specific conditions, whereas the open or restricted procedure applies as a rule. In order to ensure development of effective competition in the field of public contracts, it is moreover necessary that contract notices be advertised as a rule throughout the Community. Article 11 of the Directive contains the relevant advertising rules.
   The action concerns the award of a public works contract by the city of Cologne to a private investment firm which took place without the required procedure being observed, in particular without publication of a notice. The aim of the award of the contract was the building of four new exhibition halls for use by Kölnmesse GmbH, a private company, the majority of whose shares are held by the city of Cologne. Under the contested public works contract, the investment firm is to construct the new exhibition halls and additional premises according to detailed specifications. The city rented the buildings for a fixed period of thirty years for a total rent of more than EUR 600 million. Under a subtenancy it will in turn sublet the buildings to the trade fair company KölnMesse GmbH.
   In the view of the Commission, the contract concerned is a public works contract, which according to the Directive should have been awarded in a competitive procedure, in the context of a Europe-wide invitation to tender. First, the city of Cologne as local authority is the contracting authority within the meaning of the Directive. It is therefore bound to observe the procedural rules laid down in the Directive in relation to the contracts which fall within the scope of the Directive. Second, the Commission is of the view that, despite its designation as ‘lease’ and the apparent precedence of the provision for a right of use (against payment), the contract is for the following reasons to be designated as a public works contract in the sense of Article 1(a) of the Directive.
   The Community law definition of a public works contract also applies to contracts which aim to obtain the possibility of using a building which does not yet exist but which was precisely identified by the contracting authority in its specifications. As it is clear from the case-law of the Court that, where it contains various elements, a contract will be classified in accordance with its main purpose, the description of the contract at issue as a ‘lease’ and even any classification as such under German law is irrelevant for assessment pursuant to the Directive.
   With regard to the contract at issue, the economic context and the circumstances in which the contract was concluded indicate that the first concern of the parties when concluding the principal contract was the construction of the exhibition halls according to the detailed specifications laid down by the city of Cologne. The focus of the contract is the financing of building work, with the consideration being extended over time. From an economic point of view, the contract leads to the same result as the award of a contract to carry out building works.
   It is also irrelevant with regard to the provisions of the Directive whether the contracting authority will own the building to be constructed or not, or whether it wishes itself to use the building or whether it is considering making it available to the public or to certain third parties.
   The right of use is in this case a simple consequence of the fact that the building plot (and accordingly under German law necessarily also the building to be constructed) is owned by the private builder. The circumstance that the future user of the exhibition halls will be the Kölnmesse GmbH does not alter the fact that the contracting partner of the investment firm is the city of Cologne alone and that successful performance is also owed to it alone.
   As there are no indications in this case which would justify a direct award of the contract without first publishing a notice, the Commission must conclude that, as a result of the conclusion by the city of Cologne as contracting authority of the contract at issue without first publishing a notice, the Federal Republic of Germany has infringed its obligations under the Directive.

      (1)  OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54.


title: Case T-176/15: Action brought on 10 April 2015 — Golparvar/Council

text:
               6.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/22

         Action brought on 10 April 2015 — Golparvar/Council
   (Case T-176/15)
   (2015/C 221/32)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Gholam Hossein Golparvar (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: M. Taher, Solicitor, T. de la Mare and R. Blakeley, Barristers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/236 of 12 February 2015 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran insofar as it applies to the applicant,

               —

               annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/230 of 12 February 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 26712012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran insofar as it applies to the applicant,

               —

               order the Council to pay the applicant the sum of Euro 50  000 in damages, and

               —

               order the Council to pay the applicant’s costs of the application.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment

                           —

                           Due to his complete retirement (which is uncontradicted) the applicant does not satisfy any of the criteria for listing, and the Council’s statement of reasons (which does not dispute his retirement) is factually erroneous, with the result that the council has committed a manifest error of assessment in relisting the applicant.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a breach of the applicant’s procedural rights and rights of defence

                           —

                           The Council breached the applicant’s procedural rights and rights of defence by failing to take into account the observations and evidence submitted by the applicant that clearly establish his complete retirement from work.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a violation of article 266 TFEU

                           —

                           The Council has sought to re-list the applicant on the basis of substantially the same legal methodology and the same evidence as it did by way of the initial listing, which action was annulled by the General Court.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of the principle of res judicata

                           —

                           The re-listing of the applicant is an abuse of process and violates the principles of res judicata and/or legal certainty and/or finality.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of, inter alia, the principle of effectiveness and the right to effective judicial protection

                           —

                           The re-listing of the applicant violates the principle of effectiveness, the right to effective judicial protection, his rights under Article 47 of the EU Charter on Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the ‘Charter’) and/or Article 6 and Article 13 ECHR.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging a violation of the right to good administration

                           —

                           The re-listing of the applicant is a misuse of power and/or violates his rights to good administration, as protected by Article 41 of the Charter.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging a violation of the applicant’s rights under Article 7 and 17 of the Charter and/or Article 8 ECHR and Article 1 of the 1st Protocol to the ECHR and/or the principle of proportionality.

                           —

                           The re-listing of the applicant violates his fundamental rights to respect for his reputation and peaceful enjoyment of his property and the principle of proportionality

               8.

