title: Case C-169/00: Action brought on 8 May 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Finland

text:
26.8.2000             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 247/13
The judgment of the Court of First Instance is also vitiated by         Pleas in law and main arguments
errors of law and defective reasoning in relation to the concept
of a single and continuous agreement — the Cembureau
agreement censured in Article 1 of the decision.                        The Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                        Article 2 of the said Sixth VAT Directive 77/388/EEC, by
                                                                        maintaining in force legislation under which supplies of works
In the appellant’s submission, the contested judgment warrants          of art by artists or intermediaries and imports of works of art
censure also in the part relating to the penalty, which annulled        bought directly from artists are exempted from value added
or reduced by reason of the following considerations:                   tax.
—    erroneous assessment of the duration and seriousness of
     the alleged infringements;                                         Under the Sixth VAT Directive it is not possible to exempt
                                                                        supplies or imports of works of art from value added tax.
—    the rejection of the request for amendment of the fine;            Nor is exemption permitted under point 2(n) of Part IX of
                                                                        Annex XV to the Act concerning the conditions of accession
                                                                        of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the
—    insufficient reasons for the judgment in relation to the
                                                                        Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments to the Treaties on
     reference turnover;
                                                                        which the European Union is founded.
—    misassessment of Cementir’s criticism concerning the
     limitation referred to in Article 2(1);
                                                                        (1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
—    infringement of the principles of fairness and pro-                    harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to
     portionality and defective reasoning in relation to the                turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
     assessment of the criteria for determining fines.                      basis of assessment (OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1).
(1) OJ L 343, 30.12.1994, p. 1.
                                                                        Action brought on 9 May 2000 by the Republic of Finland
                                                                          against the Commission of the European Communities
Action brought on 8 May 2000 by the Commission of the
  European Communities against the Republic of Finland                                            (Case C-170/00)
                        (Case C-169/00)                                                          (2000/C 247/16)
                        (2000/C 247/15)                                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
An action against the Republic of Finland was brought before            Communities on 9 May 2000 by the Republic of Finland,
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 May               represented by Tuula Pynnä, Valtionasiamies, Legislative
2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,                     Adviser in the Legal Department of the Ministry of Foreign
represented by Esa Paasivirta and Enrico Traversa, of its Legal         Affairs, acting as Agent, and Elisabeth Bygglin, Legislative
Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in               Adviser in that ministry, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner            Luxembourg at the Finnish Embassy, 2 Rue Heine.
Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                        Finland claims that the Court should:
The Commission claims that the Court should:
                                                                        —     Annul Commission Decision 2000/216/EC of 1 March
1.   Declare that, by maintaining in force legislation under                  2000 excluding from Community financing certain
     which supplies of works of art by artists or intermediaries              expenditure incurred by the Member States under the
     and imports of works of art bought directly from artists                 Guarantee Sect on of the European Agricultural Guidance
     are exempted from value added tax, the Republic of                       and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (1) in so far as it refuses to
     Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2             charge to the EAGGF the sum of FIM 7 270 885,76
     of the Sixth VAT Directive (1);                                          included in Finland’s expenditure for the 1996 and 1997
                                                                              financial years of the EAGGF Guarantee Section with
2.   Order Finland to pay the costs.                                          respect to meat premiums;


title: Case C-280/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Palma de Mallorca (Spain) lodged on 22 May 2013 — Barclays Bank, S.A. v Sara Sánchez García and Alejandro Chacón Barrera

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/3

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Palma de Mallorca (Spain) lodged on 22 May 2013 — Barclays Bank, S.A. v Sara Sánchez García and Alejandro Chacón Barrera
   (Case C-280/13)
   (2013/C 226/05)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Palma de Mallorca

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Barclays Bank, S.A.

      Defendants: Sara Sánchez García and Alejandro Chacón Barrera

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, and the principles of Community law concerning consumer protection and a balance in the parties’ contractual rights and obligations, be interpreted as meaning that they preclude Spanish legislation on mortgages which, although it provides that the mortgagee may request an increase of the security where the valuation of a mortgaged property decreases by 20 %, does not provide, in the context of mortgage enforcement proceedings, that the consumer/debtor/party against whom enforcement is sought may request, following a valuation involving the parties concerned, revision of the sum at which the property was valued, at least for the purposes stipulated in Article 671 LEC, (2) where that valuation has increased by an equal or higher percentage during the period between the creation of the mortgage and the enforcement thereof?

               2.

               Must Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, and the principles of Community law concerning consumer protection and a balance in the parties’ contractual rights and obligations, be interpreted as meaning that they preclude the Spanish procedural rules on mortgage enforcement which provide that the creditor seeking enforcement may be awarded the mortgaged property at 50 % (now 60 %) of the sum at which the property was valued, which entails an unjustified penalty for the consumer/debtor/party against whom enforcement is sought equivalent to 50 % (now 40 %) of that valuation?

               3.

               Must Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, and the principles of Community law concerning consumer protection and a balance in the parties’ contractual rights and obligations, be interpreted as meaning that there is abuse of rights and unjust enrichment where, after being awarded the mortgaged property at 50 % (now 60 %) of the sum at which the property was valued, the creditor/party seeking enforcement applies for enforcement in respect of the outstanding amount in order to make up the total amount of the debt, despite the fact that the sum at which the property awarded was valued and/or the actual value of the property awarded is higher than the total amount owed, even though such action is permitted under national procedural law?

               4.

               Must Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, and the principles of Community law concerning consumer protection and a balance in the parties’ contractual rights and obligations, be interpreted as meaning that, upon the award of the mortgaged property with a valuation and/or actual value which is higher than the total amount of the mortgage loan, Article 570 LEC is applicable and supplants Articles 579 and 671 LEC, and that, accordingly, the creditor seeking enforcement must be considered to have been repaid in full?

      (1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).

      (2)  Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil (Law on Civil Procedure).


