title: Case T-154/02: Action brought on 9 May 2002 by Villiger Söhne GmbH against the Council of the European Union

text:
C 191/26                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       10.8.2002
Articles 81 and 82 EC by the General Council of the Bar of                  ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
England and Wales — the Court of First Instance (Fourth                                                  INSTANCE
Chamber), composed of: M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili and
P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung: Registrar, has made an order in                                         of 7 May 2002
which it:
                                                                            in Case T-306/01 R Abdirisak Aden and Others v Council
1.    Dismisses the application.                                            of the European Union and Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
2.    Orders the applicant to bear his own costs, incurred both in
      these proceedings and in the proceedings for interim relief in        (Proceedings for interim measures — Common foreign
      Cases T-18/01 R and T-18/01 R III, and pay the costs                  and security policy — Sanctions against the Taliban of
      incurred by the Commission in these proceedings and in the                    Afghanistan — Freezing of funds — Urgency)
      proceedings for interim relief in Case T-18/01 R.
                                                                                (2002/C 191/46)
(1) OJ C 108 of 7.4.2001.                                                                     (Language of the case: Swedish)
                                                                            In Case T-306/01 R: Abdirisak Aden, resident in Spånga
                                                                            (Sweden), Abdulaziz Ali, resident in Järfälla (Sweden), Ahmed
                                                                            Yusuf, resident in Spånga, Al Barakaat International Foun-
                                                                            dation, established in Spånga, represented by L. Silbersky and
                                                                            T. Olsson, lawyers, against Council of the European Union
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                                (Agents: M. Vitsentzatos and I. Rådestad) and Commission of
                              INSTANCE                                      the European Communities (Agents: A. Van Solinge and
                                                                            J. Enegren) — application for suspension of the implemen-
                       of 19 February 2002                                  tation of Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 of 6 March
                                                                            2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to
                                                                            Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the
in Case T-302/01 R: Gerhard Birkhoff v Commission of                        freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the
                  the European Communities                                  Taliban of Afghanistan, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 337/
                                                                            2000 (OJ 2001 L 67, p. 1) and of Commission Regulation (EC)
                                                                            No 2199/2001 of 12 November 2001 amending, for the
(Procedure for interim relief — Officials — Dependent child                 fourth time, Regulation No 467/2001 (OJ 2001 L 295, p. 16)
allowance — Suspension of operation of a measure —                          in so far as they apply to the applicants, until there has been a
                         Urgency — None)                                    ruling on the substance — the President of the Court of First
                                                                            Instance has made an order on 7 May 2002, the operative part
                          (2002/C 191/45)                                   of which is as follows:
                                                                            1.   The application for interim measures is dismissed.
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                            2.   The costs are reserved.
In Case T-302/01 R: Gerhard Birkhoff, a former official of
the Commission of the European Communities, residing at
Weitnau (Germany), represented by V. Salvatore, lawyer, v
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall                  Action brought on 9 May 2002 by Villiger Söhne GmbH
and A. Dal Ferro) — application for suspension of operation                          against the Council of the European Union
of the Commission’s decision of 26 September 2001 rejecting
the complaint lodged by the applicant, and of the decision of
4 July 2001 by which the Commission suspended payment to                                             (Case T-154/02)
the applicant of the dependent child allowance in favour of his
daughter — the President of the Court of First Instance made                                         (2002/C 191/47)
an order on 19 September 2002, the operative part of which
is as follows:                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
1.    The application for interim measures is dismissed.
                                                                            An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                            brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
2.    The costs are reserved.
                                                                            Communities on 9 May 2002 by Villiger Söhne GmbH,
                                                                            Waldshut-Tiengen (Germany), represented by B. Wägenbaur,
                                                                            lawyer.
 ---pagebreak--- 10.8.2002              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 191/27
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             Furthermore, an amendment to the previous definition of
                                                                        cigars and cigarillos can also not be legally justified by reference
                                                                        to the Community law dimension of human health protection.
—     annul Article 3(1) of Council Directive 2002/10/EC of             In particular, adoption of the contested amendment is not
      12 February 2002 amending Directives 92/79/EEC, 92/               justified by Article 152(1) EC.
      80/EEC and 95/59/EC as regards the structure and rates
      of excise duty applied on manufactured tobacco (1);
                                                                        In the alternative, the applicant claims that the derogation
—     in the alternative, annul subparagraph 1 of Article 4(2) of       provided for in the first subparagraph of Article 4(2) of
      Council Directive 2002/10/EC of 12 February 2002                  Directive 2002/10/EC, which applies solely to the Federal
      amending Directives 92/79/EEC, 92/80/EEC and 95/59/               Republic of Germany, unlawfully disturbs the internal market
      EC as regards the structure and rates of excise duty              by giving rise to distortions of competition, and is thereby in
      applied on manufactured tobacco, in so far as it applies          breach of Article 93 EC.
      only to Federal Republic of Germany and not to the other
      Member States and requires the Federal Republic of
      Germany to transpose the directive by 1 January 2008 at           (1) OJ L 46, 16.2.2002, p. 26.
      the latest;                                                       (2) Council Directive 95/59/EC of 27 November 1995 on taxes
                                                                            other than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of
                                                                            manufactured tobacco (OJ L 291, 6.12.1995, p. 40).
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant sells cigarette and cigarillo products in Germany         Action brought on 14 May 2002 by VVG International
and other Member States, and manufactures, inter alia, specific         Handelsgesellschaft m.b.H., VVG (International) Limited
types of cigarillos. According to the applicant, its products           and Metalsivas Metallwarenhandelsgesellschaft m.b.H.
fundamentally differ from factory-manufactured cigarettes in              against the Commission of the European Communities
terms of both their quality and the production process. Under
the definition in the previous version of Directive 95/59/EC of
27 November 1995 (2), the goods produced by the applicant                                        (Case T-155/02)
were taxed as cigars or cigarillos.
                                                                                (2002/C 191/48)
Pursuant to the amended definition in the contested directive,
the goods produced by the applicant are no longer deemed to                                (Language of the case: German)
be cigars or cigarillos, but cigarettes. In consequence, all
Member States, with the exception of Germany, are required
to levy the minimum excise duty of 57 % of the retail selling
price, which applies to cigarettes, on the applicant’s products
instead of, as was previously the case, the minimum excise              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
duty of 5 % of the retail selling price applicable to cigars and        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
cigarillos. Consequently, in the Member States concerned, the           European Communities on 14 May 2002 by VVG International
applicant’s products are subject to a disproportionate increase         Handelsgesellschaft m.b.H., VVG (International) Limited and
in tobacco taxes.                                                       Metalsivas Metallwarenhandelsgesellschaft m.b.H., Vienna
                                                                        (Austria), represented by W. Schuler, lawyer.
The applicant claims that the adoption of the contested
amendment to the definition contravened the conditions for              The applicants claim that the Court should:
harmonisation of legislation laid down in Article 93 EC.
According to the applicant’s submission, its products do not
                                                                        —     annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 560/2002 of
belong to the same group of tobacco goods as cigarettes, nor
                                                                              27 March 2002 (1) and order the defendant to pay the
are they similar ’in many respects’ to a cigarette within the
                                                                              applicants costs;
meaning of the tenth recital in the preamble to the contested
directive. There is no distortion of competition in respect of
the applicant’s products because those products do not share            —     in the alternative, annul the contested regulation in so far
a market with cigarettes. The Council also acted in breach of                 as it includes product group 4 ‘alloy hot rolled flat
the prohibition on preventative harmonisation.                                products’ in the 15 product groups concerned;


title: Case C-492/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 13 September 2013 — ‘Traum’ EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno osiguritelna praktika’ — grad Varna pri Tsentralno Upravlenie na Natsionalnata Agentsia za Prihodite

