title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 5 April 1995 in Case C-103/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal des Affaires de Sécurité Sociale, Nanterre (France)): Zoulika Krid v. Caisse Nationale d'Assurance Vieillesse des Travailleurs Salariés (CNAVTS) (EEC-Algeria Cooperation Agreement - Article 39 (1) - Direct effect - Principle of non-discrimination - Scope - Widow of Algerian worker who had been employed in a Member State - Supplementary allowance from the National Solidarity Fund)

text:
 No C 137/2              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       3 . 6 . 95
  89/661 /EEC of 31 May 1989 concerning aid provided by                  1 . declares that, by failing to abolish and recover within the
 the Italian Government to Alfa Romeo, an undertaking in                      prescribed period the aid paid to the ENI-Lanerossi
 the motor vehicle sector (2 ) — the Court, composed of G. C.                 Group (now SNAM SpA) in the amount of Lit 260,4
 Rodriguez Iglesias, President, F. A. Schockweiler                            thousand million, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil
  ( Rapporteur) ( President of Chamber ), G. F. Mancini, J. C.                its obligations under Commission Decision 89/43/EEC
 Moitinho de Almeida, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward and                       of 26 July 1988 on aids granted by the Italian
J. -P. Puissochet, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; L.                 Government to ENI-Lanerossi;
 Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
 judgment on 4 April 1995 , in which it:
                                                                        2 . dismisses the remainder of the application;
  1 . declares that, by failing to abolish and recover within the
       prescribed period the aid improperly paid to the Alfa            3 . orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
       Romeo Group in the amount of Lit 615,1 thousand
       million plus default interest calculated from                    (') OJ No C 222 , 18 . 8 . 1993 .
       30 September 1989 to the date of payment of the                  ( 2 ) OJ No L 16 , 20 . 1 . 1989 , p . 52 .
       amount in question, the Italian Republic has failed to
       fulfil its obligations under Commission Decision
       89/661 /EEC of 31 May 1989 concerning aid provided
       by the Italian Government to Alfa Romeo, an
       undertaking in the motor vehicle sector;
 2 . dismisses the remainder of the application;                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 5 April 1995
 3 . orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                      in Case C-103/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                        the Tribunal des Affaires de Sécurité Sociale, Nanterre
 (') OJ No C 231 , 27 . 8 . 1993 .                                      (France)): Zoulika Krid v. Caisse Nationale d'Assurance
 ( 2 ) OJ No L 394, 30 . 12 . 1989 , p . 9 .                                   Vieillesse des Travailleurs Salariés ( CNAVTS ) i})
                                                                        (EEC-Algeria Cooperation Agreement — Article 39 (1) —
                                                                        Direct effect — Principle ofnon-discrimination — Scope —
                                                                         Widow of Algerian worker who had been employed in a
                                                                        Member State — Supplementary allowance from the
                                                                                National Solidarity Fund)
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( 95/C 137/04 )
                          of 4 April 1995
in Case C-350/93 : Commission of the European
               Communities v. Italian Republic ( J )                                     (Language of the case: French)
 (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — State
aid incompatible with the common market — Recovery —                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                     Public holding company)                                       published in the European Court Reports)
                           ( 95/C 137/03 )
                                                                       In Case C-103/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                  (Language of the case: Italian)                      of the EC Treaty from the Tribunal des Affaires de Securite
                                                                       Sociale ( Social Security Court), Nanterre ( France ) for a
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be           preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
                                                                       court      between    Zoulika       Krid     and Caisse Nationale
           published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                       d'Assurance Vieillesse des Travailleurs Salaries ( CNAVTS )
                                                                       — on the interpretation of Article 39 ( 1 ) of the Cooperation
In Case C-350/93 : Commission of the European                          Agreement between the European Economic Community
Communities (Agents : Antonino Abate and Vittorio di                   and the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria, signed in
Bucci ) v. Italian Republic (Agent: Luigi Ferrari Bravo ) —            Algiers on 26 April 1976 and approved on behalf of the
application for a declaration that, by failing to abolish and          Community by Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2210/78 of
recover within the prescribed period the aid paid to the               26 September 1978 (2 ) — the Court, composed of G. C.
ENI-Lanerossi Group ( now SNAM SpA ) in the amount of                  Rodriguez Iglesias, President, F. A. Schockweiler
Lit 260,4 thousand million, the Italian Republic has failed to         ( Rapporteur ) and C. Gulmann ( Presidents of Chambers ),
fulfil its obligations under Commission Decision 89/43/EEC             G. F. Mancini, C. N. Kakouris, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,
of 26 July 1988 on aids granted by the Italian Government              J. L Murray, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch
to ENI-Lanerossi ( 2 ) — the Court, composed of G. C.                  and L. Sevon, Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate-General; L.
Rodriguez Iglesias, President, F. A. Schockweiler                      Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
( Rapporteur ) ( President of Chamber ), G. F. Mancini, J. C.          judgment on 5 April 1995 , in which it:
Moitinho de Almeida , J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward and
J.-P. Puissochet, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; L.
Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a                 Article 39 (1 ) of the Cooperation Agreement between the
judgment on 4 April 1995 , in which it:                                European Economic Community and the People 's
 ---pagebreak--- 3 . 6 . 95              EN 1                 Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 137/3
Democratic Republic of Algeria, signed in Algiers on                    1 . dismisses the appeals;
26 April 1976 and approved on behalfofthe Community by
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2210/78 of 26 September
1978, must be interpreted as precluding a Member State                  2 . orders Radio Telefis Eireann (RTE) and Independent
from refusing to grant a benefit such as the supplementary                  Television Publications Ltd (ITP) to pay the costs of the
allowance from the FNS, which is provided for under its                     appeals lodged by them;
legislation for its own nationals who are resident in that
State, to the widow ofan Algerian worker, who is resident in
that Member State and is the recipient of a survivor 's                 3 . orders Intellectual Property Owners Inc. (IPO) to bear
pension there, on the ground that she is of Algerian                        its own costs and to pay those incurred by the
                                                                            Commission due to its intervention.
nationality.
                                                                        (M OJ No C 307, 27. 11 . 1991 .
(M OJ No C 120 , 30 . 4 . 1994 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 263 , 27 . 9 . 1978 , p . 1 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Second Chamber )
                                                                                of 6 April 1995
                                                                        in Case C-299/93 : Ernst Bauer v. Commission of the
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                European Communities (*)
                          of 6 April 1996
                                                                        (Arbitration clause — Residential tenancy agreement —
in Joined Cases C-241/91 P and C-242/91 P: Radio Telefis                Determination of the rent — Termination — Restitution of
Eireann ( RTE ) and Independent Television Publications Ltd                                         damage)
    ( ITP) v. Commission of the European Communities C )
                                                                                95/C 137/06
 (Competition — Abuse of a dominant position —
                                Copyright)
                             ( 95/C 137/05 )                                           (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                 (Language of the case: English)                                 published in the European Court Reports)
In Joined Cases C 241/91 P and C 242/91 P : Radio Telefis               In Case C-299/93 : Ernst Bauer ( Agent: Giorgio Gozzi )
Eireann ( RTE ), a public authority having its office in Dublin         v. Commission of the European Communities (Agents :
 ( Agents : W. Alexander and G. van der Wal ) and                       Gianluigi Valsesia and Alberto Dal Ferro ) — application for
Independent Television Publications Ltd ( ITP ), a company              a declaration that the request for surrender of tenanted
incorporated under English law and having its registered                residential premises and the increase in the rent payable for
office in London (Agents : M. J. Reynolds and R. Strivens ),            those premises were unlawful, and for compensation for the
supported by Intellectual Property Owners Inc . ( IPO ),                additional rent paid on the basis of that increase and for
having its registered office in Washington DC, United States            material and non-material damage incurred as a result of the
of America ( Agents : D. R. Barrett and G. I. F. Leigh ) —              early surrender of the premises — the Court ( Second
appeals against two judgments of the Court of First Instance            Chamber ), composed of F. A. Schockweiler, President of the
of the European Communities ( Second Chamber ) of 10 July               Chamber, G. F. Mancini ( Rapporteur ) and G. Hirsch,
 1991 in Case T-69/89 RTE v. Commission [ 1991 ] ECR                    Judges ; G. Cosmas, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar,
11-485 and in Case T-76/89 ITP v. Commission [ 1991 ] ECR               gave a judgment on 6 April 1995 , the operative part of
                                                                        which is as follows :
11-575 , seeking to have those judgments set aside, the other
party to the proceedings being Commission of the European
Communities ( Agent: Julian Currall ), supported by Magill              1 . the application is dismissed;
TV Guide Ltd , having its registered office in Dublin ( Agent:
Gore & Grimes , Solicitors ) — the Court, composed of G. C.
Rodriguez Iglesias ( Rapporteur ), President, F. A.                     2 . the applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
Schockweiler and P. J. G. Kapteyn ( Presidents of
Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, C. N. Kakouris, J. C. Moitinho
de Almeida and J. L. Murray, Judges ; C. Gulmann,                       (M OJ No C 177, 29 . 6 . 1993 .
Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 April 1995 , in which
it :