title: Case T-6/01: Action brought on 9 January 2001 by Matratzen Concord Aktiengesellschaft against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
C 108/22                 EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                      7.4.2001
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                    9 January 2001 by Matratzen Concord Aktiengesellschaft,
                                                                              Cologne (Germany), represented by Wolf-W. Wodrich,
                       of 30 November 2000                                    Rechtsanwalt.
in Case T-175/00: Anthony Goldstein v Commission of
                  the European Communities (1)                                The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
                                                                              was Hukla Germany S.A., Castellbisbal (Spain).
(Action for failure to act — Articles 81 and 82 EC — No
    need to adjudicate — Article 86 EC — Admissibility)
                                                                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
                           (2001/C 108/41)
                    (Language of the case: English)                           —     annul the decision adopted on 31 October 2000 by the
                                                                                defendant (Second Board of Appeal) in joined appeals
In Case T-175/00: Anthony Goldstein, residing at Harrow,                            Nos R 728/1999-2 and R 792/1999-2;
Middlesex (United Kingdom), represented by R.St John Mur-
phy, Solicitor, 3 King’s Bench Walk, Inner Temple, London
(United Kingdom), against Commission of the European                          —     reject the opposition entered on 21 April 1998 by the
Communities (Agent: R. Lyal) — application for a declaration                        opposing party (Case No B 32500);
that the Commission has failed to act by not taking a decision
on a complaint (IV/34.824 — Goldstein/GMC) against certain
anticompetitive practices, lodged by the applicant under                      —     order the defendant to register the Community trade
Article 3(2) of Council Regulation No 17 of 6 February 1962,                        mark (pictorial mark) ‘MATRATZEN Markt CONCORD’
First Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty                      (trade mark application No 395 632 of 10 October
(OJ, English Special Edition 1959-1962, p. 87) — the Court of                       1996) in the Register of Community trade marks;
First Instance (First Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf,
President, M. Vilaras and N.J. Forwood, Judges; H. Jung,
Registrar, has given an order on 30 November 2000, in which                   —     order the opposing party to pay all the costs and expenses
it:                                                                                of the proceedings before the Opposition Division and
                                                                                the Board of Appeal and of the present court proceedings.
1.    There is no need to adjudicate on the claim for a declaration of
      failure to act in so far as it relates to the Commission’s failure
      to act in connection with Articles 81 and 82 EC.
2.    In so far as it is directed against the Commission’s failure to         Pleas in law and main arguments
      act in connection with Article 86 EC, the application is
      inadmissible.
                                                                              Applicant for the Com-       Matratzen     Concord     Aktienge-
3.    The parties shall bear their own costs.                                 munity mark:                 sellschaft
(1) OJ C 285 of 7.10.00.                                                      Trade mark applied for:      The pictorial mark ‘MATRATZEN
                                                                                Markt CONCORD’ — trade mark
                                                                                application No 395 632 for goods
                                                                                in Classes 10, 20 and 24
                                                                              Proprietor of an oppos-      Hukla Germany S.A., Castellbis-
Action brought on 9 January 2001 by Matratzen Concord                         ing mark or of an oppos-     bal, Spain
Aktiengesellschaft against the Office for Harmonisation                       ing sign:
     in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                              Opposing mark or sign:       The Spanish registered mark
                             (Case T-6/01)                                                                 ‘MATRATZEN’ for goods in Class
                                                                                20
                           (2001/C 108/42)
                                                                              Decision of the Oppo-        Rejection of the application in
(Language of the case: to be determined in accordance with Article            sition Division:             respect of goods in Classes 20 and
131(2) of the Rules of Procedure — Language in which the                                                   24. Continuation of the appli-
                    application is drafted: German)                                                        cation procedure in respect of
                                                                                goods in Class 10
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the                       Decision of the Board of     Appeal of the opposing party
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                        Appeal:                      upheld
 ---pagebreak--- 7.4.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 108/23
Grounds of claim:             Infringement of Regulation (EC)           In 1995, pursuant to Article 3 of Council Regulation No 17
                              No 40/94 on the Community                 he lodged a complaint with the Commission in respect of
                              trade mark (Article 8) — Infringe-        certain allegedly anticompetitive rules applied by the General
                              ment of the EC Treaty (Articles           Council of the Bar of England and Wales. The complaint related
                              28 and 29 EC) — No similarity             particularly to the requirement that a barrister practising at
                              between the conflicting trade             that Bar is to supply legal services only if briefed or instructed
                              marks — Impermissible splitting-          by a professional client. The applicant contends that this rule
                              up of the mark into its individual        constitutes a restriction of competition contrary to Article 81
                              component parts — Failure to              EC, inasmuch as it deprives the consumers of legal services of
                              have regard to the case-law of the        the ability to have access to the services provided by barristers
                              Court of Justice concerning the           practising at that Bar.
                              overall impression given by a
                              mark — Right of a competitor in
                              the market to combine the name            By letter of 12 January 2001, the Commission rejected the
                              of its main products with its com-        applicant’s complaint.
                              pany name — Change in the legal
                              position since registration of the
                              opposing mark.
                                                                        In the present case, the applicant submits inter alia that the
                                                                        Commission infringed Articles 81 and 82 EC by wrongly
                                                                        examining the validity of national legislation and by wrongly
                                                                        assessing the data from which it may be concluded that the
                                                                        essential elements of a situation, in which Articles 81, 82 and
                                                                        86 EC apply, are in fact present. Furthermore, he asserts that
                                                                        the Commission has misrepresented the Community nature
                                                                        and effects of the legal framework at Community level
                                                                        regulating the profession of lawyer in Directives 77/249/EEC,
Action brought on 25 January 2001 by Anthony Gold-                      89/48/EEC and 98/5/EC.
stein against the Commission of the European Communi-
                               ties
                         (Case T-18/01)
                        (2001/C 108/43)
                  (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               Action brought on 25 January 2001 by Chiquita Brands
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              International, Inc, Chiquita Banana Company B.V. and
European Communities on 25 January 2001 by Anthony                      Chiquita Italia, S.p.A. against the Commission of the
Goldstein, represented by Mr R St J Murphy, Solicitor, of                                   European Communities
Merriman White, London (UK).
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                       (Case T-19/01)
—     Annul the decision of the Commission of 12 January
      2001 rejecting the complaint made pursuant to Regu-                                        (2001/C 108/44)
      lation No 17 by the applicant concerning infringement
      of Articles 81 and 82 EC by the General Council of the
      Bar of England and Wales
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
—     Order the Commission to pay the costs
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 25 January 2001 by Chiquita
                                                                        Brands International, Inc, Chiquita Banana Company B.V. and
The applicant completed, in 1999, the Bar Vocational Course,            Chiquita Italia, S.p.A., represented by Mr C Pouncey, Solicitor,
a prerequisite for admission to the Bar of England and Wales            and Mr L Van Den Hende, Advocaat, of Herbert Smith, London
and the practice of law as a barrister.                                 (UK).


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 January 2001 in Case C-41/98: Commission of the European Communities v Tecnologie Vetroresina SpA (TVR) (Arbitration clause — Non-performance of contract)