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/48

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 13 September 2013 — ‘Traum’ EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno osiguritelna praktika’ — grad Varna pri Tsentralno Upravlenie na Natsionalnata Agentsia za Prihodite
   (Case C-492/13)
   2013/C 344/83
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad — Varna

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant:‘Traum’ EOOD

      Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno osiguritelna praktika’ — grad Varna pri Tsentralno Upravlenie na Natsionalnata Agentsia za Prihodite

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the requirement giving entitlement to tax exemption under Article 138(1) of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) fulfilled and is there no exception under the second paragraph of Article 139(1) of the Directive in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings in which it was established that the absence of the characteristic of a ‘person registered under the ZDDS’ in respect of the acquirer of the goods was indicated in the Union database after the actual supply, but the applicant claims that it acted with due diligence by obtaining information in this system which is not documented? The late recording of the characteristic of a ‘person registered under the ZDDS’ emerges from hard copies/information of the tax authorities.

               2.

               Are the principles of fiscal neutrality, proportionality and protection of legitimate expectations violated by administrative practice and case-law according to which it is for the vendor — the consignor under the transport contract — to determine the authenticity of the acquirer’s signature and to establish whether it comes from a person representing the company (the acquirer), one of its employees in a corresponding position or an authorised person?

               3.

               In a case such as the present does Article 138(1) of Directive 2006/112/EC have direct effect, and can the national court directly apply the provision?

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


title: Case T-22/12: Judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2012 — Fomanu v OHIM (Qualität hat Zukunft) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark Qualität hat Zukunft — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/44

         Judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2012 — Fomanu v OHIM (Qualität hat Zukunft)
   (Case T-22/12) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark Qualität hat Zukunft - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 26/84
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Fomanu AG (Neustadt an der Waldnaab, Germany) (represented by: T. Raible, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 October 2011 (Case R 1518/2011-1) concerning an application for registration of the word sign Qualität hat Zukunft as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Fomanu AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 17.3.2012.


title: Case T-551/12: Judgment of the General Court of 23 January 2014 — Coppenrath-Verlag v OHIM — Sembella (Rebella) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark Rebella — Earlier Community word mark SEMBELLA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               8.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/19

      Judgment of the General Court of 23 January 2014 — Coppenrath-Verlag v OHIM — Sembella (Rebella)
      (Case T-551/12) (1)

      (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark Rebella - Earlier Community word mark SEMBELLA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)
      (2014/C 71/34)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Coppenrath-Verlag GmbH & Co. KG (Münster, Germany) (represented by: D. Pohl, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Sembella GmbH (Timelkam, Austria)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 October 2012 (Case R 1681/2011-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Sembella GmbH and Coppenrath-Verlag GmbH & Co. KG.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Coppenrath-Verlag GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 55, 23.2.2013.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 18 September 1997 in Joined Cases T-121/96 and T-151/96: Mutual Aid Administration Services NV (MAAS) v. Commission of the European Communities (Actions for the free supply of agricultural products to the peoples of Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan - Successful tenderer's duty to pay dispatch money)

text:
18 . 10 . 97          EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 318/ 13
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landskrona                1 . Can a Directive adopted pursuant to Article 100a of
Tingsrätt by order of that court of 6 August 1997 in the                  the Treaty of Rome have direct effect ?
             case of Åklagaren v. Antoine Kortas
                        ( Case C-3 19/97 )                            2 . If so, can such a Directive have direct effect even if the
                                                                          State has made notification pursuant to Article 100a (4 )
                          ( 97/C 318/24 )                                 of the Treaty of Rome ?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                3 . If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative, how does
European Communities by an order of the Landskrona                        the notification by the Member State affect the
Tingsrätt ( District Court, Landskrona ) of 6 August 1997,                question of direct effect during the following periods:
which was received at the Court Registry on 16 September                   ( a ) between notification and reply ?
1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Åklagaren v.
Antoine Kortas on the following questions:                                 ( b ) from the reply ?
                                                     COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             4 . orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                     of 18 September 1997
                                                                      H OJ C 318 , 26 . 10. 1996 and
in Joined Cases T-121/96 and T-151/96: Mutual Aid                         OJ C 40, 8 . 2 . 1997.
Administration Services NV (MAAS ) v. Commission of the
                  European Communities (')
(Actions for the free supply of agricultural products to the
peoples of Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan and
Tajikistan — Successful tenderer's duty to pay dispatch
                               money)
                                                                           ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                           ( 97/C 318/25 )
                                                                                of 4 July 1997
                                                                      in Case T-93/94 ( 92 ): Michael Becker v. Court of
                (Language of the case: Dutch)                                     Auditors of the European Communities ( l )
                                                                                (Taxation of costs)
In Joined Cases T-121/96 and T-151 /96 : Mutual Aid                                              ( 97/C 318/26 )
Administration Services NV ( MAAS ), established in
Antwerp ( Belgium ), represented by Jan Tritsmans and
Koenraad Maenhout, of the Antwerp Bar, with an address
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Rene Faltz,
6 Rue Heinrich Heine, against Commission of the
European Communities ( Agents: Blanca Vila Costa and
Hubert van Vliet) — application for annulment of the                  In Case T-93/94 ( 92 ): Michael Becker, an official of the
Commission's decisions requiring the applicant to pay                 Court of Auditors of the European Communities, residing
dispatch money — the Court of First Instance ( Fourth                 in Luxembourg, represented by Roy Nathan, of the
Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts, President, R Lindh                Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in
and J. D. Cooke, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the              Luxembourg at the latter's Chambers, 18 Rue des Glacis,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 September 1997, in              against the Court of Auditors of the European
which it:                                                             Communities ( Agents: Jean-Marie Stenier, Jan Inghelram
                                                                      and Paolo Giusta ) — application for taxation of costs
                                                                      following the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                      6 March 1996 in Case T-93/94 ( Becker v. Court of
 1 . orders that Cases T-121 /96 and T-151 /96 he joined for          Auditors [ 1996] ECR II p. 141 ) — the Court of First
     the purposes of judgment;                                        Instance ( First Chamber ), composed of: A. Saggio,
                                                                      President, V. Tiili and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges; H.
                                                                      Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 4 July 1997, in
2 . dismisses    the   application     in  Case   T-121 /96   as      which it:
     inadmissible:
                                                                      fixes the total amount of costs recoverable by the
3 . dismisses the application in Case T-151 /96;                      applicant up to the date of this order, including costs


title: Case T-450/13: Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2015 — CEDC International v OHIM — Fabryka Wódek Polmos Łańcut (WISENT VODKA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark WISENT VODKA — Earlier national three-dimensional mark ŹUBRÓWKA — Relative grounds for refusal — Similarity of the marks — Article 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               11.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/21

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2015 — CEDC International v OHIM — Fabryka Wódek Polmos Łańcut (WISENT VODKA)
   (Case T-450/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark WISENT VODKA - Earlier national three-dimensional mark ŹUBRÓWKA - Relative grounds for refusal - Similarity of the marks - Article 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 007/28)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: CEDC International sp. z o.o. (Oborniki Wielkopolskie, Poland) (represented by: M. Siciarek, J. Mrozowski and G. Rząsa, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Fabryka Wódek Polmos Łańcut SA (Łańcut, Poland) (represented by: A. Gorzkiewicz, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 June 2013 (Case R 1734/2011-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Przedsiębiorstwo Polmos Białystok and Fabryka Wodek Polmos Łańcut SA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 10 June 2013 (Case R 1734/2011-4);

               2.