title: Case T-556/10: Action brought on 6 December 2010 — Novatex v Council

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/55

         Action brought on 6 December 2010 — Novatex v Council
   (Case T-556/10)
   ()
   2011/C 30/97
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Novatex Ltd, Karachi, Pakistan, (represented by: B. Servais, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 857/2010 of 27 September 2010 imposing a definitive countervailing duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in Iran, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates (1);

               —

               order the Council to bear the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.
   First plea in law, alleging that the Council violated Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 (2) by erroneously concluding that the Final Tax Regime (FTR) is a scheme which forgoes government revenue and, consequently, constitutes a financial contribution and that the FTR invariably confers benefit to the applicant. The applicant submits that:

               —

               the Final Tax Regime cannot be considered to constitute a financial contribution on the basis of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) of Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009, interpreted in accordance with the relevant provision of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures and the interpretation given thereto by the WTO case law.

               —

               the contested regulation violates Article 3(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009, interpreted in accordance with the relevant provision of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures by concluding that the Final Tax Regime confers a benefit on the applicant.

         Second plea in law, alleging that the Council violated:

               —

               Articles 3(2) and 6(b) of the Council Regulation No 597/2009 interpreted in accordance with the relevant provision of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures by using the applicable commercial rate prevailing during the investigation period, as found on the State Bank of Pakistan website, rather that the commercial rate prevailing at the time the loan was contracted by the applicant;

               —

               Article 7(2) of the Council Regulation No 597/2009 interpreted in accordance with the relevant provision of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures by applying an inappropriate denominator, that is, the export turnover, while the appropriate denominator was the turnover.

      (1)  OJ 2010 L 254, p. 10

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community, OJ 2009 L 188, p. 93


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 29 March 2001 in Case T-302/00 R: Anthony Goldstein v Commission of the European Communities (Action for interim measures — Admissibility — Urgency)

text:
19.1.2002               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 17/13
1.    The Commission’s application is dismissed.                          Murphy, Solicitor, against the Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities (Agents: P. Oliver) — application for interim
2.    Costs are reserved.                                                 measures in connection with an action under Article 230 EC
                                                                          for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 12 January
                                                                          2001 rejecting the applicant’s complaint concerning the
                                                                          alleged infringement of Articles 81 and 82 EC by the General
                                                                          Council of the Bar of England and Wales, the President of the
                                                                          Court of First Instance made an order on 29 March 2001, the
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                              operative part of which is as follows:
                              INSTANCE
                                                                          1.    The application for interim measures is dismissed.
                          of 29 March 2001
in Case T-302/00 R: Anthony Goldstein v Commission of                     2.    The costs are reserved.
                   the European Communities
 (Action for interim measures — Admissibility — Urgency)
                           (2002/C 17/22)
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
In Case T-302/00 R: Anthony Goldstein, residing at Harrow,                                         of 3 October 2001
Middlesex (United Kingdom), represented by R. St. John
Murphy, Solicitor, against the Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: P. Oliver and R. Lyal) — application                 in Case T-60/01: Marie-Josée Bollendorff v European
for interim measures in connection with an action under                                               Parliament (1)
Article 230 EC for annulment of the Commission’s decision of
7 July 2000 rejecting the applicant’s complaint concerning the            (Action for annulment — Withdrawal of the contested
alleged infringement of Articles 81 and 82 EC by the General                             measure — No need to adjudicate)
Medical Council — the President of the Court of First Instance
made an order on 29 March 2001, the operative part of which
is as follows:                                                                                (2002/C 17/24)
1.    The application for interim measures is dismissed.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
2.    The costs are reserved.
                                                                          In Case T-60/01: Marie-Josée Bollendorff, residing in Luxem-
                                                                          bourg, represented by L. Mosar, lawyer, with an address for
                                                                          service in Luxembourg, against European Parliament (Agents:
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                              Y. Pantalis and D. Moore) — application for annulment of the
                              INSTANCE                                    decision of the Parliament to regard as irregular the absence of
                                                                          the applicant from 21 March 2000 to 30 April 2000 and to
                                                                          deduct that absence from her annual leave entitlement —
                          of 29 March 2001                                the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of
                                                                          B. Vesterdorf, President, N.J. Forwood and H. Legal, Judges;
in Case T-18/01 R: Anthony Goldstein v Commission of                      H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 3 October 2001, the
                   the European Communities                               operative part of which is as follows:
(Application for interim measures — Admissibility —
                               Urgency)                                   1.    There is no need to adjudicate in the present case.
                           (2002/C 17/23)                                 2.    The Parliament shall bear the entire costs.
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                          (1) OJ 2001 C 173.
In Case T-18/01 R: Anthony Goldstein, residing at Harrow,
Middlesex (United Kingdom), represented by R. St. John


title: Case T-13/09: Judgment of the General Court of 17 December 2010 — Storck v OHIM (Shape of a chocolate mouse) (Community trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark — Shape of a chocolate mouse — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Rights of the defence)

text:
               12.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/11

         Judgment of the General Court of 17 December 2010 — Storck v OHIM (Shape of a chocolate mouse)
   (Case T-13/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark - Shape of a chocolate mouse - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Rights of the defence)
   2011/C 46/19
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: August Storck KG (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: P. Goldenbaum, T. Melchert and I. Rohr, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially G. Schneider, then G. Schneider and R. Manea, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 November 2008 (Case R 185/2006-4), concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a chocolate mouse.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 69, 21.3.2009.