               Eighth plea in law, alleging the unlawfulness of the re-listing of the applicant

                           —

                           The re-listing of the applicant is in any event based on the assumed legality of the restrictive measures imposed on the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping lines, but such IRISL measures are unlawful (for the reasons advanced by IRISL, which reasons are incorporated by reference herein) with the result that the measures taken against the applicant must be annulled.


title: Case T-92/10: Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2014  — Ferriera Valsabbia and Valsabbia Investimenti v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for concrete reinforcing bars in bars or coils — Decision finding an infringement of Article 65 CS after the expiry of the ECSC Treaty on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Fixing of prices and payment terms — Limiting or controlling output or sales — Misuse of powers — Rights of the defence — Single and continuous infringement — Fines — Fixing of the starting amount — Extenuating circumstances — Duration of the administrative procedure)

text:
               2.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 34/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2014 — Ferriera Valsabbia and Valsabbia Investimenti v Commission
   (Case T-92/10) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for concrete reinforcing bars in bars or coils - Decision finding an infringement of Article 65 CS after the expiry of the ECSC Treaty on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Fixing of prices and payment terms - Limiting or controlling output or sales - Misuse of powers - Rights of the defence - Single and continuous infringement - Fines - Fixing of the starting amount - Extenuating circumstances - Duration of the administrative procedure))
   (2015/C 034/29)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicants: Ferriera Valsabbia SpA (Odolo, Italy); and Valsabbia Investimenti SpA (Odolo) (represented by: D. Fosselard, S. Amoruso and L. Vitolo, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by R. Sauer and B. Gencarelli, and subsequently by R. Sauer and R. Striani, acting as Agents, assisted by P. Manzini, lawyer)

      Re:

   Primarily, application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 7492 final of 30 September 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 65 CS (Case COMP/37.956 — Reinforcing bars, readoption), as amended by Commission Decision C(2009) 9912 final of 8 December 2009, in so far as it finds that the applicants infringed Article 65 CS and imposes upon them, jointly and severally, a fine of EUR 10,25 million, or in the alternative application for a reduction in the amount of that fine

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Ferriera Valsabbia SpA and Valsabbia Investimenti SpA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.


title: Case T-201/14: Action brought on 26 March 2014 — The Body Shop International v OHIM — Spa Monopole (SPA WISDOM)

text:
               21.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/19

         Action brought on 26 March 2014 — The Body Shop International v OHIM — Spa Monopole (SPA WISDOM)
   (Case T-201/14)
   2014/C 235/26
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: The Body Shop International plc (Littlehampton, United Kingdom) (represented by: I. Vernimme, H. Viaene, S. Vandewynckel and D. Gillet, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV (Spa, Belgium)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 16 January 2014 given in Case R 1516/2012-4;

               —

               Order the defendant, and, if necessary, the intervener, to pay the costs of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The wordmark ‘SPA WISDOM’ for goods in Class 3 — Community trade mark application No 8 9 00  748

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The Benelux trademarks Nos 3 89  230, 4 99  046, 3 72  307 for the word mark ‘SPA’ and the Benelux trademark No 6 93  395 for the word mark ‘LES THERMES DE SPA’

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) CTMR


title: Case C-88/06: Order of the President of the Court of 13 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/25

         Order of the President of the Court of 13 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland
   (Case C-88/06) (1)

   (2006/C 331/49)

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 108, 6.5.2006.


title: Case T-7/10: Action brought on 7 January 2010 — Diagnostiko kai Therapeftiko Kentro Athinon Ygia AE v OHIM

text:
               27.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/33

         Action brought on 7 January 2010 — Diagnostiko kai Therapeftiko Kentro Athinon ‘Ygia AE’ v OHIM
   (Case T-7/10)
   2010/C 80/56
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Diagnostiko kai Therapeftiko Kentro Athinon ‘Ygia AE’ (Athens, Greece) (represented by: K. Alexiou and S. Foteas, lawyers)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               uphold the application;

               —

               annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM in Case No R190/2009-2;

               —

               register the word sign ‘υγεία’ (hygeia) as a Community trademark indicating the link between the applicant company and the services it provides;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: the word sign ‘υγεία’ for services in Class 44, medical services — application for registration No 712900

      Decision of the examiner: rejection of the application for registration

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: confirmation of the decision of the examiner and rejection of the application for registration

      Pleas in law:

   The application seeks annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM in Case No R 190/2009-2.
   On the basis of the first plea, the applicant maintains that the contested decision wrongly ascribed purely descriptive character to the sign, despite the fact that it has a distinctive function in abstracto.
   On the basis of the second plea, the applicant maintains that the contested decision wrongly rejected the distinctive function of the sign in consequence of the use reserved to it. According to the applicant, even if the descriptive character in abstracto of the word sign is accepted, the acquisition of distinctive function can be founded on use and constitutes a ground for setting aside the refusal to register.


title: Case T-53/02: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 September 2005 — Ricosmos BV v Commission (Customs law — External Community transit operation concerning cigarettes — Fraud — Application for remission of import duties — Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 — Equity clause — Compliance with time-limits — Rights of the defence — Principle of proportionality — Concept of obvious negligence)

text:
               15.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 257/8

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 September 2005 — Ricosmos BV v Commission
   (Case T-53/02) (1)

   (Customs law - External Community transit operation concerning cigarettes - Fraud - Application for remission of import duties - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 - Equity clause - Compliance with time-limits - Rights of the defence - Principle of proportionality - Concept of obvious negligence)
   (2005/C 257/13)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties:

      Applicant(s): Ricosmos BV (Delfzijl (Netherlands)) [represented by initially M. Chatelin, M. Fleers and P. Metzler, then by J. Hertoghs, lawyers,]

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities [represented by initially M. van Beck and R. Tricot, then by M. van Beck and B. Stromsky, Agents,]
   Application for:
   annulment of Commission Decision REM 09/00 of 16 November 2001 declaring that the remission of import duties in favour of the applicant which is the subject-matter of the application submitted by the Kingdom of the Netherlands is not justified
   Operative part of the judgment:
   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the application;

               2)

               Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and those of the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 118, 18.5.2002.


title: Case T-197/14: Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2015 — La Zaragozana v OHIM — Charles Cooper (GREEN’S) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative trade mark GREEN’S — Earlier national word mark AMBAR GREEN — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               6.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/13

         Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2015 — La Zaragozana v OHIM — Charles Cooper (GREEN’S)
   (Case T-197/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative trade mark GREEN’S - Earlier national word mark AMBAR GREEN - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 221/17)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: La Zaragozana, SA (Zaragoza, Spain) (represented by: L. Broschat García, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Charles Cooper Ltd (Leeds, United Kingdom) (represented by: H. Granado Carpenter and L. Polo Carreño, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 January 2014 (Case R 1284/2012-5), relating to opposition proceedings between La Zaragozana, SA and Charles Cooper Ltd.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders La Zaragozana, SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 235, 21.7.2014.