               Orders OHIM and Fabryka Wódek Polmos Łańcut SA to bear their own costs and to pay those of CEDC International sp. z o.o.

      (1)  OJ C 304, 19.10.2013.


title: Case F-28/09: Action brought on 27 March 2009 — Kipp v Europol

text:
               18.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 167/25

         Action brought on 27 March 2009 — Kipp v Europol
   (Case F-28/09)
   2009/C 167/47
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Michael Kipp (The Hague, Netherlands) (represented by: P. de Casparis, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Police Office (Europol)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of 12 June 2008 informing the applicant that it was impossible to offer him a permanent post, along with the decision of 7 January 2009 rejecting the complaint brought against the first decision.

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of 12 June 2008 by which the defendant indicated to the applicant that it was unable to offer him a permanent position, along with the complaint decision of 7 January 2009 rejecting the applicant’s submissions against the decision of 12 June 2008;

               —

               order Europol to pay the costs.


title: Case C-92/10 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 January 2011 — Media-Saturn-Holding GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Mark consisting of an advertising slogan and composed of elements individually devoid of any distinctive character — Figurative sign ‘BEST BUY’ )

text:
               12.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/6

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 January 2011 — Media-Saturn-Holding GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-92/10 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Mark consisting of an advertising slogan and composed of elements individually devoid of any distinctive character - Figurative sign ‘BEST BUY’)
   2011/C 80/09
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Media-Saturn-Holding GmbH (represented by: E. Warnke, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 December 2009 in Case T-476/08 Media-Saturn v OHIM (BEST BUY) in which the General Court dismissed the action against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM, of 28 August 2008, dismissing the appeal against the examiner’s decision which refused the registration of the figurative sign ‘BEST BUY’ as a Community trade mark for goods and services in Classes 1, 2, 5 to 12, 14 to 17, 20 to 22, 27, 28, 35, 37, 38 and 40 to 42 — distinctive character of a mark consisting of an advertising slogan and composed of elements individually devoid of any distinctive character

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Media-Saturn-Holding GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 01.05.2010


title: Case C-12/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 March 2016 — European Commission v Republic of Malta (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Social security — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Article 46b — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Article 54 — Old-age pensions — Rules against overlapping — Persons entitled to an old-age pension under the rules of one Member State and to a civil-service pension under the rules of another Member State — Reduction in the amount of the old-age pension)

text:
               2.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/2

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 March 2016 — European Commission v Republic of Malta
   (Case C-12/14) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Social security - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 46b - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Article 54 - Old-age pensions - Rules against overlapping - Persons entitled to an old-age pension under the rules of one Member State and to a civil-service pension under the rules of another Member State - Reduction in the amount of the old-age pension))
   (2016/C 156/02)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: K. Mifsud-Bonnici and D. Martin, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Malta (represented by: A. Buhagiar and P. Grech, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: C. Pesendorfer and G. Hesse, acting as Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: J. Beeko, S. Behzadi-Spencer and V. Kaye, acting as Agents, assisted by T. de la Mare QC)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Republic of Austria and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 159, 26.5.2014.


title: Case C-346/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Liège by judgment of that court of  6 September 2005  in the case of Monique Chateignier v Office national de L'emploi (O.N.Em)

text:
               10.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Liège by judgment of that court of 6 September 2005 in the case of Monique Chateignier v Office national de L'emploi (O.N.Em)
   (Case C-346/05)
   (2005/C 315/17)
   Language of the case: French
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by judgment of the Cour du travail de Liège of 6 September 2005, received at the Court Registry on 22 September 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Monique Chateignier and Office national de L'emploi, (O.N.Em) on the following question:
   Do Article 39(2) of the Treaty and Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1408/71 which guarantee equal treatment for workers of the Member States and the free movement of persons (including workers), permit Article 67(3) of Regulation No 1408/71 (1) to be interpreted as imposing an obligation on a worker who is a national of a Member State to complete a period of employment giving the right to unemployment benefits in the State of residence even where the internal law of that State does not impose such an obligation in the case of a foreign worker whether he is from a Member State or not?

      (1)  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (English special edition: Series I Chapter 1971(II) p. 416)


title: Case T-709/15: Order of the General Court of 14 September 2016 — Almashreq Investment Fund v Council

text:
               7.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 410/36

         Order of the General Court of 14 September 2016 — Almashreq Investment Fund v Council
   (Case T-709/15) (1)

   (2016/C 410/62)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 59, 15.2.2016.


title: Case F-54/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 30 September 2015 — Nunes v Court of Auditors (Civil Service — Contract staff — Dispute concerning the terms of employment — Claim out of time — Failure to comply with the pre-litigation procedure — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               9.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/47

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 30 September 2015 — Nunes v Court of Auditors
   (Case F-54/15)
   ((Civil Service - Contract staff - Dispute concerning the terms of employment - Claim out of time - Failure to comply with the pre-litigation procedure - Manifest inadmissibility))
   (2015/C 371/49)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Carlos Nunes (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: M. Petit, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Court of Auditors

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision adopted by the European Court of Auditors in April 2009 to amend the applicant’s employment status and remuneration and application retroactively to adjust his remuneration from April 2009.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Mr Nunes shall bear his own costs.


title: Case T-544/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2015 — Société des produits Nestlé v OHIM — Terapia (ALETE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark ALETE — Earlier national word mark ALETA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Suspension of the administrative proceedings — Rule 20(7)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)

text:
               11.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2015 — Société des produits Nestlé v OHIM — Terapia (ALETE)
   (Case T-544/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark ALETE - Earlier national word mark ALETA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Suspension of the administrative proceedings - Rule 20(7)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95))
   (2016/C 007/35)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Société des produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Jaeger-Lenz, A. Lambrecht and S. Cobet-Nüse, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Terapia SA (Cluj Napoca, Romania)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 May 2014 (Case R 1128/2013-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Terapia SA and Société des produits Nestlé SA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 19 May 2014 (Case R 1128/2013-4);

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Société des produits Nestlé.