title: Case T-57/02: Action brought on 27 February 2002 by Makhteshim-Agan Holding B.V. against the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union

text:
15.6.2002               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 144/47
The applicants also raise the point of a violation of the                 tion product active substance trifluralin in the list of priority
principles of consistency and uniform application of Com-                 substances which will be restricted in the EU insofar as it
munity law, of proportionality and of legal certainty and                 entails direct or indirect ‘discharges, emissions and losses’ in
legitimate expectations.                                                  the aquatic environment during normal agricultural use.
In addition, the applicants claim that the contested measure
also departs from the letter and the spirit of the international          The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
agreements to which it expressely refers (OSPAR, HELCOM                   relied upon in Case T-45/02 (DOW AgroSciences and Others -
and the Barcelona Convention).                                            v- Parliament and Council (2).
(1) OJ L 331, of 15.12.2001, p. 1.                                        (1) OJ [2001] L 331, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 170, of 25.6.1992, p. 40.                                        (2) See p. 46 of the present Official Journal.
(3) OJ L 327, of 22.12.2000, p. 1.
Action brought on 26 February 2002 by Finchimica,
S.p.A. and I.Pi.Ci. — Industria Prodotti Chimici, S.p.A.
against the European Parliament and the Council of the                    Action brought on 27 February 2002 by Makhteshim-
                         European Union                                   Agan Holding B.V. against the European Parliament and
                                                                                the Council of the European Union
                          (Case T-46/02)
                                                                                (Case T-57/02)
                         (2002/C 144/97)
                                                                                (2002/C 144/98)
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
An action against the European Parliament and the Council of
the European Union was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 26 February 2002
by Finchimica, S.p.A. and I.Pi.Ci. — Industria Prodotti Chimici,
S.p.A., represented by Mr Koen Van Maldegem and Mr Claudio                An action against the European Parliament and the Council of
Mereu of McKenna & Cuneo LLP, Brussels (Belgium).                         the European Union was brought before the Court of First
                                                                          Instance of the European Communities on 27 February 2002
                                                                          by Makhteshim-Agan Holding B.V., represented by Mr Philippe
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               Logelain, Mr Koen Van Maldegem and Mr Claudio Mereu of
                                                                          McKenna & Cuneo, LLP, Brussels (Belgium).
—     partially annul Decision no. 2455/2001/EC of the Euro-
      pean Parliament and of the Council of 20 November
      2001 establishing the list of priority substances in the            The applicant claims that the Court should:
      field of water policy and amending Directive 2000/60/
      EC (1), so as to remove trifluralin from the measure;
                                                                          —     order the partial annulment of Decision no. 2455/2001/
—     order the defendants to pay all costs and expenses in                     EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
      these proceedings.                                                        20 November 2001 establishing the list of priority
                                                                                substances and priority hazardous substances in the field
                                                                                of water policy and amending Directive 2000/60/EC, so
                                                                                as to remove the applicant’s substances — Atrazine,
                                                                                Chlorpyrifos, Diuron, Endosulfan, Isoproturon (IPU),
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 Simazine and Trifluralin — from the measure;
The applicants seek the partial annulment of Decision                     —     order the defendants to pay all costs and expenses in
no. 2455/2001/EC which includes the applicants’ plant protec-                   these proceedings.
 ---pagebreak--- C 144/48               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      15.6.2002
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         According to the applicant, the defendants further violated
                                                                        Articles 174, 175 and 176 of the EC Treaty by ignoring
                                                                        available scientific and technical data. The contested measure
                                                                        also violates Article 2 of the EC Treaty. According to the
                                                                        applicant, the measure distorts competition since it does not
                                                                        affect other competing plant protection products.
The applicant in this case produces pesticides (plant protection
products). The applicant contests the inclusion of certain of its
products in the list of priority substances in the field of water
                                                                        The applicant submits also that there has been a violation of
policy. This list is established by the defendants in execution
                                                                        fundamental principles of Community law. The applicant
of Directive 2000/60/EC (1). The products listed are considered
                                                                        submits that the defendants have violated Directive 2000/60
to present a risk to or via the aquatic environment and
                                                                        and therefore have infringed a superior law. The defendants
their emissions must be reduced. Furthermore, the contested
                                                                        also violated the more specific Directive 91/414/EEC, accord-
decision indicates some of the applicant’s products as priority
                                                                        ing to which some of the applicant’s products are authorised
substances ’under review’, which will lead, according to the
                                                                        for use. The contested measure also violates the principle of
applicant, to a classification as priority hazardous substances.
                                                                        legal certainty and legitimate expectation since it frustrated the
These substances pose a higher risk for the aquatic environ-
                                                                        applicant’s expectations that its products would be assessed in
ment and their emissions must be eliminated.
                                                                        accordance with the procedure under Directive 91/414/EEC
                                                                        which is still current. The applicant further claims a violation
                                                                        of the principle of equal treatment, since the procedure used
                                                                        for the establishment of the contested measure has led to a
                                                                        result contrary to that reached by the procedure under
                                                                        Directive 91/414/EEC. The contested measure would, finally,
In support of its application, the applicant claims that the            infringe the principle of proportionality.
defendants violated the procedural requirements of Directive
2000/60/EC. Article 16 (2) point (a) of this Directive provides
that plant protection products are prioritised by a risk
assessment procedure. The Defendants used however a simpli-             (1) Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the
fied procedure called ’combined monitoring-based and model-                 Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for
ling-based priority setting’. According to the applicants, the              Community action in the field of water policy (OJ L 327,
defendants had no jurisdiction to use this simplified procedure             22.12.2000 P. 1).
currently instead of the risk-based procedure laid down in              (2) Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the
Article 16 (2) point (a). According to the applicant, the                   placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ L 230,
                                                                            19.8.1991 P. 1).
conditions laid down in Article 16 of Directive 2000/60/EC
for the use of a simplified procedure are not met. The applicant
further points out that the risk assessments of its plant
protection products under Directive 91/414/EEC (2) are still
continuing. Therefore, the defendants acted ultra vires by not
respecting the procedural and methodological requirements of
the basic Directive 2000/60.
                                                                        Action brought on 28 February 2002 by Archer Daniels
                                                                        Midland Company against the Commission of the Euro-
The applicant further contests the creating of a list of priority                              pean Communities
substances under review. According to the applicant this list is
in fact a list of tentative priority hazardous substances.
                                                                                (Case T-59/02)
According to the applicant there is no legal basis to establish
such a list. There is also no reasoning for the selection of these
substances as priority substances under review.                                                  (2002/C 144/99)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
The applicant further submits that the contested decision is in
conflict with the more specific Council Directive 91/414/EEC
on plant protection products. Therefore the defendants violate          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
the principle lex specialis derogat lex generalis. This Directive       ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
imposes a specific risk assessment for plant protection prod-           European Communities on 28 February 2002 by Archer
ucts. According to the applicant, the result of this specific           Daniels Midland Company, represented by Ms Lynda Martin
procedure should have been awaited before the classification            Alegi, Mr Bill Batchelor, Ms Marta Garcia and Mr Carl Otto
of its products was undertaken.                                         Lenz of Baker & McKenzie, London (United Kingdom).


title: Case C-396/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 15 July 2016 — T — 2, družba za ustvarjanje, razvoj in trženje elektronskih komunikacij in opreme, d.o.o. (currently in a state of insolvency) v Republika Slovenija

text:
               12.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 335/42

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 15 July 2016 — T — 2, družba za ustvarjanje, razvoj in trženje elektronskih komunikacij in opreme, d.o.o. (currently in a state of insolvency) v Republika Slovenija
   (Case C-396/16)
   (2016/C 335/57)
   Language of the case: Slovenian

      Referring court

   Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: T — 2, družba za ustvarjanje, razvoj in trženje elektronskih komunikacij in opreme, d.o.o. (currently in a state of insolvency)

      Respondent: Republika Slovenija

      Questions referred

               1.

               Should the reduction of the obligations on the basis of an arrangement with creditors, as in the main proceedings, which has been approved by judicial decree and has acquired the force of res judicata be treated as a change in the factors used to determine the amount of input VAT to be deducted, within the meaning of Article 185(1) of the VAT Directive, (1) or should it be treated as a different situation, in which the deduction is higher or lower than that to which the taxable person was entitled, within the meaning of Article 184 of the VAT Directive?