text:
C 161/4                   EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           2.6.2001
e Penale di Genova (District Court, Genoa), Italy, for a                     the Commission — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                    C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber,
court between Siples Srl, in lı̀quidation, and Ministero delle               J.-P. Puissochet and R. Schintgen, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo
Finanze, Servizio della Riscossione dei Tributi — Concessione                Colomer, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Adminis-
Provincia di Genova — San Paolo Riscossioni Genova SpA —                     trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 January
on the interpretation of Article 244 of Council Regulation                   2001, in which it:
(EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the
Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) — the Court                     1.    Orders Tecnologie Vetroresina SpA (TVR) to pay the Com-
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola, President of the                      mission of the European Communities the sum of
Chamber, M. Wathelet, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann (Rapporteur)                          EUR 211 307 , together with interest at the agreed rate from
and L. Sevón, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate                            21 December 1991 until the debt is paid in full;
General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
has given a judgment on 11 January 2001, in which it has                     2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;
ruled:
                                                                             3.    Orders Tecnologie Vetroresina SpA (TVR) to pay the costs.
Article 244 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October
1992 establishing the Community Customs Code is to be interpreted
as meaning that it confers the power to suspend implementation of a          (1) OJ C 137 of 2.5.1998.
contested decision exclusively on the customs authorities. However,
that provision does not limit the power of the judicial authorities
seised of a dispute pursuant to Article 243 of that regulation to order
such suspension in order to comply with their obligation to ensure
the full effectiveness of Community law.
(1) OJ C 246, 28.8.1999.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 16 January 2001
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     in Case C-41/98: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Tecnologie Vetroresina SpA (TVR) (1)
                           (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                (Arbitration clause — Non-performance of contract)
                          of 16 January 2001
                                                                                (2001/C 161/08)
in Case C-40/98: Commission of the European Communi-
          ties v Tecnologie Vetroresina SpA (TVR) (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
     (Arbitration clause — Non-performance of contract)
                            (2001/C 161/07)                                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                      (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                             In Case C-41/98: Commission of the European Communities
                                                                             (Agents: E. de March and A. Dal Ferro) v Teenologie Vetroresina
                                                                             SpA (TVR) (Agent: G. Merla) — application by the Commission
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       under Article 181 of the EC Treaty (now Article 238 EC) for
                     in the European Court Reports)                          an order requiring Tecnologie Vetroresina SpA, first, to
                                                                             reimburse an advance payment of ECU 77 558,80 made by
In Case C-40/98: Commission of the European Communities                      the Commission under Contract No BREU-0114-I(A), together
(Agents: E. de March and A. Dal Ferro) v Tecnologie Vetroresina              with interest at the agreed rate from 1 February 1990, and,
SpA (TVR) (Agent: G. Merla) — application by the Commission                  second, to pay damages of ECU 7 700 in respect of the harm
under Article 181 of the EC Treaty (now Article 238 EC)                      sustained by the Commission — the Court (Sixth Chamber),
against Tecnologie Vetroresina SpA for reimbursement of the                  composed of: C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), President of the
sum of ECU 211 307 advanced by the Commission under                          Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet and R. Schintgen, Judges; D. Ruiz-
Contract No 3440/1/0/187/91/6-BCR-I(30), together with                       Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal
interest at the agreed rate from 21 December 1991, and                       Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
damages of ECU 20 000 in respect of the harm sustained by                    16 January 2001, in which it:
 ---pagebreak--- 2.6.2001                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 161/5
1.    Orders Vetroresina Spa (TVR) to pay the Commission of the            1.    Declares that, by applying a reduced rate of value added tax to
      European Communities the sum of EUR 77 558,80, together                    the supply of services consisting in making road infrastructure
      with interest at the agreed rate from 1 February 1990 until the            available to users on payment of a toll, the Kingdom of Spain
      debt is paid in full;                                                      has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12(3)(a) of the
                                                                                Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;                                the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to
                                                                                turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
3.    Dismisses Tecnologie Vetroresina SpA (TVR)’s counterclaim;                 basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 96/95/EC
                                                                                of 20 December 1996;
4.    Orders Tecnologie Vetroresina SpA (M) to pay the costs.
                                                                           2.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 137 of 2.5.1998.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (Fifth Chamber)                                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         of 18 January 2001
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
in Case C-83/99: Commission of the European Communi-
                    ties v Kingdom of Spain (1)                                                     of 18 January 2001
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                     in Case C-162/99: Commission of the European Communi-
Article 12(3)(a) of the Sixth VAT Directive — Application                                        ties v Italian Republic (1)
               of a reduced rate to motorway tolls)
                                                                           (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                            (2001/C 161/09)                                Freedom of movement for workers — Freedom of establish-
                                                                                ment — Dentists — Residence conditions)
                    (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                                (2001/C 161/10)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                                              (Language of the case: Italian)
In Case C-83/99: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: M. Dı́az-Llanos La Roche and C. Gómez de la Cruz) v
Kingdom of Spain (Agent: S. Ortiz Vaamonde) — application                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
for a declaration that, by applying a reduced rate of value                                    in the European Court Reports)
added tax to the supply of services consisting in making road
infrastructure available to users, the Kingdom of Spain has
failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12 of the Sixth             In Case C-162/99: Commission of the European Communities
Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the                       (Agents: F.P. Ruggen Laderchi and B. Mongin) v Italian Republic
harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to                 (Agents: U. Leanza, assisted by F. Quadri) — application for a
turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform                 declaration that:
basis of assessment (OJ L 145, 1977, p. 1), as amended by
Council Directive 96/95/EC of 20 December 1996 (OJ L 338,                  —     by allowing Legislative Decree No 233 of the Provisional
1996, p. 89) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La                     Head of State of 13 September 1946, despite amendment
Pergola (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet,                     by Article 9 of Law No 362 of 8 November 1991, to
D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; S. Alber,                          remain in force in such a way as to leave dentists
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment                      practising in Italy still subject to a de facto residence
on 18 January 2001, in which it:                                                 requirement,