      (1)  OJ C 339, 29.9.2014.


title: Case T-368/11: Judgment of the General Court of 1 February 2013 — Polyelectrolyte Producers Group and Others v Commission (REACH — Transitional measures concerning the restrictions on the placing on the market and use of acrylamide for grouting applications — Annex XVII to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 — Proportionality — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               16.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 1 February 2013 — Polyelectrolyte Producers Group and Others v Commission
   (Case T-368/11) (1)

   (REACH - Transitional measures concerning the restrictions on the placing on the market and use of acrylamide for grouting applications - Annex XVII to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 - Proportionality - Obligation to state reasons)
   2013/C 79/28
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Polyelectrolyte Producers Group (Brussels, Belgium); SNF SAS (Andrézieux-Bouthéon, France); and Travetanche Injection SPRL (Brussels) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and R. Cana, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Oliver and E. Manhaeve, Agents, assisted by K. Sawyer, Barrister)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels, M. Noort and B. Koopman, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) No 366/2011 of 14 April 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) as regards Annex XVII (Acrylamide) (OJ 2011 L 101, p. 12).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Polyelectrolyte Producers Group, SNF SAS and Travetanche Injection SPRL to bear the costs they have incurred in the main proceedings and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

               3.

               Orders Travetanche Injection to pay the costs relating to the proceedings for interim measures;

               4.

               Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.


title: Case T-90/13: Action brought on 12 February 2013 — Herdade de S. Tiago II/OHIM — Polo/Lauren (V)

text:
               27.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 123/17

         Action brought on 12 February 2013 — Herdade de S. Tiago II/OHIM — Polo/Lauren (V)
   (Case T-90/13)
   2013/C 123/29
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Herdade de S. Tiago II-Sociedade Agrícola, SA (Lisboa, Portugal) (represented by: I. de Carvalho Simões and J. Pimenta, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: The Polo/Lauren Company, LP (New York, United States)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Grant the appeal and annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM dated 28 November 2012 in Case R 1436/2010-2;

               —

               Order the respondent to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings before the General Court, including those of the appellant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark representing a polo player on horseback and the word element ‘V’ for goods and services in classes 3, 18, 25, 28, 41 and 43 — Community trade mark application 5 791 835

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration, UK trade mark registration and Benelux trade mark registration of the figurative mark representing a polo player for goods in classes 9, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25 et 28

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-412/11: Judgment of the General Court of 6 February 2013 — Maharishi Foundation v OHIM (TRANSCENDENTAL MEDITATION) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark TRANSCENDENTAL MEDITATION — Absolute grounds for refusal — Decision of the Board of Appeal remitting the case to the Examination Division — Article 65(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Admissibility — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Relevant public)

text:
               16.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 6 February 2013 — Maharishi Foundation v OHIM (TRANSCENDENTAL MEDITATION)
   (Case T-412/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark TRANSCENDENTAL MEDITATION - Absolute grounds for refusal - Decision of the Board of Appeal remitting the case to the Examination Division - Article 65(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Admissibility - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Relevant public)
   2013/C 79/29
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Maharishi Foundation Ltd (Saint-Hélier, Jersey) (represented by: A. Meijboom, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 March 2011 (Case R 1293/2010-2), concerning an application for registration of the word sign TRANSCENDENTAL MEDITATION as a Community trade mark

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Maharishi Foundation Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.


title: Case T-744/14: Judgment of the General Court of 4 May 2017 — Meta Group v Commission (Arbitration clause — Grant agreements concluded within the context of the Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2002-2006) — Grant agreements concluded under the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (2007-2013) — Recovery of sums paid — Balance of the total amount of the financial contribution granted to the applicant — Eligible costs — Contractual liability)

text:
               19.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 4 May 2017 — Meta Group v Commission
   (Case T-744/14) (1)

   ((Arbitration clause - Grant agreements concluded within the context of the Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2002-2006) - Grant agreements concluded under the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (2007-2013) - Recovery of sums paid - Balance of the total amount of the financial contribution granted to the applicant - Eligible costs - Contractual liability))
   (2017/C 195/23)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Meta Group Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: A. Bartolini and A. Formica, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Recchia and R. Lyal, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action based on Article 272 TFEU and seeking a ruling that the Commission failed to fulfil its financial obligations resulting from several grant agreements which it concluded with the applicant under the Sixth framework programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities, contributing to the creation of the European Research Area and to innovation (2002 to 2006) and the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (2007-2013), a declaration that the Commission acted unlawfully in offsetting the amounts claimed by the applicant, an order for payment by the Commission of the sums owed to the applicant under those grant agreements, together with default interest and monetary revaluation, and compensation in respect of the damage which the applicant claims to have suffered.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Meta Group Srl to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 462, 22.12.2014.


title: Case C-67/14: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht — Germany) — Jobcenter Berlin Neukölln v Nazifa Alimanovic and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of movement for persons — Citizenship of the Union — Equal treatment — Directive 2004/38/EC — Article 24(2) — Social assistance — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Articles 4 and 70 — Special non-contributory cash benefits — Member State nationals who are job-seekers and resident in a different Member State — Excluded — Retention of the status of ‘worker’)

text:
               9.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/8

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht — Germany) — Jobcenter Berlin Neukölln v Nazifa Alimanovic and Others
   (Case C-67/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of movement for persons - Citizenship of the Union - Equal treatment - Directive 2004/38/EC - Article 24(2) - Social assistance - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Articles 4 and 70 - Special non-contributory cash benefits - Member State nationals who are job-seekers and resident in a different Member State - Excluded - Retention of the status of ‘worker’))
   (2015/C 371/10)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundessozialgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Jobcenter Berlin Neukölln

      Defendants: Nazifa Alimanovic, Sonita Alimanovic, Valentina Alimanovic, Valentino Alimanovic

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 24 of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC and Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1244/2010 of 9 December 2010, must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State under which nationals of other Member States who are in a situation such as that referred to in Article 14(4)(b) of that directive are excluded from entitlement to certain ‘special non-contributory cash benefits’ within the meaning of Article 70(2) of Regulation No 883/2004, which also constitute ‘social assistance’ within the meaning of Article 24(2) of Directive 2004/38, although those benefits are granted to nationals of the Member State concerned who are in the same situation.

      (1)  OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.


title: Case C-525/04 P: Appeal brought on 27 December 2004 by the Kingdom of Spain against the judgment delivered on 21 October 2004 by the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) in Case T-36/99 between Lenzing AG and the Commission of the European Communities, supported by the Kingdom of Spain

text:
               19.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/4

         Appeal brought on 27 December 2004 by the Kingdom of Spain against the judgment delivered on 21 October 2004 by the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) in Case T-36/99 between Lenzing AG and the Commission of the European Communities, supported by the Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-525/04 P)
   (2005/C 69/10)
   Language of the case: German
   An appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 21 October 2004 in Case T- 36/99 between Lenzing AG and the Commission of the European Communities, supported by the Kingdom of Spain, was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 December 2004 by the Kingdom of Spain, represented by Juan Manuel Rodríguez Cárcamo, Abogado del Estado, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Kingdom of Spain claims that the Court should:

               1.

               Set aside in full the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, extended composition) of 21 October 2004 in Case T-36/99 between Lenzing AG and the Commission of the European Communities, supported by the Kingdom of Spain, which annulled Article 1(1) of Commission Decision 1999/395/EC (1) of 28 October 1998 on State aid implemented by Spain in favour of Sniace SA, located in Torrelavega, Cantabria, as amended by Commission Decision 2001/43/EC (2) of 20 September 2000;

               2.

               In the new judgment to be delivered, grant all the forms of order which it sought at first instance and accordingly dismiss the action as inadmissible, or, in the alternative, as unfounded;

               3.

               Order the defendant to pay the costs under Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               1.