               2.

               Should the reduction of the obligations on the basis of an arrangement with creditors, as in the main proceedings, which has been approved by judicial decree and has acquired the force of res judicata be regarded as a (partial) non-payment of a transaction, within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 185(2) of the VAT Directive?

               3.

               Must a Member State, taking into account the requirements of clarity and certainty in legal situations imposed by the EU legislature and having regard for Article 186 of the VAT Directive, lay down, for the purpose of requiring adjustment of the deduction in the event of failure to make complete or partial payment, as permitted by the second subparagraph of Article 185(2) of that directive, detailed rules, in national law, to cover cases of non-payment, or may it include, in those rules, an arrangement with creditors approved by judicial decree which has acquired the force of res judicata (should this come within the concept of non-payment)?

      (1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).


title: Case C-239/09: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Berlin (Germany)) — Seydaland Vereinigte Agrarbetriebe GmbH & Co. KG v BVVG Bodenverwertungs- und -verwaltungs GmbH (State aid — Aid granted by the Federal Republic of Germany for the acquisition of land — Programme for land privatisation and restructuring of agriculture in the new Länder in Germany)

text:
               19.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/7

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Berlin (Germany)) — Seydaland Vereinigte Agrarbetriebe GmbH & Co. KG v BVVG Bodenverwertungs- und -verwaltungs GmbH
   (Case C-239/09) (1)

   (State aid - Aid granted by the Federal Republic of Germany for the acquisition of land - Programme for land privatisation and restructuring of agriculture in the new Länder in Germany)
   2011/C 55/11
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Berlin

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Seydaland Vereinigte Agrarbetriebe GmbH & Co. KG

      Defendant: BVVG Bodenverwertungs- und -verwaltungs GmbH

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landgericht Berlin — Interpretation of Article 87 EC — State aids — Privatisation of land in the new German Länder — Purchase of that land at a price, established according to national provisions providing for the determination of the market value of the land based on regional criteria, which is lower than their market value — Compatibility of those national provisions with Article 87 EC

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 87 EC must be interpreted as not precluding a provision of national law laying down calculation methods for determining the value of agricultural and forestry land, offered for sale by public authorities in the context of a privatisation plan, such as those laid down in Paragraph 5(1) of the Land Purchase Order (Flächenerwerbsverordnung) of 20 December 1995, to the extent that those methods provide for the updating of the prices, where prices for such land are rising sharply, so that the price actually paid by the purchaser reflects, in so far as is possible, the market value of that land.

      (1)  OJ C 220, 12.09.2009


title: Case T-591/08: Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2012 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission (Public service contracts — Tendering procedure — Provision of information technology services — Selection of the tenderer as second contractor in the cascade procedure — Action for annulment — Grounds for exclusion from the tendering procedure — Conflict of interests — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based — Manifest error of assessment — Equal treatment — Non-contractual liability)

text:
               24.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 366/28

         Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2012 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission
   (Case T-591/08) (1)

   (Public service contracts - Tendering procedure - Provision of information technology services - Selection of the tenderer as second contractor in the cascade procedure - Action for annulment - Grounds for exclusion from the tendering procedure - Conflict of interests - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Manifest error of assessment - Equal treatment - Non-contractual liability)
   2012/C 366/53
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by B. Simon and E. Manhaeve, acting as Agents, assisted by P. Wytinck, lawyer, and subsequently by E. Manhaeve, assisted by P. Wytinck and B. Hoorelbeke, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for (i) annulment of the Commission decisions of 17 October 2008 selecting the applicant’s tender as second contractor in the cascade for Lots 2 and 3 under the call for tenders launched in the field of ‘Statistical Information Technologies’, concerning advisory and development services relating to the format for the exchange of statistical data and metadata (SDMX) (OJ 2008/S 120-159017), and of all further related decisions, including the decisions awarding the contract to other tenderers, and (ii) damages.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 4.4.2009.


title: Case T-162/05: Action brought on 18 April 2005 by Dirk Grijseels and Ana Lopez García against the European Economic and Social Committee

text:
               9.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/27

         Action brought on 18 April 2005 by Dirk Grijseels and Ana Lopez García against the European Economic and Social Committee
   (Case T-162/05)
   (2005/C 171/45)
   Language of the case: French
   Anaction against the European Economic and Social Committee was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 14 April 2005 by Dirk Grijseels, residing in Ternat (Belgium), and Ana Lopez García, residing in Brussels, represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Xavier Martin, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decisions to appoint the applicants as officials of the European Communities in that they fix their grade on recruitment pursuant to Article 12 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations;

               —

               order the European Economic and Social Committee to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments put forward are the same as those in Cases T-130/05 and T-160/05 and similar to those in Case T-58/05.


title: Case C-61/07: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 July 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Mechanism for monitoring greenhouse gas emissions — Implementation of the Kyoto Protocol)

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/11

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 July 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-61/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Mechanism for monitoring greenhouse gas emissions - Implementation of the Kyoto Protocol)
   (2007/C 211/19)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: U. Wölker and J.-B. Laignelot, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to communicate within the prescribed period the report containing the information required under Article 3(2) of Decision No 280/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 concerning a mechanism for monitoring Community greenhouse gas emissions and for implementing the Kyoto Protocol (OJ 2004 L 49, p. 1) — Information on national projections of greenhouse gas emissions and measures taken to limit and/or reduce such emissions
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to communicate the information required under Article 3(2) of Decision No 280/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 concerning a mechanism for monitoring Community greenhouse gas emissions and for implementing the Kyoto Protocol, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that provision;

               2.

               Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.


title: Case T-114/11: Judgment of the General Court of 7 November 2012 — Giordano v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Fisheries — Conservation of fisheries resources — Recovery of bluefin tuna stocks — Emergency measures prohibiting fishing by purse seiners — Unlawful conduct — Causal link)

text:
               22.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 November 2012 — Giordano v Commission
   (Case T-114/11) (1)

   (Non-contractual liability - Fisheries - Conservation of fisheries resources - Recovery of bluefin tuna stocks - Emergency measures prohibiting fishing by purse seiners - Unlawful conduct - Causal link)
   2012/C 399/33
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Jean-François Giordano (Sète, France) (represented by: D. Rigeade and J. Jeanjean, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet and D. Nardi, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for damages seeking compensation for the losses allegedly suffered following the adoption of Commission Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 of 12 June 2008 establishing emergency measures as regards purse seiners fishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45° W, and in the Mediterranean Sea (OJ 2008 L 155, p. 9)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Jean-François Giordano to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 139, 7.5.2011.