No C 137/ 16          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    3 . 6 . 95
      Removal from the register of Case C-l 00/94 ( )                      Removal from the register of Case C-176/94 f 1 )
                          ( 95/C 137/37 )                                                      ( 95/C 137/38 )
By order of 9 March 19 95 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal              By order of 1 March 1995 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-l 00/94 : Commission of the              Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
European Communities v. Hellenic Republic .                          from the register of Case C-176/94 : Commission of the
                                                                     European Communities v. Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
(») OJ No C 132 , 14 . 5 . 1994 .
                                                                     (') OJ No C 218 , 6 . 8 . 1994 .
                                                    COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             the Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                        of 6 April 1995                              the Chambers of Elvinger and Hoss , 15 Cote d'Eich,
                                                                     T-93/89 , Den Norske Stats Oljeselskap AS ( Statoil ), whose
in Joined Cases T-80/89, T-81 /89, T-83/89, T-87/89,                 registered office is in Stavanger (Norway ), represented by
T-88/ 89 , T-90/89 , T-93 /89 , T-95 / 89 , T-97/89 , T-99/89,       Graham Child , Solicitor, with an address for service in
T-100/89, T-101 /89, T-103/89, T-105/89, T-107/89 and
T-l 12/ 89 : BASF AG and Others v. Commission of the
                                                                     Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger and Hoss, 15
                                                                     Cote d'Eich, T-95/89 , Enichem SpA, whose registered office
                 European Communities (')                            is in Milan ( Italy ), represented by Mario Siragusa, of the
(Competition — Procedure — Competence                       —        Rome Bar, Giuseppe Scassellati Sforzolini, of the Bologna
              Commission 's rules of procedure)                      Bar, and Gianfranco Arcidiacono, of the Milan Bar, with an
                          ( 95/C 137/39 )                            address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                     Arendt and Medernach, 8—10 Rue Mathias Hardt,
                                                                     T-97/89 , Hoechst AG , whose registered office is in
(Languages of the case: German, English, Spanish , French,           Frankfurt-am-Main ( Germany), represented by Hans
                      Italian and Dutch)
                                                                     Hellmann and Hans-Joachim Voges, Rechtsanwalte,
                                                                     Cologne , with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
In Joined Cases T-80/89 , BASF AG, whose registered office           Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe, T-99/89 ,
is in Ludwigshafen ( Germany ), represented by Ferdinand             Imperial Chemical Industries pic ( ICI ), whose registered
Hermanns and Karl Kaiser, Rechtsanwalte, Diisseldorf,                office is in London, represented by David Vaughan QC and
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers            David Anderson, Barrister, of the Bar of England and Wales,
of Loesch & Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe, T-81 /89 , Monsanto               instructed by Victor White , Richard Coles and Andrew
Company, whose registered office is in St Louis , Missouri           Ransom, Solicitors, with an address for service in
( United States of America ), represented by Clive Stanbrook         Luxembourg at the Chambers of Dupong and Konsbruck,
QC and John Ratliff, Barrister, of the Bar of England and            14A Rue des Bains , T-100/89 , Neste Oy, whose registered
Wales , with an address for service in Luxembourg at the             office is in Espoo ( Finland ), represented by Georges van
Chambers of Arsene Kronshagen, 12 Boulevard de la Foire,             Hecke, Avocat with right of audience before the Belgian
T-83/89 , NV DSM and DSM Kunststoffen BV, whose                      Court of Cassation, and Gerwin Van Gerven, of the Brussels
registered offices are in Heerlen ( Netherlands ), represented       Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
by Inne G. F. Cath, of the Hague Bar, with an address for            Chambers of Freddy Brausch, 11 Rue Goethe, T-101 /89 ,
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Dupong and                  Repsol Quimica SA, whose registered office is in Madrid ,
Konsbruck, 14A Rue des Bains, T-87/89 , Orkem SA, whose              represented by Jose Perez Santos , of the Madrid Bar, with an
registered office is in Paris, represented by Dominique              address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Voillemot and Joelle Salzmann, of the Paris Bar , with an            Ernest Arendt, 8—10 Rue Mathias Hardt, T-103/89 , Shell
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                 International Chemical Company Ltd, whose registered
Loesch & Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe, T-88/89 , Bayer AG,                  office is in London, represented by Kenneth Parker QC , of
whose registered office is in Leverkusen ( Germany ),                the Bar of England and Wales, instructed by John Osborne,
represented by Oliver Axster and Holger Wissel,                      Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Rechtsanwalte , Diisseldorf, Michel Waelbroeck, Denis                Chambers of Elvinger and Hoss, 15 Cote d'Eich, T-105/89 ,
Waelbroeck and Alexandre Vandencasteele, of the Brussels             Montedison SpA, whose registered office is in Milan ( Italy ),
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                represented by Giuseppe Celona, Avvocato with right of
Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe, T-90/89 ,                audience before the Italian Court of Cassation, Giorgio
Atochem SA, whose registered office is in Puteaux ( France ),        Aghina, of the Milan Bar, and Piero Ferrari,, of the Rome
represented by Xavier de Roux and Charles-Henri Leger, of            Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the


title: Case T-167/10: Action brought on 7 April 2010 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

text:
               19.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/47

      Action brought on 7 April 2010 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission
      (Case T-167/10)
      (2010/C 161/75)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

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

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  Annul the decision of 27 January 2010 of the Secretariat General — SG.E.3/FM/psi — Ares (2010)43764- rejecting the request for a review submitted by the applicant in which it requested, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, the review of the position taken by the Directorate-General for Informatics in its letter of 18 September 2009, following the applicant’s initial request, dated 14 August 2009, as concerns access to all requests for quotation (RfQs) pertaining to Lot 3A of ESP-DESIS;

                  —

                  Annul the decision of 11 March 2010 of the Secretariat General — SG.E.3/FM/MIB/rc/psi — Ares(2010)131966- rejecting the request for a review submitted by the applicant in which it requested, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, the review of the positions taken by the Directorate-General (DG) for Informatics, by the Publications Office of the European Union (OP, previously OPOCE) and by the Budget DG in their respective letters of 11 December 2009, following the applicant’s initial requests, dated 9 October 2009, as concerns access to all RfQs pertaining to all lots of the contracts ESP, ESP-DIMA and ESP-DESIS(dealt by Informatics DG), OPOCE’s Framework Contracts No 6011, 6102, 6103, 6020, 10042, 6121, 6031, 10030 and DG BUDGET’s Framework Contract No BUDG/O101;

                  —

                  Order the Commission to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with its application; even if the current application is rejected.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of its claims, the applicant argues that the Commission infringed the regulation No 1049/2001 by not carrying out a concrete, individual examination of the documents referred to in the request for access in order to assess whether the exceptions relied on applied or whether a partial access could be granted. Moreover, the applicant contends that the justifications provided for by the Commission with regards to the protection of the economic policy of the EU, the protection of the commercial interests and the public security reasons should be rejected as wholly unfounded as the reasons relied on by the Commission are, in the applicant’s view, general and abstract in nature and do not show that the Commission undertook a specific individual examination of the content of the requested documents.


title: Joined Cases T-230/08 and T-231/08: Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2010 — Asenbaum v OHIM (WIENER WERKSTÄTTE) (Community trade mark — Applications for Community word mark WIENER WERKSTÄTTE — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/28

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2010 — Asenbaum v OHIM (WIENER WERKSTÄTTE)
   (Joined Cases T-230/08 and T-231/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Applications for Community word mark WIENER WERKSTÄTTE - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2010/C 328/47
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Paul Asenbaum (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: P. Vögel and E. Ploil, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 April 2008 (Cases R 1573/2006-4 and R 1571/2006-4) concerning two applications for registration of the word sign WIENER WERKSTÄTTE as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Orders that Cases T-230/08 and T-231/08 shall be joined for the purposes of the judgment;

               2.

               Dismisses the actions.

               3.

               Orders Mr Asenbaum to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 30.8.2008.


title: Case T-257/08: Action brought on 30 June 2008 — Biotronik v OHIM (BioMonitor)

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/53

         Action brought on 30 June 2008 — Biotronik v OHIM (BioMonitor)
   (Case T-257/08)
   (2008/C 223/94)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Biotronik Meβ- und Therapiegeräte GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: U. Sander and R. Böhm, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 24 April 2008 in Case No R 466/2007-4;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘BioMonitor’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 10 and 38, in which the additional list of goods for Class 10 would be restricted (Application No 4 556 023).

      Decision of the Examiner: Application rejected.