               According to the decision as amended in 2000, annulled by the judgment, the rescheduling agreement between Sniace and the General Social Security Fund and the rescheduling agreements concluded in 1993 and 1995 between Sniace and Fogasa did not constitute State aid.

               2.

               The judgment appealed against alleges that the General Social Security Fund and Fogasa not only concluded rescheduling agreements with Sniace, which was in financial difficulties, but also, and in particular, that they tolerated Sniace's failure to perform those agreements.

               3.

               The grounds for the Kingdom of Spain's appeal against the abovementioned judgment are as follows:

                           —

                           Error in law, as the action was admitted on the assumption that the applicant was individually concerned, contrary to case-law according to which the applicant's position on the market must have substantially worsened.

                           —

                           Error in law in the interpretation and application of the private creditor test, since on the basis of the facts stated to be proven it was assumed that the conduct of the public institutions investigated did not fulfil the private creditor test.

      (1)  OJ L 149 of 16.6.1999, p. 40.

      (2)  OJ L 11 of 16.1.2001, p. 46.


title: Case T-428/13: Action brought on 19 August 2013 — IOC-UK v Council

text:
               26.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/30

         Action brought on 19 August 2013 — IOC-UK v Council
   (Case T-428/13)
   2013/C 313/57
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Iranian Oil Company UK Ltd (IOC-UK) (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Grayston, Solicitor, P. Gjørtler, G. Pandey, D. Rovetta, M. Gambardella, D. Sellers and N. Pilkington, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Council Decision 2013/270/CFSP of 6 June 2013 (OJ 08.06.2013, L156/10), amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 522/2013 of 6 June 2013 (OJ 08/06/2013 L156/3), implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as the contested acts include the Applicant; and

               —

               Order the Council to bear the costs of the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Applicant submits seven grounds of challenge concerning infringement of an essential procedural requirement, as well as infringement of the Treaties and of rules of law relating to their application: violation of the right of hearing; insufficient statement of reasons; violation of the right of defence; manifest error of assessment; breach of the fundamental principle of proportionality; breach of the fundamental principle of equal treatment and nondiscrimination; and breach of the fundamental right to property.
   The Applicant finds that the Council failed to perform a hearing of the Applicant, and that no contrary indications would justify this. Furthermore, the Council has provided an insufficient statement of reasons. The Applicant's requests to expand on the statement of reasons, and for access to documents, have not as yet been replied to, apart from a brief letter acknowledging receipt. By these omissions, the Council has violated the right of defence of the Applicant, who has been denied the possibility of effectively arguing against the findings of the Council, as these findings have been withheld from the Applicant. Moreover, the Council has not substantiated that indirect control of the Applicant by NIOC would entail an economic benefit for the Iranian State that would be contrary to the aim of the contested decision and regulation. In relation to the reasons given for its listing the Applicant considers these either insufficient or vitiated by a manifest error of assessment. Furthermore, taken overall, a comparison of the objectives of the listing decision and the practical impact of this decision for the Applicant demonstrates that the decision is disproportionate. Finally, the Council has violated the basic right of property by taking measures for which the proportionality cannot be ascertained.


title: Case C-294/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Apelacyjny w Warszawie — Poland) — Edyta Mikołajczyk v Marie Louise Czarnecka, Stefan Czarnecki (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Article 1(1)(a) — Material scope — Action for annulment of marriage brought by a third party after the death of one of the spouses — Article 3(1) — Jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State of residence of the ‘applicant’ — Scope)

text:
               12.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/6

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Apelacyjny w Warszawie — Poland) — Edyta Mikołajczyk v Marie Louise Czarnecka, Stefan Czarnecki
   (Case C-294/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Article 1(1)(a) - Material scope - Action for annulment of marriage brought by a third party after the death of one of the spouses - Article 3(1) - Jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State of residence of the ‘applicant’ - Scope))
   (2016/C 462/09)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Sąd Apelacyjny w Warszawie

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Edyta Mikołajczyk

      Defendants: Marie Louise Czarnecka, Stefan Czarnecki

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 1(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, must be interpreted as meaning that an action for annulment of marriage brought by a third party following the death of one of the spouses falls within the scope of Regulation No 2201/2003.

               2.

               The fifth and sixth indents of Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation No 2201/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that a person other than one of the spouses who brings an action for annulment of marriage may not rely on the grounds of jurisdiction set out in those provisions.

      (1)  OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.


title: Case C-527/12: Action brought on 20 November 2012 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/36

         Action brought on 20 November 2012 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-527/12)
   2013/C 26/68
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and F. Erlbacher, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt all the measures necessary to ensure the immediate and effective implementation of the Commission’s decision by recovering granted aid, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations resulting from Article 288 TFEU, Article 108(2) TFEU, the principle of effectiveness, Article 14(3) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (1) and Articles 1, 2 and 3 of Commission Decision 2011/471/EU of 14 December 2010 on State aid granted by Germany to the Biria group (C 38/05 (ex NN 52/04)); (2)

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission claims that the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to comply with its obligations resulting from Article 288 TFEU, Article 108(2) TFEU, the principle of effectiveness, Article 14(3) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty and Articles 1, 2 and 3 of Commission Decision 2011/471/EU of 14 December 2010 on State aid granted by Germany to the Biria group (C 38/05 (ex NN 52/04)) by failing to adopt all the measures necessary to ensure the immediate and effective implementation of the Commission’s decision by recovering granted aid.
   The Commission takes the view that the instrument chosen by the defendant to recover the aid, namely the granting of civil law claim and a corresponding action for enforcement before the German civil law courts, is not appropriate to ensure the immediate and effective implementation of the Commission’s decision. In the alternative, it submits that, on the day the action was lodged, the defendant had not made use of the provisional basis provided to it by the judgment taken by default to implement the Commission’s decision.

      (1)  OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2011 L 195, p. 55.


title: Case C-322/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 29 June 2015 — Google Ireland Limited, Google Italy Srl v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni

text:
               28.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 320/15

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 29 June 2015 — Google Ireland Limited, Google Italy Srl v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni
   (Case C-322/15)
   (2015/C 320/21)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Google Ireland Limited, Google Italy Srl

      Defendant: Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni

      Question referred

   Does Article 56 TFEU preclude application of contested Resolution No 397/13/CONS of the Autorità di garanzia delle Telecomunicazioni, and of the related provisions of national law, as interpreted along the lines proposed by that authority, which require the submission of complex ‘economic system information’ (which must be drawn up in accordance with Italian accounting standards) on the economic activities carried out in relation to Italian consumers, motivated by objectives of protecting competition but necessarily connected to the various and more limited institutional functions of that authority of safeguarding pluralism within the sector concerned, to operators which none the less do not come within the scope of the national legislation governing that sector (the Testo Unico dei Servizi di Media Audiovisivi e Radiofonici), and in particular, in the case under review here, to a national operator carrying out only services for its fellow subsidiary governed by Irish law and also, as regards the latter, to an operator not having its headquarters and not carrying on any business using employees within national territory; alternatively, does this constitute a measure restricting freedom to provide services within the European Union in breach of Article 56 TFEU?