title: Case C-444/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht by order of 18 September 2001 in the case of Stadt Villingen-Schwenningen v Ophilia Akosua Owusu

text:
C 84/36                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       6.4.2002
(a)   Do the provisions of Council Regulation (EEC)                     under which an insurance policy issued by an insurance
      No 1785/81 of 30 June 1981 (1) and/or of Council                  company in the UK, Germany or Denmark which meets the
      Regulation (EEC) No 193/82 of 26 January 1982 (2)                 conditions laid down in Sweden for occupational pension
      preclude those authorities from stipulating that such a           insurance — apart from the condition that the policy must be
      transfer or reallocation of quotas is for value and,              issued by an insurance company operating in Sweden — is
      therefore, that the recipient undertaking or undertakings         treated as an endowment insurance policy with income tax
      must pay financial consideration?                                 effects which, depending on the circumstances in the individual
                                                                        case, may be less favourable than the tax effects of an
                                                                        occupational pension policy?
(b) Even if the answer is in the negative, do the same
      provisions nevertheless preclude the price of the quota to
      be transferred, and the distribution thereof, from being
      decided by public auction? Do those provisions preclude
      recourse to public auction even where it has been
      stipulated that, as part of the reallocation of quotas
      carried out by such a procedure, the measures required to         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de
      prevent any possible negative repercussions for national          Cassation, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, by judgment of
      agricultural producers of sugar beet will be adopted?             that court of 8 November 2001 in the case of Design
                                                                                Concept SA v Flanders Expo SA
(c)   Is the interpretation of Community law the same, and
      must the answers also be so, in the light of Council                                       (Case C-438/01)
      Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 (3) on
      the common organisation of the markets in the sugar                                         (2002/C 84/61)
      sector, which repeals the earlier regulations?
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
(1) On the common organization of the markets in the sugar sector       European Communities by a judgment of the Cour de Cas-
    (OJ 1981 L 177, p. 4).                                              sation (Court of Cassation), Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, of
(2) Laying down general rules for transfers of quotas in the sugar      8 November 2001, which was received at the Court Registry
    sector (OJ 1982 L 21, p. 3).                                        on 13 November 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
 3
( ) OJ 2001 L 178, p. 1.                                                Design Concept SA v Flanders Expo SA on the following
                                                                        question:
                                                                        ‘Is Article 9(2)(e) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of
                                                                        17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member
                                                                        States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of
                                                                        value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (1), concerning
                                                                        “advertising services”, applicable to services supplied indirectly
                                                                        to the advertiser and invoiced to a third party who in turn
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsrät-               invoices them to the advertiser, if the advertiser does not
ten (Supreme Administrative Court) of 23 October 2001                   produce goods in the price of which the cost of the services is
in the case of Försäkringsaktiebolaget Skandia and Ola                  going to be included?’
     Ramstedt v Riksskatteverket (National Tax Board)
                                                                        (1) OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.
                         (Case C-422/01)
                          (2002/C 84/60)
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwal-
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  tungsgericht by order of 18 September 2001 in the
European Communities by a decision of the Regeringsrätten               case of Stadt Villingen-Schwenningen v Ophilia Akosua
of 23 October 2001, which was received at the Court Registry                                         Owusu
on 25 October 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Försäkringsaktiebolaget Skandia and Ola Ramstedt v Riksskat-                                     (Case C-444/01)
teverket on the following question:
                                                                                (2002/C 84/62)
Are the provisions of Community law on freedom of move-
ment for persons, services and capital, in particular Article 49
EC, in conjunction with Article 12 EC, to be interpreted as             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
meaning that they preclude application of national tax rules            European Communities by order of 18 September 2001 by
 ---pagebreak--- 6.4.2002               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 84/37
the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court),            Giudice Unico del Tribunale di Beilla (Single-Judge Court of
which was received at the Court Registry on 19 November                 Beilla), which was received at the Court Registry on 19 Novem-
2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Stadt Villingen-          ber 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Roberto
Schwenningen v Ophilia Akosua Owusu on the following                    Simoncello and Piera Boerio v Direzione Provinciale del lavoro
questions:                                                              (Vercelli) on the following question:
1.   With regard to the legal position on 16 May 1997, was
     prostitution engaged in on a self-employed basis by a              Are Article 9 bis (2) of Law No 608 of 28 November 1996, in
     national of Member State A in Member State B covered               so far as it provides that an employer is required to notify the
     by freedom of establishment (Article 52 of the EC Treaty)          Sezione Circoscrizionale per l’Impiego of the hiring of every
     and/or freedom to provide services (Article 59 of the              worker, and Article 10 of Legislative Decree No 469 of
     EC Treaty)? Is it in this regard relevant whether prosti-          23 December 1997, in so far as it refers to Article 9 bis of Law
     tution was at that time considered in Member State B to            608/1996 in cases where non-authorised parties have acted as
     be immoral and anti-social?                                        intermediaries, consistent with the principles of Community
                                                                        law laid down by Articles 48, 52 and 90 of the EC Treaty
2.   If the first question is answered in the negative:                 (now, after amendment, Articles 39, 43, and 86 EC).
     With regard to the legal position on 16 May 1997, did
     the national of Member State A derive a right to reside in
     Member State B directly from Article 8a of the EC Treaty?
3.   If the second question is answered in the negative:
     As the law stood on 16 May 1997, did that person have
     a right of residence under the conditions set out in               Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht
     Article 1 of Council Directive 90/364/EEC (1) of 28 June           für Zivilrechtssachen, Vienna, by order of that court of
     1990 on the right of residence, even though Member                 5 November 2001 in the case of DLD Trading Company
     State B had not yet at that date implemented that directive               Import-Export, spol.s.r.o. v Republic of Austria
     in its domestic law?
4.   If the third question is answered in the affirmative:                                       (Case C-447/01)
     Was that person required at the time of her entry to have
     sufficient resources and to demonstrate this to the                                          (2002/C 84/64)
     competent authority, or does it suffice if, during her
     period of residence in Member State B, she did not claim
     any social assistance?
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by an order of the Landesgericht für
(1) OJ L 180, p. 26.
                                                                        Zivilrechtssachen (Regional Court for Civil Matters), Vienna,
                                                                        of 5 November 2001, which was received at the Court Registry
                                                                        on 20 November 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                        OLD Trading Company Import-Export, spol.s.r.o. v Republic
                                                                        of Austria on the following questions:
                                                                        1.    Was a provision of directly applicable Community law or
                                                                              a directive infringed and, if so, which one, as a result of
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Giudice Unico                       the government action described in the facts, in particular
del Tribunale di Beilla by order of 18 October 2001 in                        the alteration as from 1 January 1998 of the travellers’
case of Roberto Simoncello and Piera Boerio v Direzione                       duty-free amount to EUR 75 or EUR 100, according to
Provinciale del Lavoro, Vercelli (Principal Labour Admin-                     the case under Paragraph 97a of the customs
                        istration, Vercelli)                                  implementing law [ZollR-DG] in conjunction with Para-
                                                                              graph 19a of the corresponding implementing regulation
                                                                              [ZollR-DV] and the quantitative restriction in regard to
                         (Case C-445/01)
                                                                              the relief from turnover tax and excise duty on tobacco
                                                                              products.
                          (2002/C 84/63)
                                                                        2.    If Question 1 is answered affirmatively:
                                                                              Is the infringed provision of directly applicable Com-
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        munity law or of that directive one which confers an
European Communities by order of 18 October 2001 of the                       individual right on the plaintiff in the main proceedings?


title: Case T-150/11: Order of the General Court of 10 December 2013 — Government of Aragón and Others v Council (Action for annulment — State aid — Decision concerning aid to facilitate the closure of uncompetitive coal mines — Partial annulment — Non-severability — Inadmissibility)

text:
               15.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/30

         Order of the General Court of 10 December 2013 — Government of Aragón and Others v Council
   (Case T-150/11) (1)

   (Action for annulment - State aid - Decision concerning aid to facilitate the closure of uncompetitive coal mines - Partial annulment - Non-severability - Inadmissibility)
   2014/C 45/48
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Government of Aragón (Spain); Principado de Asturias (Spain); and Junta de Castilla y León (represented by: C. Fernández Vicién, I. Moreno-Tapia Rivas, E. Echeverría Álvarez and M. López Garrido, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Lo Monaco and F. Florindo Gijón, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier, L. Flynn and C. Urraca Caviedes, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for partial annulment of Council Decision 2010/787/EU of 10 December 2010 on State aid to facilitate the closure of uncompetitive coal mines (OJ 2010 L 336, p. 24).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               The Government of Aragón (Spain), the Principado de Asturias (Spain) and the Junta de Castilla y León (Spain) are ordered to bear their own costs and, in addition, to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

               3.