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

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) in that the trade mark applied for does not lack distinctive character and it is not a descriptive term.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).


title: Case C-106/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 6 March 2014 — FCD — Fédération des entreprises du commerce et de la distribution, FMB — Fédération des magasins de bricolage et de l’aménagement de la maison v Ministre de l’écologie, du développement durable et de l’énergie

text:
               12.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/28

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 6 March 2014 — FCD — Fédération des entreprises du commerce et de la distribution, FMB — Fédération des magasins de bricolage et de l’aménagement de la maison v Ministre de l’écologie, du développement durable et de l’énergie
   (Case C-106/14)
   2014/C 142/35
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: FCD — Fédération des entreprises du commerce et de la distribution, FMB — Fédération des magasins de bricolage et de l’aménagement de la maison

      Defendant: Ministre de l’écologie, du développement durable et de l’énergie

      Question referred

   ‘Where an “article” within the meaning of Regulation No 1907/2006 (REACH) (1) is composed of several elements which themselves meet the definition of “article” given by the regulation, are the obligations resulting from Article 7(2) and Article 33 of the regulation to apply only with regard to the assembled article or with regard to each of the elements which meet the definition of “article”?’

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1)


title: Case T-326/16: Action brought on 20 June 2016 — Bundesverband Deutsche Tafel v EUIPO — Tiertafel Deutschland (Tafel)

text:
               8.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/32

         Action brought on 20 June 2016 — Bundesverband Deutsche Tafel v EUIPO — Tiertafel Deutschland (Tafel)
   (Case T-326/16)
   (2016/C 287/39)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Bundesverband Deutsche Tafel e.V. (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: T. Koerl, E. Celenk and S. Vollmer, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tiertafel Deutschland e.V. (Rathenow, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Tafel’ — EU trade mark No 8 985 541

      Procedure before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 April 2016 in Case R 248/2016-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

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

               —

               Infringement of 65(6) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case F-120/07: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 15 March 2011 — Strack v European Commission (Civil service — Officials — Carry-over of days of annual leave — Article 4 of Annex V to the Staff Regulations — Reasons attributable to the interests of the service — Article 73 of the Staff Regulations — Directive 2003/88/EC — Right to paid annual leave — Sick leave)

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/48

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 15 March 2011 — Strack v European Commission
   (Case F-120/07) (1)

   (Civil service - Officials - Carry-over of days of annual leave - Article 4 of Annex V to the Staff Regulations - Reasons attributable to the interests of the service - Article 73 of the Staff Regulations - Directive 2003/88/EC - Right to paid annual leave - Sick leave)
   2011/C 252/102
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Guido Strack (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and B. Eggers, Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of several decisions of the Commission concerning the application to carry over from 2004 to 2005 a number of days of unused annual leave exceeding the limit of 12 days. An order that the European Commission pay the applicant compensation for the 26.5 days of unused leave in respect of which no compensation has been paid with interest at a rate of 2 % per year.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 15 March 2007 rejecting the request by Mr Strack to carry over the balance of his days of annual leave from 2004;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the application;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to pays its own costs and those of Mr Strack.

      (1)  OJ C 315, 22.12.2007, p. 50.


title: Case T-448/13: Action brought on 21 August 2013 — Bora Creations v OHIM — Beauté Prestige International (essence)

text:
               19.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 304/22

         Action brought on 21 August 2013 — Bora Creations v OHIM — Beauté Prestige International (essence)
   (Case T-448/13)
   2013/C 304/38
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Bora Creations, SL (Ceuta, Spain) (represented by: R. Lange, G. Hild and C.Pape, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Beauté Prestige International SA (Paris, France)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 June 2013 given in Case R 1085/2012-5;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The word mark ‘essence’ for goods in Classes 3, 4, 8, 14, 16, 21, 25 and 26 — Community trade mark registration No 6 816 144

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

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

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Absolute grounds pursuant to Article 52(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (CTMR) (1), namely that the CTM was registered in breach of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) CTMR

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the application for a declaration of invalidity

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Allowed the appeal and declared the CTM partially invalid

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) CTMR.

      (1)  OJ L 78, p. 1


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 4 May 2005 in Case T-359/02 Chum Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Word mark STAR TV — Opposition of the owner of the international figurative mark STAR TV — Refusal to register)

text:
               9.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/14

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 4 May 2005
   in Case T-359/02 Chum Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Word mark STAR TV - Opposition of the owner of the international figurative mark STAR TV - Refusal to register)
   (2005/C 171/23)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case T-359/02: Chum Ltd, established in Toronto (Canada), represented by M.J. Gilbert, lawyer, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: P. Bullock and S. Laitinen), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM having been Star TV AG, established in Schlieren (Switzerland) — action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 September 2002 (Case R 1146/2000-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Chum Ltd and Star TV AG — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of H. Legal, President, P. Mengozzi and I. Wiszniewska-Białecka, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on 4 May 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 19 of 25.1.2003.


title: Case T-212/14: Action brought on 31 March 2014 — PSL/OHIM — Consortium Ménager Parisien (Representation of a watch)

text:
               28.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/17

         Action brought on 31 March 2014 — PSL/OHIM — Consortium Ménager Parisien (Representation of a watch)
   (Case T-212/14)
   2014/C 245/23
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: PSL Ltd (Kowloon, Hong-Kong) (represented by: R. Dissmann and J. Bogatz, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Consortium Ménager Parisien (Paris, France)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 January 2014 in Case R 1495/2012-3;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings before the court as well as the appeal proceedings before the Board of Appeals.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community design in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Design representing a watch for goods in Class 10-02 — Community Design No 1 600 560-0001

      Proprietor of the Community design: The applicant

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community design: Consortium Menager Parisien

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Lack of individual character within the meaning of Article 6(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the application for invalidity

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and declared the contested design invalid

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 6 of Regulation No 6/2002


title: Case C-47/10 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 October 2011 — Republic of Austria v Scheucher-Fleisch GmbH, Tauernfleisch Vertriebs GesmbH, Wech-Kärntner Truthahnverarbeitung GmbH, Wech-Geflügel GmbH, Johann Zsifkovics, European Commission (Appeal — State aid — Articles 87 EC and 88(2) and (3) EC — Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Decision not to raise any objections — Action for annulment — Pleas in law that may be relied upon in an action for annulment — Notion of ‘interested party’ — Statement of reasons for judgments — Burden of proof — Measures of organisation of procedure before the General Court — Articles 64 and 81 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court)

text:
               17.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 370/11

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 October 2011 — Republic of Austria v Scheucher-Fleisch GmbH, Tauernfleisch Vertriebs GesmbH, Wech-Kärntner Truthahnverarbeitung GmbH, Wech-Geflügel GmbH, Johann Zsifkovics, European Commission
   (Case C-47/10 P) (1)