title: Case C-99/13: Order of the President of the Court of 15 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle — Belgique) — Guy Kleynen v Conseil des ministres

text:
               19.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 304/8

         Order of the President of the Court of 15 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle — Belgique) — Guy Kleynen v Conseil des ministres
   (Case C-99/13) (1)

   2013/C 304/16
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 141, 18.5.2013.


title: Case T-409/03: Action brought on 11 December 2003 by Manuel Simões dos Santos against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

text:
6.3.2004               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 59/23
In this regard, she points out that the letter by which she was           Pleas in law and main arguments
notified of the contested decision bears the date of 20 January
2003, that is to say three days before the date on which the
oral test in question actually took place. That error was later           The applicant was an official of the European Parliament when
corrected.                                                                he was transferred to OHIM on 1st October 1998. By the
                                                                          contested decision, OHIM informed the applicant of his
                                                                          number of merit points for the 2002 promotion year. When
In support of her claims, the applicant pleads:                           calculating those points, OHIM limited the applicant’s length
                                                                          of service in the grade to five years and as a result did not take
—     breach of the notice of the competition in question and a           account of the period from 1 January 1991 to 31 October
      defect in the procedure, in that the selection board could          1993.
      not evaluate her on her oral abilities until it had
      interviewed her;
                                                                          In support of his claim for annulment, the applicant submits,
                                                                          firstly, that there was a breach of Article 1 of Decision ADM
—     misuse of powers given that the selection board was                 02-39 rev of OHIM concerning the career and promotion of
      biased;                                                             officials and temporary staff, and of the principles of legality,
                                                                          legal certainty and equal treatment. He submits, furthermore,
—     breach of the principle of equal treatment; and                     that that there was a breach of the Staff Regulations in so far
                                                                          as the principles applicable to transfers between institutions
—     breach of the requirement to state grounds for a decision.          were not adhered to and that the applicant’s legitimate
                                                                          expectations when he accepted the transfer were not upheld.
                                                                          The applicant submits, finally, that there was a breach of the
(1) [2002] ECR-SC I-A-37, II-161.                                         requirement to state the reasons for the disputed decision and
                                                                          of the principle of proportionality.
Action brought on 11 December 2003 by Manuel Simões                       Action brought on 18 December 2003 by Hoechst AG
dos Santos against the Office for Harmonisation in the                      against the Commission of the European Communities
                         Internal Market
                                                                                (Case T-410/03)
                        (Case T-409/03)
                                                                                (2004/C 59/39)
                          (2004/C 59/38)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal            ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Market (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance              Communities on 18 December 2003 by Hoechst AG, Frankfurt
of the European Communities on 11 December 2003 by                        am Main (Germany), represented by M. Klusmann and V. Turn-
Manuel Simões dos Santos, resident in Alicante (Spain),                   er, lawyers.
represented by Antonio Creus Carreras, lawyer.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          —      annul the contested decision in so far as it concerns the
—     annul the implied decision of the Appointing Authority                     applicant;
      rejecting the complaint made by the applicant and the
      decision of 14 February 2003 fixing his initial number of           —      in the alternative, make an appropriate reduction in the
      merit points for the 2002 promotion year in so far as it                   amount of the fine imposed on the applicant in the
      limits his period of service in the European Parliament;                   contested decision;
—     order the defendant to pay all the costs of the case.               —      order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case C-511/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Central Administrativo Norte (Portugal) lodged on 12 November 2012 — Joaquim Fernando Macedo Maia and Others v Fundo de Garantia Salarial, IP

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/32

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Central Administrativo Norte (Portugal) lodged on 12 November 2012 — Joaquim Fernando Macedo Maia and Others v Fundo de Garantia Salarial, IP
   (Case C-511/12)
   2013/C 26/60
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal Central Administrativo Norte

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Joaquim Fernando Macedo Maia, António Pereira Teixeira, António Joaquim Moreira David, Joaquim Albino Moreira David

      Defendant: Fundo de Garantia Salarial, IP

      Question referred

   Is European Union law, in the specific context of a guarantee covering wage claims in the event of the employer’s insolvency, in particular Articles 4 and 10 of Directive 80/987/EEC, (1) to be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law which guarantees only claims falling due in the six months preceding the initiation of insolvency proceedings against the employer, even where the employees have brought an action against their employer before the Tribunal do Trabalho (Labour Court) with a view to obtaining a judicial determination of the amount outstanding and an enforcement order to recover those sums?

      (1)  Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (OJ 1980 L 283, p. 23).


title: Case T-84/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 13 October 2008 — Azivo Algemeen Ziekenfonds De Volharding v Commission

text:
               20.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 327/41

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 13 October 2008 — Azivo Algemeen Ziekenfonds De Volharding v Commission
   (Case T-84/06) (1)

   (2008/C 327/73)

      Language of the case: Dutch

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

      (1)  OJ C 108, 6.5.2006.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 September 2003 in Case C-77/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Sigmaringen): Erika Steinicke v Bundesanstalt für Arbeit (Social policy — Equal treatment for men and women — Scheme of part-time work for older employees — Directive 76/207/EEC — Indirect discrimination — Objective justification)