title: Case C-167/04 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 September 2006 — JCB Service v Commission of the European Communities, (Appeals — Cartels — Article 81 EC — Distribution agreements — Concerted practices — Notification — Form A/B — Application for exemption — Rejection — Duration of the assessment of the notification procedure — Rights of the defence — Presumption of innocence — Complaint — Infringement — General prohibition on passive sales — Limitation of the sources of supply — New pleas in law — Fines — Guidelines — Gravity of the infringement — Duration — Attenuating circumstances — Cross-appeal — Aggravating circumstances)

text:
               18.11.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/3

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 September 2006 — JCB Service v Commission of the European Communities,
   (Case C-167/04 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Cartels - Article 81 EC - Distribution agreements - Concerted practices - Notification - Form A/B - Application for exemption - Rejection - Duration of the assessment of the notification procedure - Rights of the defence - Presumption of innocence - Complaint - Infringement - General prohibition on passive sales - Limitation of the sources of supply - New pleas in law - Fines - Guidelines - Gravity of the infringement - Duration - Attenuating circumstances - Cross-appeal - Aggravating circumstances)
   (2006/C 281/05)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellant: JCB Service, (represented by: E.Morgan de Rivery and E. Friedel, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities, (represented by: A. Whelan, Agent)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 13 January 2004 in Case T-67/01 JCB Service v Commission partially annulling the Commission Decision of 21 December 2000 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (COMP.F.1/35.918 — JCB
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal.

               2.

               Allows the cross-appeal of the Commission of the European Communities.

               3.

               Sets aside paragraph 2 of the operative part of the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 13 January 2004 in Case T-67/01 JCB Service v Commission.

               4.

               Fixes the amount of the fine imposed on JCB Service under Article 4 of Commission Decision 2002/190/EC of 21 December 2000 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP.F.1/35.918 –JCB) at EUR 30 864 000.

               5.

               Orders JCB Service to bear all the costs of these appeal proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 156, 12.06.2004.


title: Case T-264/14: Action brought on 22 April 2014  — Hansen v OHIM (WIN365)

text:
               24.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/33

         Action brought on 22 April 2014 — Hansen v OHIM (WIN365)
   (Case T-264/14)
   2014/C 194/42
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Robert Hansen (Munich, Germany) (represented by M. Pütz-Poulalion, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 February 2014 in Case R 908/2013-4;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark WIN365 for goods and services in Classes 9, 35, 36, 38 and 41 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 5 13  851

      Decision of the Examiner: Registration partially refused

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case T-73/08: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2013 — Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung v Commission (Financial assistance paid in the context of the Daphne II programme — Determination of the amount of the final grant — Debit note — Measure open to challenge — Obligation to state reasons — Fair trial — Errors of assessment)

text:
               26.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2013 — Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung v Commission
   (Case T-73/08) (1)

   (Financial assistance paid in the context of the Daphne II programme - Determination of the amount of the final grant - Debit note - Measure open to challenge - Obligation to state reasons - Fair trial - Errors of assessment)
   2013/C 313/25
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung eV (Berlin, Germany) (represented: initially by B. Henning, then U. Claus and M. Uhmann, and finally by C. Otto, S. Reichmann and L.-J. Schmidt, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by S. Grünheid and B. Simon, then S. Grünheid and F. Dintilhac, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision of the Commission contained in the debit note of 26 November 2007, in which it requested the applicant to repay the sum of EUR 23 228,07 which the Commission paid to the applicant pursuant to the Daphne Grant Agreement (JLS/DAP/2004-1/080/YC).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung eV to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 107, 26.4.2008.


title: Case T-794/14: Order of the General Court of 24 January 2017 — AATC Trading v EUIPO — El Corte Inglés (ALAΪA PARIS)

text:
               13.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/42

         Order of the General Court of 24 January 2017 — AATC Trading v EUIPO — El Corte Inglés (ALAΪA PARIS)
   (Case T-794/14) (1)

   (2017/C 078/58)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.


title: Case T-220/05: Action brought on 7 June 2005 by Kurt Jacobs against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               20.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/26

         Action brought on 7 June 2005 by Kurt Jacobs against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-220/05)
   (2005/C 205/48)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 7 June 2005 by Kurt Jacobs, residing in Bruges (Belgium), represented by Lucas Vogel, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               annul the decision adopted by the Appointing Authority on 11 February 2005, notified on 14 February 2005 and received on 27 February 2005, rejecting the complaint brought by the applicant on 16 November 2004, by which he sought annulment of three decisions adopted on 16 August 2004, 24 August 2004 and 31 August 2004 insofar as they determined his grade on recruitment as B*3, step 2, and fixed his remuneration at a basic salary of EUR 3 101,85;

               2.

               in addition, to the extent necessary, annul the decisions against which that complaint was brought, dated 16 August 2004, 24 August 2004 and 31 August 2004;

               3.

               order the Commission to pay damages in the sum of EUR 250 000.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant was a candidate for external competition COM/B/1/02 intended to constitute a reserve for future recruitment for administrative assistants of grade B5 or B4. Having been successful in that competition, he received an offer of a post from Commission DG RELEX by electronic mail on 20 April 2004. On 21 April 2004 he accepted that offer. However, the instrument of appointment was not drawn up until 31 August 2004 since the applicant first had to terminate the contract between him and his previous employer. By application of the new provisions of the Staff Regulations which came into force on 1 May 2004, he was recruited at grade B*3, step 2, although the former grade B5, stated in the notice of competition, corresponds to the new grade B*5. His basic salary was, therefore, significantly lower than it would have been under the former system.
   The applicant therefore seeks annulment of the contested decisions relating to his appointment and the setting of his grade and compensation for the loss which he alleges he has suffered. Under his first plea, he alleges infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations, of the duty of the administration to have regard for the interests of officials and of the binding provisions of the notice of competition. In that context, he also submits that the decision appointing him was, in reality, taken before the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations by the exchange of electronic mails on 20 and 21 April 2004.
   Furthermore, by his second plea, the applicant alleges infringement of the principle of non-discrimination, on the ground that he was appointed to a grade lower than that stated in the notice of competition and to which other successful candidates from the same competition were recruited.


title: Case T-206/15: Judgment of the General Court of 22 September 2016 — Intercon v Commission (Arbitration clause — Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Grant agreement relating to the project ‘Virtual Pathological Heart of the Virtual Physiological Human’ — Commission decision to require repayment of a part of the sums paid — Inadmissibility — Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court of 2 May 1991 — Documents and observations made after expiry of the prescribed periods)

text:
               7.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 410/13

         Judgment of the General Court of 22 September 2016 — Intercon v Commission
   (Case T-206/15) (1)