               The European Commission is ordered to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 130, 30.4.2011.


title: Case C-525/09: Action brought on 17 December 2009 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

text:
               27.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/21

         Action brought on 17 December 2009 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-525/09)
   2010/C 51/32
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Marghelis and G. Braga da Cruz, Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/21/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the management of waste from extractive industries and amending Directive 2004/35/EC, or, in any event, by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 25 of that directive.

               —

               Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period prescribed for transposing the directive expired on 30 April 2008.

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 102, p. 15.


title: Case C-219/06: Action brought on  12 May 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               15.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/19

         Action brought on 12 May 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-219/06)
   (2006/C 165/35)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: N. Yerrell, Agent)

      Defendant: Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg
   Form of order sought

               —

               A declaration that, by failing to adopt measures to comply with the judgment delivered by the Court on 30 September 2004 in Case C-481/03 (1) concerning the failure to communicate measures for the implementation of Directives 2001/12/EC (2) and 2001/13/EC (3), the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives and under Article 228(1) EC;

               —

               an order that the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg pay the Commission a penalty payment of EUR 4 800 for each day of delay in complying with judgment in Case C-481/03 with regard to Directive 2001/12/EC and a penalty payment of EUR 4 800 for each day of delay in complying with the judgment in Case C-481/03 with regard to Directive 2001/13/EC from the date of judgment herein until the judgment in Case C-481/03 has been complied with;

               —

               an order that the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg pay the Commission a lump sum, to be calculated by multiplying the daily sum of EUR 1 000 by the number of days the infringement continues, from the date of judgment in Case C-481/03 until the date of judgment herein in relation to Directive 2001/12/EC, together with the same sum in relation to Directive 2001/13/EC; and

               —

               an order that the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to communicate to the Commission any measure adopted following the judgment of the Court in Case C-481/03.

      (1)  Not reported.

      (2)  Directive 2001/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 amending Council Directive 91/440/EEC on the development of the Community's railways (OJ L 75, p. 1).

      (3)  Directive 2001/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 amending Council Directive 95/18/EC on the licensing of railway undertakings (OJ L 75, p. 26).


title: Case T-395/06: Action brought on 14 December 2006 — Italy v Commission

text:
               24.2.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/32

         Action brought on 14 December 2006 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-395/06)
   (2007/C 42/56)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: P. Gentili, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Forms of order sought

               —

               Annul memorandum No 9433 of 4.10.2006 of the European Commission, Directorate General for Regional Policy — Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands — concerning payments by the Commission which differ from the amount requested. Ref. Programma DOCUP Piemonte (No CCI 2000 IT 162 DO 007);

               —

               annul memorandum No 10841 of 14.11.2006 of the European Commission, Directorate General for Regional Policy — Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands — concerning certification of the intermediate statement of expenses and claim for payment. DOCUP Veneto Ob. 2 2000-2006 (No CCI 2000 IT 162 DO 005)

               —

               annul memorandum No 10853 of 14.11.2006 of the European Commission, Directorate General for Regional Policy — Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands — concerning payments by the Commission which differ from the amount requested. Ref. Programma POR Puglia (No CCI 1999 IT 161 PO 009)

               —

               annul memorandum No 10929 of 15.11.2006 of the European Commission, Directorate General for Regional Policy — Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands — concerning payments by the Commission which differ from the amount requested. Ref. Programma DOCUP Toscana Ob. 2 (No CCI 2000 IT 162 DO 001)

               —

               annul memorandum No 10930 of 15.11.2006 of the European Commission, Directorate General for Regional Policy — Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands — concerning payments by the Commission which differ from the amount requested. Ref. POR Campania 2000-2006 (No CCI 1999 IT 161 PO 007)

               —

               annul memorandum No 11019 of 17.11.2006 of the European Commission, Directorate General for Regional Policy — Programmes and projects on Cyprus, in Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands — concerning payments by the Commission different from the amount requested. Ref. Programma POR Sardegna 2000-2006 (No CCI 1999 IT 161 PO 010)

               —

               annul all related and prior acts and, consequently, order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Case T-345/04 Italian Republic v Commission
       (1).

      (1)  OJ C 262 of 23.10.04, p. 55.


               14.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 40/15

         Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Follo tingrett dated 24 October 2007 in the Case of L'Oréal Norge AS v Per Aarskog AS and others
   (Case E-9/07)
   (2008/C 40/06)
   A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter of 24 October 2007 from Follo tingrett (Follo District Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 31 October 2007, for an Advisory Opinion in the Case of L'Oréal Norge AS v Per Aarskog AS and others, on the following questions:

               1.

               Is Article 7(1) of Council Directive 89/104/EEC to be understood to the effect that a trade mark proprietor has the right to prevent imports from third countries outside the EEA when such imports take place without the consent of the trade mark proprietor?

               2.

               Is Article 7(1) of Directive 89/104/EEC to be understood to the effect that international exhaustion is permitted?


title: Case C-453/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 29 September 2014  — Vorarlberger Gebietskrankenkasse, Alfred Knauer

text:
               22.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/15

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 29 September 2014 — Vorarlberger Gebietskrankenkasse, Alfred Knauer
   (Case C-453/14)
   (2014/C 462/24)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Vorarlberger Gebietskrankenkasse, Alfred Knauer

      Defendant: Landeshauptmann von Vorarlberg

      Intervening party: Rudolf Mathis

      Questions referred

   Is Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (1), having regard to Article 45 TFEU, to be interpreted as meaning that old-age pensions under an occupational pension scheme (which is initiated and guaranteed by the state, is intended to enable the previous standard of living of the individual concerned to be maintained in an appropriate way, operates on the basis of the principle of capitalisation, is compulsory in principle but may also provide for ‘supplementary, non-compulsory’ contributions that exceed the statutory minimum amount and for correspondingly higher benefits, and the implementation of which falls to a pension fund to be set up or used by the employer, such as — in the present case — the ‘second-pillar’ pension scheme in Liechtenstein), and old-age pensions under a statutory pension scheme (which is likewise initiated and guaranteed by the state, is intended to enable the previous standard of living of the individual concerned to be maintained in an appropriate way, but operates on the basis of the ‘pay-as-you-go’ principle, and the implementation of which falls to pension insurance funds established by statute, such as — in the present case — Austria’s pension scheme) are ‘equivalent’ within the meaning of the abovementioned provision?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1.


title: Case C-612/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 18 November 2015 — Criminal proceedings against Kolev and Others

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/14

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 18 November 2015 — Criminal proceedings against Kolev and Others
   (Case C-612/15)
   (2016/C 048/22)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

      Parties to the main proceedings

   Kolev and Others

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is a national law compatible with the obligation of a Member State to provide for the effective prosecution of criminal offences by customs officials if that law provides for criminal proceedings brought against customs officials — for participation in a conspiracy to commit corruption offences while performing their professional duties (accepting bribes for non-performance of customs inspections), and for specific bribery offences and concealment of bribes received — to be terminated, without the court having examined the charges brought, under the following conditions: (a) two years have elapsed since the accused was charged; (b) the accused has lodged a request for the pre-trial investigation to be concluded; (c) the court has given the prosecutor a period of three months to conclude the pre-trial investigation; (d) during that period, the prosecutor has committed ‘infringements of essential procedural requirements’ (failure properly to notify a supplementary charge, failure to disclose the investigation file, contradictory indictment); (e) the court has given the prosecutor a further period of one month to remedy those ‘infringements of essential procedural requirements’; ([f]) the prosecutor has failed to remedy the ‘infringements of essential procedural requirements’ within that time-limit — albeit that the infringements committed within the first three-month period and the failure to remedy them within the subsequent one-month period are attributable both to the prosecutor (failure to remove contradictions in the indictment; failure to take real action for most of those periods) and also to the defence (breach of the duty to cooperate with respect to notification of the charge and inspection of the investigation file due to the hospitalisation of the accused and claims regarding the lawyers’ other professional commitments); ([g]) the accused has acquired a subjective right to the termination of the criminal proceedings on account of the failure to remedy the ‘infringements of essential procedural requirements’ within the prescribed periods?