text:
C 275/18                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                               15.11.2003
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                          (First Chamber)
                                                                                of 11 September 2003
                      of 25 September 2003                                   in Case C-77/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                             the Verwaltungsgericht Sigmaringen): Erika Steinicke v
                                                                                Bundesanstalt für Arbeit (1)
in Case C-74/02: Commission of the European Communi-
            ties v Federal Republic of Germany (1)                           (Social policy — Equal treatment for men and women —
                                                                             Scheme of part-time work for older employees — Directive
                                                                             76/207/EEC — Indirect discrimination — Objective justifi-
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive                                                 cation)
1999/94/EC — Failure to implement within the prescribed
                               period)
                                                                                (2003/C 275/31)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                         (2003/C 275/30)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   (Language of the case: German)                                               in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       In Case C-77/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
                   in the European Court Reports)                            by the Verwaltungsgericht Sigmaringen (Germany) for a
                                                                             preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
                                                                             court between Erika Steinicke and Bundesanstalt für Arbeit, on
                                                                             the interpretation of Article 141 EC and of Council Directives
                                                                             75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the approximation of
In Case C-74/02, Commission of the European Communities                      the laws of the Member States relating to the application of
(Agent: G. zur Hausen) v Federal Republic of Germany (Agents:                the principles of equal pay for men and women (OJ 1975
W.-D. Plessing and M. Lumma): Application for a declaration                  L 45, p. 19), 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the
that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the                   implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men
measures necessary to comply with Directive 1999/94/EC of                    and women as regards access to employment, vocational
the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December                    training and promotion and working conditions (OJ 1975
1999 relating to the availability of consumer information on                 L 39, p. 40) and 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning
fuel economy and CO2 emissions in respect of the marketing                   the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by
of new passenger cars (OJ 2000 L 12, p. 16), the Federal                     UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC (OJ 1998 L 14, p. 9), the Court
Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations                     (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of
under that directive, the Court (First Chamber), composed of:                the Chamber, R. Schintgen, V. Skouris, F. Macken (Rapporteur)
M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, P. Jann                  and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate
and A. Rosas, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass,                 General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 Sep-
Registrar, has given a judgment on 25 September 2003, in                     tember 2003, in which it has ruled:
which it:
                                                                             Articles 2(1) and 5(1) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of
                                                                             9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal
1.   Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period         treatment for men and women as regards access to employment,
     the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to        vocational training and promotion, and working conditions must be
     comply with Directive 1999/94/EC of the European Parliament             interpreted as precluding a provision, such as point 2 of the first
     and of the Council of 13 December 1999 relating to the                  sentence of Paragraph 72(b)(1) of the Bundesbeamtengesetz (German
     availability of consumer information on fuel economy and CO 2           Law on federal public servants), in the version of 31 March 1999 in
     emissions in respect of the marketing of new passenger cars, the        force until 30 June 2000, by virtue of which part-time work for older
     Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations        employees may be authorised for public servants only if they have
     under that directive;                                                   worked full-time for a total of at least three of the five years preceding
                                                                             such part-time work, when significantly more women than men work
                                                                             part-time and are consequently excluded by that provision from the
2.   Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.                scheme of part-time work for older employees, unless such provision
                                                                             is justified by objective factors unrelated to any discrimination on
                                                                             grounds of sex.
(1) OJ C 97 of 20.4.2002.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 118 of 18.5.2002.


title: Case C-433/12 P: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 March 2013 — Luigi Marcuccio v Court of Justice of the European Union (Appeal — Action to establish non-contractual liability — Refusal by the Court Registry to act on letters addressed by the appellant to the First Advocate General of the Court — Article 256(2) TFEU — Request to initiate a review procedure in respect of certain decisions terminating proceedings delivered by the General Court in certain cases on appeal)

text:
               4.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/5

         Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 March 2013 — Luigi Marcuccio v Court of Justice of the European Union
   (Case C-433/12 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Action to establish non-contractual liability - Refusal by the Court Registry to act on letters addressed by the appellant to the First Advocate General of the Court - Article 256(2) TFEU - Request to initiate a review procedure in respect of certain decisions terminating proceedings delivered by the General Court in certain cases on appeal)
   2013/C 129/10
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Court of Justice of the European Union

      Re:

   Appeal against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 3 July 2012 in Case T-27/12 Marcuccio v Court of Justice, by which that court dismissed an action seeking damages for the harm allegedly suffered by the appellant as a result of the Registry’s refusal to act on documents addressed by the appellant to the First Advocate General of the Court of Justice requesting that a review procedure be initiated in respect of decisions terminating proceedings delivered by the General Court in Cases T-278/07 P, T-114/08 P, T-32/09 P and T-166/09 P.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Luigi Marcuccio is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 355, 17.11.2012.


title: Case T-450/08: Action brought on 6 October 2008 — Coverpla v OHIM — Heinz-Glas (design)

text:
               10.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/34

         Action brought on 6 October 2008 — Coverpla v OHIM — Heinz-Glas (design)
   (Case T-450/08)
   (2009/C 6/69)
   Language in which the application was lodged: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Coverpla (Nice, France) (represented by: P. Greffe and M. Chaminade, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Heinz-Glas GmbH (Kleintettau, Germany)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of 7 July 2008 (Case R 1411/2007-3) in so far as it dismissed the applicant's appeal and declared the Community design ‘Tour’ No 29178-0002 invalid;

               —

               declare Community design ‘Tour’ No 29178-0002 in class 09-01 valid.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Community design No 29178/0002 for ‘phials’

      Proprietor of the Community design: The applicant

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: Heinz-Glas GmbH

      Trade mark right of applicant for the declaration: An unregistered phial named ‘Empire’ (reference number F 3990)

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declaration of invalidity of the Community design

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: The Community design does have the requisite novelty; the documents which Heinz-Glas GmbH submitted to show that it disclosed to the public a prior design of an identical phial have no evidential value.