   (Appeal - State aid - Articles 87 EC and 88(2) and (3) EC - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Decision not to raise any objections - Action for annulment - Pleas in law that may be relied upon in an action for annulment - Notion of ‘interested party’ - Statement of reasons for judgments - Burden of proof - Measures of organisation of procedure before the General Court - Articles 64 and 81 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court)
   2011/C 370/16
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Republic of Austria (represented by: E. Riedl, Agent, Núñez Müller, J. Dammann, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Scheucher-Fleisch GmbH, Tauernfleisch Vertriebs GmbH, Wech-Kärntner Truthahnverarbeitung GmbH, Wech-Geflügel GmbH, Johann Zsifkovics (represented by J. Hofer and T. Humer, Rechtsanwälte), European Commission (represented by V. Kreuschitz and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 18 November 2009Scheucher-Fleisch and Others v Commission (T-375/04), in which the Court of First Instance annulled Commission Decision C(2004) 2037 final of 30 June 2004 in relation to State aid NN 34A/00 concerning the quality programmes and quality labels ‘AAMA Biozeichen’ and ‘AMA Gütesiegel’ in Austria (OJ 2005 C 105, p. 30) — Erroneous interpretation of the expression ‘Adirectly and individually concerned’ in the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU — Infringement of Article 108(2) TFEU in that the Court of First Instance held that the Commission was obliged to initiate the procedure laid down by that provision — Infringement of the rules concerning the burden of proof — Insufficient reasons stated for the judgment under appeal — Lack of necessary inquiry measures.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the main appeal and the additional appeal;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 27.3.2010.


title: Case T-290/14: Judgment of the General Court of 26 October 2015 — Portnov v Council (Common Foreign and Security Policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Ukraine — Freezing of funds — List of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion of the applicant’s name — Proof that inclusion on the list is well-founded)

text:
               21.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 429/21

         Judgment of the General Court of 26 October 2015 — Portnov v Council
   (Case T-290/14) (1)

   ((Common Foreign and Security Policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Ukraine - Freezing of funds - List of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion of the applicant’s name - Proof that inclusion on the list is well-founded))
   (2015/C 429/27)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Andriy Portnov (Kiev, Ukraine) (represented by: M. Cessieux, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux and J. P. Hix, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Gauci and T. Scharf, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 66, p. 1) and Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 66, p. 26), in so far as the applicant’s name was included on the list of persons, entities and bodies covered by those restrictive measures.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine and Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine in so far as they concern Andriy Portnov;

               2.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those of Mr Portnov;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 194, 24.6.2014.


title: Case C-250/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (Portugal) lodged on 12 May 2017 — Virgílio Tarragó da Silveira v Massa Insolvente da Espírito Santo Financial Group, SA

text:
               24.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/31

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (Portugal) lodged on 12 May 2017 — Virgílio Tarragó da Silveira v Massa Insolvente da Espírito Santo Financial Group, SA
   (Case C-250/17)
   (2017/C 239/38)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Supremo Tribunal de Justiça

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Virgílio Tarragó da Silveira

      Defendant: Massa Insolvente da Espírito Santo Financial Group, SA

      Question referred

   Must the rule in Article 15 of Regulation No 1346/2000 (1) of 29 May 2000 be interpreted to the effect that its scope includes a lawsuit pending before a Member State seeking an order that a debtor pay a monetary sum due under a service contract and pay monetary damages for failure to comply with that obligation, bearing in mind that: (i) the debtor was declared bankrupt in proceedings commenced in a court in another Member State; and (ii) the declaration of insolvency applies to all of the debtor’s assets?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1).


title: Case C-120/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Košiciach (Slovakia) lodged on 9 March 2015 — Kovozber s.r.o. v Daňový úrad Košice

text:
               29.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/14

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Košiciach (Slovakia) lodged on 9 March 2015 — Kovozber s.r.o. v Daňový úrad Košice
   (Case C-120/15)
   (2015/C 213/22)
   Language of the case: Slovak

      Referring court

   Krajský súd v Košiciach

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Kovozber s.r.o.

      Defendant: Daňový úrad Košice

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the first paragraph of Article 183 of Directive 2006/112/EC, as amended by Directive 2006/138/EC (1), be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, in determining the conditions for refunding an excess deduction of value added tax, makes the award of default interest (on the delayed refund of value added tax) conditional on the expiry of a period of 10 days from completion of the tax inspection for ascertaining whether the claim to the refund of the excess deduction is justified?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, is it for the national court, in the absence of national legislation on default interest after a period of 10 days from completion of a tax inspection, to determine by analogy, in its own discretion, appropriate legal rules on interest?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 384, p. 92.


title: Judgment of the Court of 15 November 2013 in Case E-11/13 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2002/92/EC of 9 December 2002 on insurance mediation)

text:
               27.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 88/12

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   of 15 November 2013
   in Case E-11/13
   EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland
   (Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2002/92/EC of 9 December 2002 on insurance mediation)
   2014/C 88/09
   In Case E-11/13, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that, by failing to correctly implement Article 9, paragraphs 1 and 2, and Article 10 of the Act referred to at point 13b of Annex IX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2002/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 December 2002 on insurance mediation), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations arising under that Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 15 November 2013, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               declares that, by failing to correctly implement Article 9, paragraphs 1 and 2, and Article 10 of the Act referred to at point 13b of Annex IX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2002/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 December 2002 on insurance mediation), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations pursuant to that Act and pursuant to Article 7 of the EEA Agreement;

               2.

               orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.


title: Case F-100/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 28 January 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission (Civil service — Article 34(1) of the Rules of Procedure — Application lodged by fax within the time limit for bringing proceedings signed by means of a stamp reproducing a lawyer’s signature or other means of reproduction — Action lodged out of time — Manifestly inadmissible)

text:
               9.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/29

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 28 January 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case F-100/12)
   (Civil service - Article 34(1) of the Rules of Procedure - Application lodged by fax within the time limit for bringing proceedings signed by means of a stamp reproducing a lawyer’s signature or other means of reproduction - Action lodged out of time - Manifestly inadmissible)
   2013/C 71/49
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Commission

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision refusing to pay compensation to the applicant for the harm he purportedly suffered on account of the delay in his retirement procedure under Article 53 of the Staff Rules and on account of the absence of any decision concerning a possible work-related origin of the illness which caused him to retire.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Mr Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs.


C 55/18                EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                        8.3.2003
        Removal from the register of Case C-359/99 ( 1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-486/99 ( 1)
                         (2003/C 55/34)                                                         (2003/C 55/37)
By order of 19 November 2002 the President of the Court of             By order of 19 November 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-359/99 (Reference for a preliminary        from the register of Case C-486/99 (Reference for a preliminary
ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Autogolf Srl v Ministero          ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Flos SpA and Others v
delle Finanze.                                                         Ministero delle Finanze.
( 1) OJ C 352 of 4.12.1999.                                            (1 ) OJ C 79 of 18.03.2000.
        Removal from the register of Case C-360/99 ( 1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-487/99 ( 1)
                         (2003/C 55/35)                                                         (2003/C 55/38)
By order of 15 November 2002 the President of the Court of             By order of 19 November 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-360/99 (Reference for a preliminary        from the register of Case C-487/99 (Reference for a preliminary
ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Union Factor SpA and              ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Petra SpA v Ministero delle
Others v Ministero delle Finanze.                                      Finanze.
( 1) OJ C 352 of 4.12.1999.                                            (1 ) OJ C 79 of 18.03.2000.
        Removal from the register of Case C-485/99 ( 1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-488/99 ( 1)
                         (2003/C 55/36)                                                         (2003/C 55/39)
By order of 19 November 2002 the President of the Court of             By order of 19 November 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-485/99 (Reference for a preliminary        from the register of Case C-488/99 (Reference for a preliminary
ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Gottinghen SpA and Others         ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Supercar Srl v Ministero
v Ministero delle Finanze.                                             delle Finanze.
( 1) OJ C 79 of 18.03.2000.                                            (1 ) OJ C 79 of 18.03.2000.