               2.

               If the answer to that question is in the negative, which part of the abovementioned legislation should the national court disapply in order to ensure that EU law is applied effectively: 2.1. termination of the criminal proceedings once the one-month period has expired; or 2.2. categorisation of the abovementioned defects as ‘infringements of essential procedural requirements’; or 2.3. protection of the subjective right arising under [(g)] if there is a possibility that that infringement may be remedied effectively in the court proceedings?

                           2.1.

                           Should the decision to disapply national rules providing for the termination of criminal proceedings be determined by:

                                       A)

                                       the prosecutor’s being granted an additional period of time to remedy the ‘infringement of essential procedural requirements’ equal to the period during which he was, objectively, precluded from doing so because of obstacles attributable to the defence?

                                       B)

                                       the court’s establishing in the case of A) above that the obstacles are the result of an ‘abuse of law’?

                                       C)

                                       if the answer to A) is in the negative, the court’s establishing that national law provides sufficient guarantees that the pre-trial investigation will be completed within a reasonable time?

                           2.2.

                           Is the decision not to categorise the abovementioned defects in accordance with national law as ‘infringements of essential procedural requirements’ compatible with EU law, that is to say:

                                       A)

                                       Would the right under Article 6(3) of Directive 2012/13/EU (1) for the defence to be provided with detailed information on the accusation be adequately safeguarded:

                                                   -1)

                                                   if that information was provided after the actual submission of the merits of the accusation [(also referred to below as ‘the indictment’)] to a court but before examination of the indictment by the court, or if, at an earlier stage, prior to submission of the indictment to the court, the defence was provided with full information about the essential elements of the accusation (as in Mr Hristov’s case)?

                                                   -2)

                                                   in the event that the answer to 2.2.А)-1) is in the affirmative, if that information was provided after the actual submission of the indictment to a court but before the court had examined it, and the defence had, at an earlier stage, been provided with partial information about the essential elements of the accusation prior to submission of the indictment to the court, the provision of only partial information being attributable to obstacles on the part of the defence (as in the case of Mr Kolev and Mr Kostadinov)?

                                                   -3)

                                                   if the information was contradictory as regards the way in which the demand for a bribe was actually expressed (at one point it is stated that another defendant expressly demanded the bribe, while Mr Hristov indicated his dissatisfaction, by grimacing, when the person undergoing the customs inspection offered too little money, whereas elsewhere it is asserted that Mr Hristov explicitly and specifically demanded a bribe)?

                                       B)

                                       Would the right under Article 7(3) of Directive 2012/13 for the defence to be granted access to case materials ‘at the latest upon submission of the merits of the accusation to the judgment of a court’ be adequately safeguarded in the main proceedings if the defence had access to the essential part of the materials at an earlier stage and was given the opportunity to inspect the materials but, because of various obstacles (illness, professional commitments), and in reliance on national law which requires at least three days’ notice to be given of the availability of materials for inspection, did not avail itself of that opportunity? Must a further opportunity for inspection be given once those obstacles are removed and subject to at least three days’ notice being given? Is it necessary to establish whether the obstacles referred to did, objectively, exist or constitute an abuse of law?

                                       C)

                                       Does the legal requirement laid down in Article 6(3) and Article 7(3) of Directive 2012/13 (‘at the latest on submission of the merits of the accusation to a court’/‘at the latest upon submission of the merits of the accusation to the judgment of a court’) have the same meaning in both provisions? What does that requirement mean: prior to the actual submission of the merits of the accusation to [the judgment of] a court, or at the latest on their submission to the court, or after their submission to a court but before the court has taken steps to examine the merits of the accusation?

                                       D)

                                       Does the legal requirement to provide information on the accusation to the defence and access to the materials of the case in such a way as to ensure that ‘the effective exercise of the rights of the defence’ and ‘the fairness of the proceedings’ can be safeguarded in accordance with Article 6(1) and Article 7(2) and (3) of Directive 2012/13 have the same meaning in both provisions? Would that requirement be met:

                                                   -1)

                                                   if the detailed information on the accusation was provided to the defence after submission of the indictment to a court but before any steps had been taken to examine its merits and the defence had been given sufficient time for preparation, incomplete and partial information on the accusation having been provided at an earlier stage?

                                                   -2)

                                                   if the defence was granted access to all the case materials after submission of the indictment to a court but before any steps had been taken to examine its merits, and the defence had been given sufficient time for preparation, access to the majority of the case materials having been given to the defence at an earlier stage?

                                                   -3)

                                                   if the court adopted measures to guarantee to the defence that all statements given by the defence after studying the detailed indictment and all the case materials would have the same effect as they would have had if those statements had been given to the prosecutor before submission of the indictment to the court?

                                       E)

                                       Would ‘the fairness of the proceedings’ in accordance with Article 6(1) and (4) and ‘the effective exercise of the rights of the defence’ in accordance with Article 6(1) of Directive 2012/13 be safeguarded if the court decided that judicial proceedings should be commenced in respect of a definitive charge that is contradictory as regards the way in which the demand for a bribe was expressed, but then gave the prosecutor an opportunity to remove those contradictions and enabled the parties to exercise fully those rights which they would have had if the charge had been filed without any such contradictions?

                                       F)

                                       Would the right of access to a lawyer enshrined in Article 3(1) of Directive 2013/48/EU (2) be adequately safeguarded if, during the pre-trial investigation, the lawyer was given the opportunity to appear in order to be notified of the provisional charge and to be given full access to all case materials, but failed to appear due to professional commitments and in reliance on national law requiring at least three days’ notice to be given? Is it necessary for a new time limit of at least three days to be imposed once those commitments have been met? Is it necessary to establish whether the reason for the [non-]appearance is valid or whether there has been an abuse of law?

                                       G)

                                       Would the infringement during the pre-trial investigation of the right of access to a lawyer enshrined in Article 3(1) of Directive 2013/48 have an effect on the ‘[practical and effective] exercise [of] rights of defence’ if, after submission of the indictment to the court, the court granted the lawyer full access to the final and detailed indictment and to all the case materials, and then adopted measures to guarantee to the lawyer that all statements made by him after studying the detailed indictment and all the case materials would have the same effect as they would have had if those statements had been made to the prosecutor before submission of the indictment to the court?

                           2.3.

                           Is the subjective right of the accused to have the criminal proceedings terminated (under the above conditions) compatible with EU law, notwithstanding the fact that the ‘infringement of essential procedural requirements’ which the prosecutor has failed to remedy may be fully remedied as a result of measures taken by the court in the judicial proceedings, so that ultimately the legal position of the accused is identical to that which he would have had if the infringement had been remedied in due time?

               3.

               Can more favourable national rules on the right to a trial within a reasonable time, the right to information and the right of access to a lawyer be applied if they — in conjunction with other circumstances (the procedure described at point 1) — would result in the termination of the criminal proceedings?

               4.

               Is Article 3(1) of Directive 2013/48 to be interpreted as authorising the national court to exclude from the court proceedings a lawyer who has represented two of the accused, one of whom has given a statement regarding matters that are prejudicial to the interests of the other, who has not given a statement?