10.1.2004             EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 7/43
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                      Removal from the register of Case T-131/02 (1)
—     annul the implied decision which the appointing auth-                                        (2004/C 7/80)
      ority might be deemed to have taken, rejecting the
      complaint made by the applicant on 29 October 2002,
      by which it requested the annulment of a decision dated                               (Language of the Case: English)
      6 August 2002, refusing to grant a request for assistance
      and compensation made on 24 January 2002 on the basis
      of Article 24 and Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations;           By order of 2 October 2003 the President of the Fifth Chamber
                                                                          of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
—     so far as necessary also annul that decision of 6 August            ordered the removal from the register of Case T-131/02:
      2002, against which the complaint of 29 October 2002                Travelex Global and Financial Services Limited and Interpay-
      was made;                                                           ment Services Limited v Commission of the European Com-
                                                                          munities.
—     order the defendant to pay compensation of EUR 50 000,
      without prejudice to subsequent increase, reduction or
      alteration;                                                         (1) OJ C 169 of 13.07.2002.
—     order the defendant to pay the costs and the expenses
      necessarily incurred for the purposes of the proceedings,
      inter alia, accommodation, travel and subsistence
      expenses, and lawyers fees.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-159/02 (1)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (2004/C 7/81)
The applicant made a request for assistance to the Commission
seeking the opening of an investigation and payment of                                      (Language of the Case: English)
compensation following psychological harassment to which
he was allegedly subjected in Eurostat.
                                                                          By order of 15 September 2003 the President of the Fifth
In support of his application, the applicant alleges a manifest           Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
error of assessment in the decision rejecting his request, a              Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
breach of the principle of legitimate expectations and of the             T-159/02: Masdar (U.K.) Ltd v Commission of the European
duty to have regard for the welfare of officials and, finally, a          Communities.
breach of the principle of equal treatment and the right to
reasonable career expectations.                                           (1) OJ C 202 of 24.08.2002.
        Removal from the register of Case T-68/02 (1)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-162/03 (1)
                         (2004/C 7/79)
                                                                                (2004/C 7/82)
                  (Language of the Case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: French)
By order of 15 September 2003 the President of the Fifth
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case                 By order of 30 September 2003 the President of the Fourth
T-68/02: Masdar (U.K.) Ltd v Commission of the European                   Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities.                                                              Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                          T-162/03: Pascal Millot v Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities.
(1) OJ C 131 of 1.06.2002.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 171 of 19.07.2003.


title: Case F-26/10: Action brought on 6 May 2010 — Costa v Commission

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/58

         Action brought on 6 May 2010 — Costa v Commission
   (Case F-26/10)
   2010/C 179/100
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Antonino Costa (Thionville, France) (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision to exclude the applicant from the 2009 promotion exercise and order that the defendant pay to him a sum of compensation for non-material damage.

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the appointing authority, known to the applicant on 22 November 2009, to exclude him from the 2009 promotion exercise;

               —

               so far as necessary, annul the decision of 27 January 2010 rejecting the complaint;

               —

               consequently, oblige the defendant to recommence properly the 2009 promotion exercise, in which the applicant should be included;

               —

               order the defendant to pay a sum of EUR 25 000 in compensation for non-material damage;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) of 1 June 1995 in Case C-467/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof): Hauptzollamt München-West v. Analog Devices GmbH (Common Customs Tariff - Suspension of duties - analog-to-digital converters for the calculation of the average value of variable wave-forms)

text:
22 . 7. 95             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 189/3
Regulation ( EEC ) No 3618/86 of 24 November 1986 ,                 No 3734/87 of 8 December 1987, (EEC) No 1779/88 of
amending Regulation ( EEC ) No 3331/85 amending                     9 June 1988, (EEC) No 3696/88 of 18 November 1988,
Regulation ( EEC ) No 950/68 on the Common Customs                  (EEC) No 1656/89 of29 May 1989 and (EEC) No 3393/89
Tariff ( 2 ), the Court (Third Chamber ), composed of: C.           of 16 October 1989, temporarily suspending the
Gulmann ( Rapporteur ), President of the Chamber, J. C.             autonomous Common Customs Tariff duty on certain
Moitinho de Almeida and J. -P. Puissochet, Judges; G.               industrial products, must be intepreted as meaning that the
Cosmas, Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy                   description of the product ex tariff heading 85.21 D II and
Registrar, gave a judgment on 1 June 1995 , the operative           subsequently ex 8542 1 1 99, defined as an analog-to-digital
part of which is as follows :                                       converter contained in a housing the exterior dimensions of
                                                                    which do not exceed 18 x 10 mm, also covers converters
the Common Customs Tariff as amended by Council                     contained in circular housings the diameter of which does
Regulation (EEC) No 3618/86 of 24 November 1986,                    not exceed 1 0 mm .
amending Regulation (EEC) No 3331 /85 amending
Regulation (EEC) No 950/68 on the Common Customs                     !) OJ No C 43 , 12 . 2 . 1994 .
Tariff, must be interpreted to the effect that a sterile powder      2) OJ No L 362 , 20 . 12 . 1986 , p . 1 .
made up of amino acids mixed in precise proportions and              3) OJ  No L 177,  1 . 7 . 1987, p . 1 .
used for the preparation of infusion solutions falls under           4) OJ  No L 358 , 19 . 12 . 1987, p . 1 .
                                                                     5) OJ  No L 164 , 30 . 6 . 1988 , p . 1 .
heading 30.03 (subheading 30.03 A II (b)).                           6) OJ  No L 329 , 1 . 12 . 1988 , p . 1 .
                                                                     7) OJ  No L 167,  16 . 6 . 1989 , p . 1 .
H OJ No C 43 , 12 . 2 . 1994 .                                       8) OJ  No L 332 , 16 . 11 . 1989 , p . 1 .
(2 ) OJ No L 345 , 8 . 12 . 1986, p. 1 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
                        (Third Chamber)
                                                                                of 1 June 1995
                          of 1 June 1995
                                                                        in Case C-42/94 : Heidemij Advies BV v. European
in Case C-467/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                       Parliament (M
the Bundesfinanzhof): Hauptzollamt Munchen-West v.
                    Analog Devices GmbH (*)                         (Article 181 of the EC Treaty — Arbitration clause —
                                                                    Extension of the European Parliament in Brussels —
(Common Customs Tariff — Suspension of duties —                     Unilateral termination by the European Parliament of the
analog-to-digital converters for the calculation of the             contract for services — Claim for damages by the
              average value of variable wave-forms)                                                contractor)
                           ( 95/C 189/05
                                                                                ( 95/C 189/06 )
                 (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                             published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-467/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                    In Case C-42/94 : Heidemij Advies BV ( Lawyer: Vera Van
of the EC Treaty by the Bundesfinanzhof ( Federal Finance
Court) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending          Houtte ) v. European Parliament (Agent: François Vainker )
before that court between Hauptzollamt Miinchen-West                — application for damages for unilateral termination of a
                                                                    contract for services — the Court (Third Chamber ),
and Analog Devices GmbH on the interpretation of Council
Regulations ( EEC ) No 3841 /86 of 8 December 1986 ( 2),            composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, J. C.
( EEC ) No 1828/87 of 15 June 1987 ( 3 ), ( EEC ) No 3734/87        Moitinho de Almeida and J. -P. Puissochet ( Rapporteur ),
of 8 December 1987 (4 ), ( EEC ) No 1779/88 of 9 June               Judges; P. Léger, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
1988 ( 5), ( EEC ) No 3696/88 of 18 November 1988 ( 6 ),            given a judgment on 1 June 1995 , in which it:
( EEC ) No 1656/89 of 29 May 1989 ( 7) and ( EEC )
No 3393/89 of 16 October 1989 ( 8 ), temporarily                    1 , orders the defendant to pay the applicant the sum of
suspending the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duty                     ECU 20 883,33 together with default interest at the rate
on certain industrial products — the Court (Third                        of 8% as from 1 5 September 1 993;
Chamber ), composed of: C. Gulman (President of
Chamber ), J. C. Moitinho de Almeida and J. -P. Puissochet          2 , dismisses the remainder of the application;
( Rapporteur ), Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate-General; R.
Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 1 June 1 995 , in         3 , orders the defendant to pay the costs.
which it rules :
                                                                    0 ) OJ No C 90 , 26 . 3 . 1994 .
Council Regulations (EEC) No 3841 /86 of 8 December
1986, (EEC) No 1828/87 of 15 June 1987, (EEC)