title: Case T-142/14 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 23 May 2014  — SolarWorld and Others v Council (Application for interim measures — Subsidies — Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (cells) originating or consigned from China — Definitive countervailing duty — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency)

text:
               21.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/18

         Order of the President of the General Court of 23 May 2014 — SolarWorld and Others v Council
   (Case T-142/14 R)
   ((Application for interim measures - Subsidies - Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (cells) originating or consigned from China - Definitive countervailing duty - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency))
   2014/C 235/24
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: SolarWorld AG (Bonn (Germany)); Brandoni solare SpA, (Castelfidardo (Italy)); and Solaria Energia y Medio Ambiente, SA, (Madrid (Spain)) (represented by: L. Ruessmann, lawyer, and J. Beck, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   APPLICATION for suspension of operation of Article 2 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2013 of 2 December 2013 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2013 L 325, p. 66)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case C-383/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 November 2013 — Environmental Manufacturing LLP v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Société Elmar Wolf (Appeal — Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Figurative mark representing a wolf’s head — Opposition by the proprietor of the national and international figurative marks containing the word elements ‘WOLF Jardin’ and ‘Outils WOLF’ — Relative grounds for refusal — Detriment to the distinctive character of the earlier mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(5) — Change in the economic behaviour of the average consumer — Burden of proof)

text:
               11.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/11

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 November 2013 — Environmental Manufacturing LLP v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Société Elmar Wolf
   (Case C-383/12 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Figurative mark representing a wolf’s head - Opposition by the proprietor of the national and international figurative marks containing the word elements ‘WOLF Jardin’ and ‘Outils WOLF’ - Relative grounds for refusal - Detriment to the distinctive character of the earlier mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(5) - Change in the economic behaviour of the average consumer - Burden of proof)
   2014/C 9/16
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Environmental Manufacturing LLP (represented by: M. Atkins, Solicitor, K. Shadbolt, Advocate, and S. Malynicz, Barrister)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent), Société Elmar Wolf

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 May 2012 in Case T-570/10 Environmental Manufacturing v OHIM — Wolf, by which the General Court dismissed an action for annulment brought by the applicant for the figurative mark representing a wolf’s head, in respect of goods in Class 7, against Decision R 425/2010-2 of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM), of 6 October 2010, annulling the decision of the Opposition Division dismissing the opposition brought by the proprietor of the national and international figurative marks containing the word elements ‘WOLF Jardin’ and ‘Outils WOLF’, in respect of goods in Classes 1, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13 and 31 — Interpretation of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Relative grounds for refusal — Detriment to the distinctive character or reputation of the earlier mark

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 22 May 2012 in Case T 570/10 Environmental Manufacturing v OHIM — Wolf (Representation of a wolf’s head) [2012] ECR II 0000;

               2.

               Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

               3.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 331, 27.10.2012.


title: Case C-304/03: Action brought on 14 July 2003 by Commission of the European Communities against PROSECOM — Protecção, Segurança e Comunicações, Lda

text:
6.9.2003                  EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 213/21
—      order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                        Action brought on 14 July 2003 by Commission of the
                                                                           European Communities against PROSECOM — Protecção,
                                                                                Segurança e Comunicações, Lda
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Case C-304/03)
The time-limit for implementing the directive expired on
9 April 2002.                                                                                (2003/C 213/38)
( 1) OJ L 94 of 9.4.1999, p. 24.
                                                                           An action against PROSECOM — Protecção, Segurança e
                                                                           Comunicações, Lda. was brought before the Court of Justice of
                                                                           the European Communities on 14 July 2003 by the Com-
                                                                           mission of the European Communities, represented by R. Lyal
                                                                           and G. Braga da Cruz, acting as Agents, with an address for
                                                                           service in Luxembourg.
Action brought on 14 July 2003 by the Commission of
   the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                            (Case C-303/03)
                                                                           —     order the defendant to pay to the applicant
                            (2003/C 213/37)                                      EUR 111 605,10 (one hundred and eleven thousand six
                                                                                hundred and five euros and ten cents), composed of
                                                                                EUR 88 276 by way of capital, and EUR 23 329,10 by
                                                                                way of interest accrued between 15 November 1998 until
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the                    30 June 2003, inclusive, at the rate of 5,50 % (until
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 July                          31 December 2002) and 7,50 % (from 1 January 2003);
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by M. Konstantinidis and R. Amorosi, acting as
Agents.                                                                    —     order the defendant to pay EUR 18,14 (eighteen euros
                                                                                and fourteen cents) per day as interest calculated at the
                                                                                same rate from 1 July 2003, until full payment;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           —     order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.
—      find that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
       and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
       Directive 2000/53/EC ( 1) of the European Parliament and
       of the Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of- life
       vehicles or, in any event, by failing to communicate the
       same to the Commission, the Italian Republic has failed             Pleas in law and main arguments
       to fulfil its obligations under Article 10 of that directive;
—      order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                        Under the general terms and conditions of the contract,
                                                                           the signatories agreed, in the event that the total financial
                                                                           contribution by the Commission should prove to be less than
                                                                           the payment actually made, to return the difference forthwith
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            to the Commission. By failing to return forthwith the above-
                                                                           mentioned amounts which were given to it by the Com-
                                                                           mission, the defendant failed to fulfil its obligations under the
The time-limit for implementing the directive expired on                   contract. The total amount of costs accepted by the defendant
21 April 2002.                                                             found by the Commission after an audit was PTE 26 270 857,
                                                                           so that the Commission’s contribution was fixed at
                                                                           PTE 13 135 428 (ECU 68 686). In view of the fact that the
( 1) OJ L 269 of 21.10.2000, p. 34.                                        total received by the defendant was ECU 156 962, the
                                                                           amount overpaid which must be returned by the defendant is
                                                                           ECU 88 276. No payment has been made to date, so that the
                                                                           defendant is still in debt for the full amount. In addition to the
 ---pagebreak--- C 213/22              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                       6.9.2003
capital sum owed, the defendant also owes interest accrued               Action brought on 23 July 2003 by the Commission of
since the debt came into being and until full payment is made.           the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
                                                                                Luxembourg
                                                                                (Case C-310/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 213/40)
Action brought on 22 July 2003 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the French Office for
                 the safety of health products
                                                                         An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                                                         brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                        (Case C-308/03)                                  ties on 23 July 2003 by the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities, represented by D. Martin, acting as Agent, with
                        (2003/C 213/39)                                  an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                         The Commission of the European Communities claims that
An action against the French Office for the safety of health             the Court should:
products (AFSSAPS) was brought before the Court of Justice
of the European Communities on 22 July 2003 by the                       —     declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
Commission of the European Communities, represented by                         and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
R. Lyal and C. Giolitto, acting as Agents, with an address for                 Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of
service in Luxembourg.                                                         the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the
                                                                               sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees ( 1), the
                                                                               Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                         obligations under that directive;
the Court should order the defendant;
                                                                         —     order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
1.    to pay the applicant a sum of EUR 47 218,32 (Forty-
      seven thousand two hundred and eighteen euros and
      thirty-two cents) corresponding to EUR 41 000 in respect
      of the principal and EUR 6 218,32 in respect of accrued            Pleas in law and main arguments
      interest for delay up to 31 March 2003, at the rate of
      5,25 %;
                                                                         The time-limit for transposition of the Directive expired on
2.    to pay EUR 6,74 (Six euros and seventy-four cents) per             1 January 2002.
      day in respect of accrued interest, at the same rate, from
      1 April 2003 until payment in full;
                                                                         (1 ) OJ L 171, 7.7.1999, p. 12.
3.    to pay the costs of this case.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The court with jurisdiction in this case is the Court of Justice
notwithstanding the wording of the arbitration clause, since             Action brought on 23 July 2003 by the Commission of
that cannot have been intended to change or have the effect of            the European Communities against the French Republic
changing the division of jurisdiction between the Court of
Justice and the Court of First Instance as provided for by the                                    (Case C-311/03)
Treaty.
                                                                                (2003/C 213/41)
By refusing to produce the evidence of costs requested by the
Commission, the AFSSAPS has failed to fulfil its obligation
under the contract concluded pursuant to the provisions of
the specific programme for research and development in the               An action against the French Republic was brought before the
field of telematic applications of common interest and is liable         Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 July
to repay the amount of the advance to the Commission.                    2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                         represented by D. Martin, acting as Agent, with an address for
                                                                         service in Luxembourg.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 December 2004 in Case T-332/02: Nordspedizionieri di Danielis Livio & C. Snc, Livio Danielis and Domenico D'Alessandro v Commission of the European Communities (Customs Union — Community transit operation — Fraud — Cigarette smuggling — Remission of import duties — Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 — Article 13: equitable provision — Meaning of‘special situation’)