   ((Arbitration clause - Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Grant agreement relating to the project ‘Virtual Pathological Heart of the Virtual Physiological Human’ - Commission decision to require repayment of a part of the sums paid - Inadmissibility - Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court of 2 May 1991 - Documents and observations made after expiry of the prescribed periods))
   (2016/C 410/16)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Intercon Sp. z o.o. (Łódź, Poland) (represented by: B. Eger, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Herbout-Borczak and S. Lejeune, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 272 TFEU and seeking a declaration, first, that the Commission infringed the provisions of the grant agreement No 224635 relating to financing the project ‘Virtual Pathological Heart of the Virtual Physiological Human (VPH2)’, and, second, that the sums paid by way of the EU financial contribution corresponded to eligible expenditure and that the amount of EUR 70 620 demanded from the applicant by the Commission’s letter of 28 January 2015 and the debit note attached as an Annex need not, therefore, be repaid.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders Intercon sp. z o.o. to bear, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 221, 6.7.2015.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 December 2001 in Case T-99/97: Willem Stols v Council of the European Union (Officials — Application for reclassification in grade — Objection of inadmissibility — Material new fact — Admissibility)

text:
4.5.2002                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 109/45
P. Mengozzi, President, V. Tiili and R.M. Moura Ramos, Judges;            composed of M. Jaeger, President, K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi,
J. Plingers, Administrator, Registrar, has given a judgment on            Judges; J. Plingers, administrator, for the Registrar, gave a
7 February 2002, in which it:                                             judgment on 23 January 2002, in which it:
                                                                          1.   Annuls the decision of 18 July 2000 of the Secretary-General
1.    Annuls the Council’s decision of 5 June 2000 refusing the
                                                                               of the Parliament terminating the applicant’s secondment in the
      applicant access to certain reports drawn up by the Centre for
                                                                               interests of the service to the political group EDD and
      Information, Discussion and Exchange on Asylum, to certain
                                                                               reinstating him in the Directorate-General for Information and
      reports of joint missions or reports of missions undertaken by
                                                                               Public relations with effect from 15 July 2000;
      Member States sent to the Centre, and to information contained
      in the list of persons responsible in the Member States for
                                                                          2.   Orders the Parliament to pay the applicant a sum corresponding
      asylum applications to which access is permitted in certain
                                                                               to the difference between the remuneration which he should
      Member States, with the exception of those persons’ telephone
      and fax numbers;                                                         have received as an official on secondment in Grade A2, Step 1,
                                                                               and that which he received following his reinstatement in
                                                                               Grade LA5, Step 3, for the period 15 July 2000 to
2.    Orders the Council to pay the applicant’s costs and to bear its          30 November 2000, plus default interest at the rate of 5,25 %
      own costs.                                                               from the date on which the amounts making up the sum
                                                                               referred to in paragraph 149 were payable until the date of
                                                                               actual payment;
(1) OJ C 316 of 4.11.2000.
                                                                          3.   Declares the action for damages inadmissible in so far as the
                                                                               applicant seeks compensation for the harm caused by the
                                                                               conduct, not involving the taking of decisions, of the EDD
                                                                               group and certain of its members;
                                                                          4.   Orders the Parliament to pay the applicant the sum of 1 euro
                                                                               by way of symbolic damages for the non-pecuniary harm
                                                                               sustained as a result of the adoption of the contested decision;
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               5.   Orders the Parliament to pay all the costs of the main
                                                                               proceedings;
                        of 23 January 2002
                                                                          6.   Orders the parties to bear their own costs in the interlocutory
                                                                               proceedings.
in Case T-237/00 Patrick Reynolds v European Parlia-
                               ment (1)
                                                                          (1) OJ C 302, 21.10.2000.
(Officials — Secondment in the interests of the service —
Article 38 of the Staff Regulations Po — litical group —
Early termination of secondment — Rights of the defence —
         Non-contractual liability of the Community)
                         (2002/C 109/90)                                        ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                    (Language of the case: French)                                             of 11 December 2001
                                                                          in Case T-99/97: Willem Stols v Council of the European
                                                                                Union (1)
In Case T-237/00: Patrick Reynolds, an official of the European
Parliament, residing in Brussels, represented by P. Legros                (Officials — Application for reclassification in grade —
and S. Rodrigues, lawyers, with an address for service in                 Objection of inadmissibility — Material new fact —
Luxembourg, against European Parliament (Agents: H. von                                              Admissibility)
Hertzen and D. Moore) — application for, first, annulment of
the decision of 18 July 2000 of the Secretary-General of the
Parliament terminating the applicant’s secondment in the                                           (2002/C 109/91)
interests of the service to the political group ‘Europe of
Democracies and Diversities’ and reinstating him in the                                      (Language of the case: French)
directorate-General for Information and public Relations and,
second, damages in respect of the harm sustained by the
applicant as a result of the adoption of that decision by the
defendant and of the acts of the political group and certain of           In Case T-99/97: Willem Stols, an official of the Council of the
its members — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber),                European Union, residing at SE Halsteren (Netherlands),
 ---pagebreak--- C 109/46                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     4.5.2002
represented by N. Lhoëst, lawyer, with an address for service              No 01/2000 and that the defendant is not empowered
in Luxembourg, v Council of the European Union (Agents:                    unilaterally to introduce amendments to the terms and con-
T. Blanchet and G. Ramos Ruano) — application for annulment                ditions of employment or Staff Rules into the contracts
of the Council’s decision of 13 August 1996 rejecting the                  between the applicants and itself, nor to enforce such amend-
applicant’s request for a review of his classification in grade —          ments, — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber),
the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of:                  composed of M. Jaeger, President, K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi,
B. Vesterdorf, President; N.J. Forwood and H. Legal, Judges;               Judges; Registrar: H. Jung, made an order on 11 December
H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 11 December 2001, the                 2001, the operative part of which is as follows:
operative part of which is as follows:
1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible;                        1.   The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
2.    The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.
                                                                           2.   The parties shall bear their own costs.
(1) OJ C 181 of 14.6.97.
                                                                           (1) OJ 2001 C 108.
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                      of 11 December 2001
in Case T-20/01 Maria Concetta Cerafogli and Others v
                    European Central Bank (1)                              Action brought on 18 December 2001 by Huntstown
                                                                           Air Park Limited and Omega Aviation Services Limited
                                                                             against the Commission of the European Communities
(Amendment of the Staff Rules of the European Central
      Bank — Action for annulment — Inadmissibility)
                                                                                (Case T-331/01)
                          (2002/C 109/92)
                                                                                (2002/C 109/93)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
In Case T-20/01, Maria Concetta Cerafogli, residing in Frank-
furt (Federal Republic of Germany), Monika Esch-Leonhardt,
residing in Frankfurt, Marco Luigi Fassetta, residing in Wiesba-
den (Federal Republic of Germany), Tillmann Frommhold,
residing in Karben (Federal Republic of Germany), Johannes                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Priesemann, residing in Frankfurt and Marc van de Velde,                   ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
residing in Usingen (Federal Republic of Germany), represented             European Communities on 18 December 2001 by Huntstown
by N. Pflüger, R. Steiner and S. Mittländer, lawyers, with                 Air Park Limited and Omega Aviation Services Limited,
an address for service in Luxembourg, supported by the                     represented by Mr James O’Reilly, SC and Mr Charles A Kelly,
Organisation of Employees in European and International                    Solicitor of Douglas Kelly & Son, Swinford (Ireland).
Institutions in the Federal Republic of Germany (IPSO),
represented by B. Karthaus, M. Roth and C. Roth, lawyers, with
an address for service in Luxembourg, against European
Central Bank (Agents: C. Ziliolo, M. López Torres and B. Wäg-             The applicant claims that the Court should:
enbaur) — application for the annulment and/or a declaration
of inapplicability of Articles 7.2.0 and 8.1.0 of the Staff Rules,
Administrative Circular 01/2000 concerning Travel Expenses,                —    annul the second indent of Part 6 of the Commission’s
the gateway clause inserted into the applicants’ employment                     Decision no C(2001)2967 of 5 October 2001 concerning
contracts and the decision of the President of the ECB of                       State Aid NN 86/2001 — AER RIANTA — IRELAND;
27 November 2000 rejecting the applicants’ complaint, and
for a declaration that the ECB was required to consult the
personnel committee before adopting Administrative Circular                —    order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.