title: Case T-331/06: Action brought on 24 November 2006 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v EEA

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/77

         Action brought on 24 November 2006 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v EEA
   (Case T-331/06)
   (2006/C 326/157)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and N. Keramidas, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Environment Agency
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the EEA to evaluate the applicant's bid as not successful and award the contract to the successful contractor;

               —

               order the EEA to pay the applicant's legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application, even if the current application is rejected.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of its claims the applicant argues that in the decision taken in the framework of the tendering procedure EEA/IDS/06/002 for the ‘Provision of IT consultancy services’ (OJ 2006 S 118-125101) communicated to the applicant by letter dated 14 September 2006 the European Environmental Agency (‘EEA’) failed to comply with its obligations foreseen in the Implementing rules and Directive 2004/18/EC as well as the principle of transparency by not disclosing to the participants in advance the weighting of the sub-criteria which were subsequently applied during the selection procedure.
   Furthermore, the applicant claims that the EEA committed several manifest errors of assessment which resulted in the rejection of its bid.
   The applicant requests that the decision of the EEA to reject its bid and award the contract to three other participants be annulled and that the defendant is ordered by the Court to pay all legal expenses related to the present proceedings even if the application is rejected.


title: Case C-142/14 P: Appeal brought on 24 March 2014 by The Sunrider Corporation against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 23 January 2014 in Case T-221/12: The Sunrider Corporation v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               7.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/11

         Appeal brought on 24 March 2014 by The Sunrider Corporation against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 23 January 2014 in Case T-221/12: The Sunrider Corporation v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-142/14 P)
   2014/C 212/12
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: The Sunrider Corporation (represented by: N. Dontas, K. Markakis, Δικηγόροι)

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

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the present appeal admissible;

               —

               set aside partially the judgment under appeal issued by the General Court of the European Union (Third Chamber) on 23 January 2014 in Case T-221/12 insofar as it rejected the 2nd Plea In Law (Infringement of Article 75 second sentence and Article 76(1) second sentence of the CTM Regulation 207/2009 (1)) and the 3rd Plea in Law (Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of the CTM Regulation 207/2009) of the Appellant's Action dated 25 May 2012;

               —

               refer the case back to the General Court for re-examination of the case as regards the 2nd and 3rd Pleas In Law of the Appellant's Action dated 25 May 2012 and for a fresh application of Article 8(1)(b) of the CTM Regulation 207/2009;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs incurred by the appellant in the course of the present appeal proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Union;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs incurred by the appellant in the course of the proceedings at first instance before the General Court; and

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs necessarily incurred by the appellant in the course of the underlying administrative proceedings before the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM in case R2401/2010-4.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL: The General Court infringed Article 1(2) of Directive 2001/83/EC (2) and Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 (3) regarding the definition and scope of the concept ‘medical’. The General Court overstepped its authority by creating new legal definitions, namely, products ‘for medical use in the broad sense of the term’, and disregarded the relevant legal definitions that have been enacted by the EU legislature.
   SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL: The General Court breached the right of the Appellant to be heard, due to its unjustified reliance upon a ‘well-known fact’ that was crucial to the outcome of the dispute. The General Court breached the right of the Appellant to be heard by finding, in paragraph 77 of the Judgment Under Appeal that a certain fact falls within the concept ‘well-known fact’, without supporting its finding by reference to any piece of evidence included in the case file and without any justification as to why that fact was lawfully qualified as ‘well-known’.
   THIRD GROUND OF APPEAL: The General Court infringed Article 8(1)(b) of the CTM Regulation 207/2009 since it (a) carried out a limited examination and assessment as regards the similarity of herbal nutritional supplements to the goods literally mentioned in the Class Heading of Class 32 only, failing to examine in concreto whether there is any similarity of herbal nutritional supplements to the remaining goods falling within the Goods Included In Class 32, (b) distorted the content of the Contested Decision and substituted the finding and reasoning of the BOA as regards the ‘relevant public’ and (c) erred in law in the examination and assessment of the individual factors/criteria of similarity of the goods in question, in particular as regards (i) the interpretation and application of the term ‘medical’ as the main purpose of herbal nutritional supplements, (ii) the legal requirement that a ‘large part’ of manufacturers of the goods in question should be the same, (iii) the legal criterion/standard used in the comparison of the products, (iv) the dismissal of the 2nd Plea In Law of the Action as ineffective, (v) the failure to examine the factor of ‘substitutability’ and (vi) the failure to examine the nature of the goods under comparison.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark

      OJ L 78, p. 1

      (2)  Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use

      OJ L 311, p. 67

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

      OJ L 136, p. 1


               16.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 11/1

         2010/C 11/01
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 312, 19.12.2009

      Past publications

      OJ C 297, 5.12.2009

      OJ C 282, 21.11.2009

      OJ C 267, 7.11.2009

      OJ C 256, 24.10.2009

      OJ C 244, 10.10.2009

      OJ C 233, 26.9.2009

   These texts are available on:
   EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fifth Chamber) of 14 July 1998 in Case T-219/97: Anita Brems v. Council of the European Union (Officials - Action for annulment - Thermal cure - Article 59 of the Staff Regulations - Sick leave - Special leave)

text:
26.9.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 299/35
represented by Annetje-Theckla Ottow, of the Amsterdam                    ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                                        of 8 July 1998
Chambers of Claude Medernach, 8Ð10, rue Mathias
Hardt, against the Commission of the European                        in Joined Cases T-85/94 (92) and T-85/94 (122) (92):
Communities (Agents: Hendrik Van Lier, Marc van der                  EugeÂnio Branco Lda v. Commission of the European
Woude and Rita Wezembeek-Geuke) Ð application for                                           Communities (1)
annulment of the Commission's decision of 8 April 1997
                                                                                (Taxation of costs)
addressed to the Kingdom of the Netherlands and
concerning an application for repayment of import duties                                     (98/C 299/62)
Ð the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed
of: V. Tiili, President, C. P. BrieÈt, and A. Potocki, Judges;
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 16 July 1998 in which it:
                                                                     In Cases T-85/94 (92) and T-85/94 (122) (92) EugeÂnio
1. annuls the Commission's decision of 8 April 1997                  Branco Lda, established in Lisbon, represented by Bolota
    addressed to the Kingdom of the Netherlands and                  Belchior of the Vila Nova de Gaia Bar, with an address for
    concerning an application for repayment of import                service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jacques
    duties;                                                          Schroeder, 6, rue Heine, against the Commission of the
                                                                     European Communities (Agents: Francisco de Sousa
                                                                     Fialho and Knut Simonsson) Ð application for costs to be
2. orders the Commission to pay the costs.                           taxed following the Court's judgments in Branco v.
                                                                     Commission (T-85/94 [1995] ECR II-45) and Commission
(1) OJ C 252, 16.8.1997.                                             v. Branco (T-85/94 (122) [1995] ECR II-2993) Ð the
                                                                     Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: V.
                                                                     Tiili, President, and C. P. BrieÈt and A. Potocki, Judges; H.
                                                                     Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 8 July 1998 in
                                                                     which it:
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            1. joins Cases T-85/94 (92) and T-85/94 (122) (92) for
                       (Fifth Chamber)                                    the purpose of this order;
                        of 14 July 1998
     in Case T-219/97: Anita Brems v. Council of the                 2. fixes at PTE 3 500 000, plus VAT if appropriate, the
                      European Union (1)                                  total amount of costs recoverable in Cases T-85/94
                                                                          and T-85/94 (122).
(Officials Ð Action for annulment Ð Thermal cure Ð
Article 59 of the Staff Regulations Ð Sick leave Ð Special
                                                                     (1) OJ C 120, 30.4.1994.
                             leave)
                         (98/C 299/61)
                (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-219/97: Anita Brems, an official of the Council                 ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
of the European Union, represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis,                                     of 15 July 1998
Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at Fiduciaire              in Case T-155/95: LPN and GEOTA v. Commission of the
Myson SA  Á RL, 30, rue de Cessange, against the Council of                            European Communities (1)
the European Union (Agents: TheÂreÁse Blanchet and Martin                                   (Inadmissibility)
Bauer) Ð application for the annulment of decisions of
the Council refusing to grant to the applicant all her sick                                  (98/C 299/63)
leave from 24 May to 8 June 1996 Ð the Court of First
Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of J. Azizi, President,
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
R. García-Valdecasas and M. Jaeger, Judges; J. Palacio
GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a
judgment on 14 July 1998, in which it:                               In Case T-155/95, LPN, Liga para ProteccËaÄo da Natureza
                                                                     and GEOTA, Grupo de Estudos do Ordenamento do Ter-
1. dismisses the application;                                        ritório e do Ambiente, both established in Lisbon,
                                                                     represented by Agostinho Pereira de Miranda, Rui Amen-
                                                                     doeira, JoseÂ Cunhal Sendim and Paula Gomes Freire, of
2. orders the parties to bear their own costs.                       the Lisbon Bar, with chambers at Avenida António
                                                                     Augusto Aguiar, 27, 2.o, Dt.o, Lisbon, against the
(1) OJ C 318, 18.10.1997.                                            Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
                                                                     António Caeiro and Günter Wilms), supported by the
                                                                     Portuguese Republic (Agents: Luís Fernandes and Angelo


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 March 2005 in Case C-491/03 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hessischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof: Ottmar Hermann v Stadt Frankfurt am Main (Indirect tax — Directive 92/12/EEC — Local tax on the supply of alcoholic beverages for immediate consumption on the premises)

text:
               14.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 115/6

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 10 March 2005
   in Case C-491/03 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hessischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof: Ottmar Hermann v Stadt Frankfurt am Main (1)

   (Indirect tax - Directive 92/12/EEC - Local tax on the supply of alcoholic beverages for immediate consumption on the premises)
   (2005/C 115/12)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-491/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Hessischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Germany), made by decision of 1 October 2003, received at the Court on 20 November 2003, in the proceedings pending before that court between Ottmar Hermann (in his capacity as liquidator of Volkswirt Weinschänken GmbH) and Stadt Frankfurt am Main — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts (Rapporteur), N. Colneric, K. Schiemann and E. Juhász, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General, H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 10 March 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               A tax which is levied, in a catering context, on the supply for consideration of alcoholic beverages for immediate consumption on the premises must be considered to be a tax on the supply of services relating to products subject to excise duty which cannot be characterised as a turnover tax for the purposes of the second subparagraph of Article 3(3) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products.