text:
               19.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/22

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 14 December 2004
   in Case T-332/02: Nordspedizionieri di Danielis Livio & C. Snc, Livio Danielis and Domenico D'Alessandro v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Customs Union - Community transit operation - Fraud - Cigarette smuggling - Remission of import duties - Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 - Article 13: equitable provision - Meaning of ‘special situation’)
   (2005/C 45/50)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case T-332/02: Nordspedizionieri di Danielis Livio & C. Snc, established in Trieste (Italy), Livio Danielis, residing in Trieste, and Domenico D'Alessandro, residing in Trieste, represented by G. Leone, Lawyer, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: initially X. Lewis and R. Amorosi, and subsequently X. Lewis assisted by G. Bambara, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg) – application, principally, for annulment of Commission Decision REM 14/01 of 28 June 2002 refusing to accede to the Italian Republic's application for a remission of import duties in favour of the applicants and, in the alternative, for a declaration of remission of part of the customs debt corresponding to those duties – the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of P. Lindh, President, R. García-Valdecasas and J.D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 December 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and to pay those of the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 7 of 11.1.2003.


title: Case T-314/05: Action brought on 10 August 2005 — Arko and Others v Commission

text:
               12.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/23

         Action brought on 10 August 2005 — Arko and Others v Commission
   (Case T-314/05)
   (2005/C 281/44)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Eva Arko (Brussels, Belgium) and 28 others (represented by: S Rodrigues and A. Jaume, lawyers)

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities
   The applicants claim that the Court should
   Primarily:

               —

               annul the decisions of appointment taken by the defendants in that they determine the applicants' grade under Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations and their step under the provisions in force since the 1 May 2004;

               —

               state to the defendants what the effect is of the annulment of the contested decisions and, in particular, of the reclassification of the applicants in accordance with the table of equivalence in Article 2(1) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, with retroactive effect from the dates on which the decisions to appoint the applicants took effect;

         In the alternative:

               —

               order the Commission to make reparation for the damage the applicants suffered as a result of the fact that they were not classified under Article 2(1) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, from the dates on which the decisions to appoint the applicants took effect.

         In any event:

               —

               order the defendants to pay all the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants, Commission officials, are successful candidates of a competition which took place before the amendments to the Staff Regulations entered into force on 1 May 2004. Recruited after that date, they were appointed to the grade and step prescribed in the new Staff Regulations, which they consider to be less advantageous. By this action, they dispute their appointments.
   They submit that Article 12 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations is inapplicable in the present case and, in the alternative, that that provision is unlawful and in breach of a number of principles of Community law. In that respect, they refer, firstly, to the principles of non-discrimination, equal treatment and freedom of movement for workers. The applicants submit that these principles have been infringed because the majority of the officials affected are nationals of the new Member States. They also submit that they have been discriminated against in comparison with officials included on the same list of suitable candidates and appointed prior to 1 May 2004.
   In the same context, the applicants plead the alleged infringement of Article 31 of the Staff Regulations, which provides that new officials are to be nominated to the grade and function group set out in the competition notice, the alleged infringement of the principles of protection of legitimate expectations, legal certainty, sound administration and proportionality, and the administration's duty to have regard for the interests of officials, and misuse of powers.


title: Case T-179/12: Order of the General Court of 27 November 2013 — Wirtgen v OHIM (Shape of a chisel holder) (Community trade mark — Refusal of registration — Withdrawal of the application for registration — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               15.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/31

         Order of the General Court of 27 November 2013 — Wirtgen v OHIM (Shape of a chisel holder)
   (Case T-179/12) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Refusal of registration - Withdrawal of the application for registration - No need to adjudicate)
   2014/C 45/52
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Wirtgen GmbH (Windhagen, Germany) (represented by: S. Jackermeier, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 February 2012 (Case R 1923/2011-4), concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional mark in the form of a chisel holder as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 184, 23.6.2012.


title: Case C-227/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 28 April 2017 — Medtronic GmbH v Finanzamt Neuss

text:
               31.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/19

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 28 April 2017 — Medtronic GmbH v Finanzamt Neuss
   (Case C-227/17)
   (2017/C 249/29)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Medtronic GmbH

      Defendant: Finanzamt Neuss

      Question referred

   Is the combined nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1754 (1) of 6 October 2015 to be interpreted as meaning that spinal fixation systems (2) as described in more detail in the order fall under subheading 9021 90 90?

      (1)  OJ 2015 L 285, p. 1.

      (2)  Wirbelsäulenfixationssysteme der Marke CD Horizon SOLERA Spinal System.