title: Case C-307/11 P: Appeal brought on 20 June 2011 by Deichmann SE against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 13 April 2011 in Case T-202/09 Deichmann SE v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/26

         Appeal brought on 20 June 2011 by Deichmann SE against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 13 April 2011 in Case T-202/09 Deichmann SE v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-307/11 P)
   2011/C 269/49
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Deichmann SE (represented by: O. Rauscher, Rechtsanwalt)

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

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 13 April 2011 in Case T-202/09;

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 April 2009 in Case R 224/2007-4;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present appeal is against the judgment of the General Court by which that court dismissed the appellant’s action for annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 3 April 2009 concerning the rejection of its application for registration of a figurative mark which represents an angle edged with dotted lines. The protection of the mark was sought in respect of Classes 10 (‘Orthopaedic footwear’) and 25 (‘Footwear’) of the Nice Agreement.
   The contested decision infringes Article 7(1)(b) and the first sentence of Article [76(1)] of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (‘Regulation No 207/2009’).
   It is based on the incorrect assumption that the mere possibility or likelihood of non-distinctive use of the sign in question is sufficient to reject the mark’s having any distinctive character altogether. In fact the not remote possibility of use which is distinctive is per se sufficient to overcome the ground for refusal of lack of distinctive character. That follows from a comparison of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 with the wording of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 and constitutes a principle which has in the meantime become well-established in the case-law of the German Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) and Bundespatentgericht (Federal Patents Court).
   In the case of (orthopaedic) footwear a sign is inter alia perceived as an indication of origin if it — as is normal in characterising footwear — is affixed to the rear of the middle part of the insole sock, to a label or to a shoebox. Against the background of those obvious possibilities for use, the General Court’s assumption that the mark for which protection is sought consists of the representation of a component of the product itself cannot be accepted.
   Furthermore, the General Court failed in the present case to examine the obvious practice of characterisation in the sport and leisure shoes sector, which the appellant explained, although it was obliged to do so on the basis of the principle, laid down in the first sentence of Article [76(1)] of Regulation No 207/2009, that OHIM is obliged to examine the facts of its own motion.
   Lastly, the General Court was not entitled to find that the mark in question had no distinctive character on the ground that it was for the appellant to provide specific and substantiated information to establish that the mark applied for has distinctive character.


title: Case C-82/14: Order of the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) of 15 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Agenzia delle Entrate v Nuova Invincibile (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC)

text:
               28.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 320/3

         Order of the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) of 15 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Agenzia delle Entrate v Nuova Invincibile
   (Case C-82/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC))
   (2015/C 320/04)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte suprema di cassazione

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Agenzia delle Entrate

      Defendant: Nuova Invincibile

      Operative part of the order

   Articles 2 and 22 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, must be interpreted as precluding a national provision such as that of Article 9(17) of the Law No 289 of 27 December 2002 on provisions for the preparation of the annual and multiannual State budget (2003 Finance Law), which, having regard to an earthquake that struck the provinces of Catania, Ragusa and Syracuse, provides for a reduction, for the benefit of those persons affected, of 90 % of the value added tax which would otherwise be payable for the years of 1990 to 1992, inter alia by conferring an entitlement to reimbursement, in that proportion, of the sums already paid in respect of value added tax, in so far as that provision does not comply with the requirements of the principle of fiscal neutrality, and does not allow for the collection in full of value added tax payable in the territory of Italy.

      (1)  OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.


title: Case F-23/08: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 27 November 2008 — Di Bucci v Commission

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/78

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 27 November 2008 — Di Bucci v Commission
   (Case F-23/08) (1)

   (2009/C 44/143)

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 116, 9.5.2008, p. 33.


title: Case F-65/11: Action brought on 3 July 2011 — ZZ v Parliament

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/57

         Action brought on 3 July 2011 — ZZ v Parliament
   (Case F-65/11)
   2011/C 252/127
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ. (represented by O. Mader, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Subject-matter and description of the dispute

   Annulment of the decision of the European Parliament whereby the applicant was awarded only 2 promotion points in respect of the promotions year 2004, in which he was seconded to the European Court of Auditors.

      Forms of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Civil Service Tribunal should:

               —

               Annul the defendant’s decision of 19 July 2010 not to award the applicant a third promotion point for 2004, and annul the defendant’s decision of 28 April 2011, dismissing the applicant’s complaint against the decision of 19 July 2010;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the applicant compensation for non-material damage suffered by him, of an amount to be assessed in the discretion of the Tribunal;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case C-408/04 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 22 April 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Salzgitter AG, Federal Republic of Germany (Appeal — State aid — Approval by the Commission on the basis of the EC Treaty — Steel undertaking — Articles 4(c) CS, 67 CS and 95 CS — ECSC Treaty — EC Treaty — Steel Aid Codes — Concomitant application — Incompatibility of the aid — Compulsory notification of aid granted — Failure to notify the Commission — Prolonged lack of reaction on the part of the Commission — Recovery decision — Principle of legal certainty — Protection of legitimate expectations — Rights of the defence — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based)

text:
               7.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 22 April 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Salzgitter AG, Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-408/04 P) (1)

   (Appeal - State aid - Approval by the Commission on the basis of the EC Treaty - Steel undertaking - Articles 4(c) CS, 67 CS and 95 CS - ECSC Treaty - EC Treaty - Steel Aid Codes - Concomitant application - Incompatibility of the aid - Compulsory notification of aid granted - Failure to notify the Commission - Prolonged lack of reaction on the part of the Commission - Recovery decision - Principle of legal certainty - Protection of legitimate expectations - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based)
   (2008/C 142/02)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Kreuschitz and M. Niejahr, Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Salzgitter AG (represented by: J. Sedemund and T Lübbig, Rechtsanwälte), Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma, W.-D. Plessing, C. Schulze-Bahr, Agents)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 1 July 2004 in Case T-308/00 Salzgitter AG v Commission, annulling Articles 2 and 3 of Commission Decision 2000/797/ECSC of 28 June 2000 on State aid granted by Germany to Salzgitter AG, Preussag Stahl AG and the group's steel-industry subsidiaries, now known as Salzgitter AG — Stahl und Technologie (SAG) (OJ 2000 L 323, p. 5), concerning the obligation for Germany to recover the aid in question from the applicant — Breach of Article 4(c) CS and of the Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Steel Aid Codes — Breach of the rights of the defence
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the cross-appeal;

               2.

               Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 1 July 2004 in Case T-308/00 Salzgitter v Commission to the extent it annuls Articles 2 and 3 of Commission Decision 2000/797/ECSC of 28 June 2000 on State aid granted by the Federal Republic of Germany to Salzgitter AG, Preussag Stahl AG and the group's steel-industry subsidiaries, now known as Salzgitter AG — Stahl und Technologie (SAG) and makes an order on costs;

               3.

               Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance of the European Communities;

               4.

               Reserves costs.

      (1)  OJ C 314, 18.12.2004.