               2.

               The ‘same proviso’ to which taxes falling within the scope of the second subparagraph of Article 3(3) of Directive 92/12 are subject refers only to the condition set out in the first subparagraph of that paragraph, namely that such ‘taxes do not give rise to border-crossing formalities in trade between Member States’.

      (1)  OJ C 47 of 21.02.2004.


28.3.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                C 94/17
      Removal from the register of Case C-314/97 (1)                     Removal from the register of Case C-267/96 (1)
                         (98/C 94/41)                                                       (98/C 94/44)
By order of 1 December 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the                 By order of 19 December 1997, the President of the Court
removal from the register of Case C-314/97 (Reference for          of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien):             removal from the register of Case C-267/96: Republic of
Verein zur Förderung des freien Wettbewerbs im Medien-             France, supported by the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg v.
wesen v. Bauer Spezialzeitschriften Verlag KG.                     European Parliament.
(1) OJ C 331, 1.11.1997.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 269, 14.9.1996.
      Removal from the register of Case C-146/97 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-58/97 (1)
                         (98/C 94/42)
                                                                                (98/C 94/45)
By order of 4 December 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the                 By order of 19 December 1997, the President of the Court
removal from the register of Case C-146/97: Commission             of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic.                  removal from the register of Case C-58/97: Commission of
                                                                   the European Communities v. Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 199, 28.6.1997.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 108, 5.4.1997.
      Removal from the register of Case C-100/97 (1)
                         (98/C 94/43)                                     Removal from the register of Case C-68/97 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 94/46)
By order of 11 December 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-100/97: Commission
of the European Communities v. Grand Duchy of                      By order of 20 January 1998, the President of the Court
Luxembourg.                                                        of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
                                                                   removal from the register of Case C-68/97: Commission of
(1) OJ C 131, 26.4.1997.                                           the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 108, 5.4.1997.


title: Case C-493/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzgericht — Außenstelle Linz (Austria) lodged on 6 November 2014  — Dilly’s Wellnesshotel GmbH

text:
               9.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/21

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzgericht — Außenstelle Linz (Austria) lodged on 6 November 2014 — Dilly’s Wellnesshotel GmbH
   (Case C-493/14)
   (2015/C 046/26)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzgericht — Außenstelle Linz

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Dilly’s Wellnesshotel GmbH

      Respondent authority: Finanzamt Linz

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is EU law infringed if an aid scheme makes use of the special procedure under Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 (‘GBER’) (1) in accordance with Article 25 in order to be exempt from the obligation to notify under Article 108(3) TFEU, but does not comply with various obligations of Chapter I of the GBER and, moreover, does not make any reference to the GBER?

               2.

               Is EU law infringed if an aid scheme is based on the special procedure of the GBER which is applicable to environmental aid in accordance with Article 25 but the requirements laid down in Chapter II — namely the promotion of environmental protection measures and energy-saving measures under Article 17(1) GBER — are not satisfied?

               3.

               Does EU law preclude national rules which contain no temporal restriction and also no reference to the period stated in the exemption notice, with the result that the limitation of the energy tax refund to 10 years, required in Article 25(3) GBER, is to be inferred only from the exemption notice?

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 of 6 August 2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty (General block exemption Regulation), OJ 2008 L 214, p. 3.


C 184/56               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                     2.8.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                    Removal from the register of Case T-377/02 (1)
The applicants in this case seek the annulment of the Commis-                                       (2003/C 184/117)
sion's decision changing the method of calculating annual
travel expenses to Greece.                                                                     (Language of the case: French)
The pleas in law and main arguments put forward by the
applicants in support of their application are similar to those             By order of 15 May 2003 the President of the Second
of the applicants in Cases T-221/02 (1) and T-44/03 (2).                    Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                            Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                            T-377/02: ‘P’ v Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 247, 12.10.02, p. 17.
(2) OJ C 101, 26.04.03, p. 40.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 44 of 22.02.2003.
        Removal from the register of Case T-22/00 (1)
                         (2003/C 184/116)                                           Removal from the register of Case T-92/03 (1)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                                                 (2003/C 184/118)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
By order of 23 May 2003 the President of the Fourth
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case                   By order of 12 May 2003 the President of the Second
T-22/00: Enrico Sabbioni v Commission of the European                       Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities.                                                                Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                            T-92/03: Luis Escobar Guerrero v Commission of the European
                                                                            Communities.
(1) OJ C 122 of 29.04.2000.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 112 of 10.05.2003.


title: Case C-458/07: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic (Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations — Telecommunications — Directive 2002/22/EC — Universal service — Obligation to make available to end-users a comprehensive directory and telephone directory enquiry service)

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/8

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-458/07) (1)

   (Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations - Telecommunications - Directive 2002/22/EC - Universal service - Obligation to make available to end-users a comprehensive directory and telephone directory enquiry service)
   2009/C 113/15
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Braun and P. Guerra e Andrade, Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, Agent, and L. Morais, Advogado)

      Re:

   Failure by Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 5(1) and (2) and Article 25(1) and (3) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51) — Failure to include certain subscribers in the universal directory

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by not guaranteeing, in practice, the making available to all end-users of at least one comprehensive directory and at least one comprehensive telephone directory enquiry service in accordance with the provisions of Article 5(1) and (2) and Article 25(1) and (3) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive), the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 297, 8.12.2007.


title: Case T-383/15: Order of the General Court of 20 April 2016 — Dima v EUIPO (Shape of an open cubic box) (EU trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark — Form of an open cubic box — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               20.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 222/21

         Order of the General Court of 20 April 2016 — Dima v EUIPO (Shape of an open cubic box)
   (Case T-383/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark - Form of an open cubic box - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
   (2016/C 222/26)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Dima Verwaltungs GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: T. Kerkhoff, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: A. Schikfo, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 March 2015 (Case R 2568/2014-5) concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of an open cubic box as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Dima Verwaltungs GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 328, 5.10.2015.