         If this question is to be answered in the affirmative, would the court be safeguarding the right of access to a lawyer in accordance with Article 3(1) of Directive 2013/48 if, having allowed a lawyer who has simultaneously represented two defendants with conflicting interests to take part in the proceedings, it appointed new, different defence lawyers to represent each of those defendants?

      (1)  Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings (OJ 2012 L 142, p. 1).

      (2)  Directive 2013/48/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and in European arrest warrant proceedings, and on the right to have a third party informed upon deprivation of liberty and to communicate with third persons and with consular authorities while deprived of liberty (OJ 2013 L 294, p. 1).


title: Case F-146/07: Action brought on 29 December 2007 — Luigi Marcuccio v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/67

         Action brought on 29 December 2007 — Luigi Marcuccio v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case F-146/07)
   (2008/C 64/110)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Subject-matter and description of the dispute
   Action brought against the rejection by the defendant of the applicant's request that it should carry out or conclude an investigation relating to the fact that on 29 October 2001, in the premises of the European Commission's delegation in Angola where he was employed as an official of the defendant, and during working hours, the applicant came accidentally into contact with a whitish powder of unknown nature and that it should provide him with any information as to what befell the sample of that powder and concerning the procedures for keeping the sample and for gaining access to it.
   The applicant puts forward, in support of his arguments concerning the rejection by the defendant, the three following pleas in law: (1) absolute lack of any statement of reasons, also that the decision was illogical, inconsistent, unreasonable, confused, a mere pretext and relied on inadequate preparatory inquiries; (2) serious, obvious and manifest infringement of law; (3) breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials and of the principle of sound administration.
   Form of order sought by the applicant

               —

               annul, in so far as necessary, the note dated 23 February 2007, prot. ADMINB.2/MB/nb D(07)4623;

               —

               annul the decision, however framed, which constituted rejection by the defendant of the request of 10 October 2006 submitted by the applicant to the appointing authority;

               —

               annul, in so far as necessary, the decision, however framed, rejecting the complaint dated 27 April 2007 submitted by the applicant to the appointing authority;

               —

               annul, in so far as necessary, the note dated 4 September 2007 prot. ADMINB.2/MB/ls D(07) 19393;

               —

               establish the fact that the defendant did not carry out, or did not conclude, any suitable investigation, including therein any measures preparatory or consequential to such investigation, for the purpose of ascertaining any circumstance, whether occurring earlier or later, in any way whatsoever connected with the fact that on 29 October 2001, in the premises of the European Commission's delegation in Angola where he was at that time employed as an official of the defendant, and during working hours, the applicant came accidentally into contact with a whitish powder of unknown nature;

               —

               establish and declare that the failure to conduct any investigation was unlawful;

               —

               order the defendant to carry out or conclude the investigation, to perform a series of relevant acts consequential upon the latter, to supply the applicant with pieces of information concerning the event of 29 October 2001 and to guarantee the applicant access to the sample of dust;

               —

               order the defendant to pay to the applicant, as indemnification for that part of the damage already irreversibly caused to date as a result of the failure to carry out the investigation, the sum of EUR 3 000 000, or such greater or lesser sum as the Court of First Instance may consider just and fair;

               —

               order the defendant to pay to the applicant, as indemnification for that part of the damage arising hereafter from the failure to carry out the investigation, the sum of EUR 300, or such greater or lesser sum as the Court may consider just and fair, for every day passing between tomorrow and the day on which, when the investigation has been carried out and all measures taken preparatory or consequential thereto, communication is made to the applicant, together with suitable publicity, in the premises of the delegation and also in the Development and External Relations Directorates-General, of the conclusions of the investigation;

               —

               assess the defendant's conduct before, during and after the event of 29 October 2001 in any way connected to that event, save only the failure to carry out an investigation;

               —

               establish and declare that the conduct in question was unlawful;

               —

               order the defendant to pay to the applicant, by way of indemnification of the damage caused by the conduct in question, the sum of EUR 5 000 000 or such greater or lesser sum as the Court may consider just and fair;

               —

               order the EC to make reimbursement to the applicant of all the costs, disbursements and fees involved in the proceedings, including those relating to the preparation of the party's expert's report which may be drawn up in order to ascertain whether the conditions are met for the defendant to be ordered to pay the applicant each of the abovementioned sums and, more generally, to ascertain any fact whatsoever of relevance for the purpose of the judgment to be given in this case.


title: Case C-92/06 P: Appeal brought on  10 February 2006  by Soffass SpA against the judgment delivered on  23 November 2005  in Case T-396/04 Soffass SpA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM)

text:
               20.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/3

         Appeal brought on 10 February 2006 by Soffass SpA against the judgment delivered on 23 November 2005 in Case T-396/04 Soffass SpA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM)
   (Case C-92/06 P)
   (2006/C 121/05)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Appellant: Soffass SpA (represented by: V. Bilardo, C. Bacchini and M. Mazzitelli, Avvocati)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM)
   Other party to the proceedings: Sodipan SCA, intervener
   Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment under appeal.

               —

               Grant the forms of order sought by the appellant in the proceedings at first instance and annul the decision of the OHIM First Board of Appeal of 16 July 2004 in Case R0699/2003-1.

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appellant claims that the judgment under appeal was given contrary to Article 8(1)(b) and (2)(a)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), which provides that ‘… the trade mark applied for shall not be registered if because of its identity with or similarity to the earlier trade mark and the identity or similarity of the goods or services covered by the trade marks there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public in the territory in which the earlier trade mark is protected …’. The court has in fact misapplied the concept of the likelihood of confusion, as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Communities.
   According to the appellant, the trade marks which are the subject of the present dispute are not likely to be confused with each other in view of the clear phonetic, visual, graphic and conceptual differences.

      (1)  OJ L 11, 14/01/1994, p. 1.


title: Case T-398/06: Action brought on 15 December 2006 — Unicredito Italiano SpA v OHIM — Union Investment Privatfonds (1 Unicredit)

text:
               24.2.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/33

         Action brought on 15 December 2006 — Unicredito Italiano SpA v OHIM — Union Investment Privatfonds (1 Unicredit)
   (Case T-398/06)
   (2007/C 42/59)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Unicredito Italiano SpA (Genoa, Italy) (represented by: G. Floridia and R. Floridia, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the OHIM Board of Appeal: Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH.
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested decision.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Unicredito Italiano SpA

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘1 Unicredit’, registration application No 2.055.069 for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41 and 42.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: German word marks ‘UNIFONDS’ (No 881.995) and ‘UNIRAK’ (No 991.997) and figurative mark ‘UNIZINS’ (No 2.016.954) for services in Class 36 (capital investment).

      Decision of the Opposition Division: to allow the opposition.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: to dismiss the action.

      Pleas in law: Misapplication of the theory of the extended protection of ‘serial marks’ as formulated by the Court of First Instance in Case T-194/03 Il Ponte Finanziaria v OHIM [2006] ECR II-0000 (Bainbridge).


title: Case T-56/15: Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2016 — Raimund Schmitt Verpachtungsgesellschaft v EUIPO (BRAUWELT) (EU trade mark — Application for European Union word mark BRAUWELT — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Right to be heard — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               28.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 441/18

      Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2016 — Raimund Schmitt Verpachtungsgesellschaft v EUIPO (BRAUWELT)
      (Case T-56/15) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Application for European Union word mark BRAUWELT - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Right to be heard - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))
      (2016/C 441/22)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Raimund Schmitt Verpachtungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: M. Höfler, lawyer)

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

         Re:

      Action against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 December 2014 (Case R 1121/2014-4), concerning an application for registration of the word sign BRAUWELT as a European Union trade mark.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Raimund Schmitt Verpachtungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 118, 13.4.2015.