title: Case C-132/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 14 March 2017 — Peugeot Deutschland GmbH v Deutsche Umwelthilfe eV

text:
               3.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/18

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 14 March 2017 — Peugeot Deutschland GmbH v Deutsche Umwelthilfe eV
   (Case C-132/17)
   (2017/C 213/22)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Peugeot Deutschland GmbH

      Defendant: Deutsche Umwelthilfe eV

      Question referred

   Does a person who runs a video channel on the YouTube internet service on which internet users can view short advertising videos for new passenger car models operate an audiovisual media service within the meaning of Article 1(1)(a) of Directive 2010/13/EU? (1)

      (1)  Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) (OJ L 95, 15.4.2010, p. 1).


title: Case C-30/12: Order of the President of the Court of 4 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Prešov — Slovakia) — Valeria Marcinová v Pohotovst’ s.r.o.

text:
               6.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 101/14

         Order of the President of the Court of 4 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Prešov — Slovakia) — Valeria Marcinová v Pohotovst’ s.r.o.
   (Case C-30/12) (1)

   2013/C 101/29
   Language of the case: Slovak
   The President of Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 98, 31.3.2012.


title: Case T-513/15: Judgment of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult v EUIPO (Limbic® Map) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark Limbic® Map — Lack of distinctive character — Absolute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               3.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/46

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult v EUIPO (Limbic® Map)
   (Case T-513/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark Limbic® Map - Lack of distinctive character - Absolute ground for refusal - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 104/64)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult AG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: R. Kunze and G. Würtenberger, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 June 2015 (Case R 1973/2014-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign Limbic® Map as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 23 June 2015 (Case R 1973/2014-1);

               2.

               Orders that EUIPO shall bear its own costs as well as those incurred by Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult AG.

      (1)  OJ C 354, 26.10.2015.


title: Case T-519/13: Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2014  — Leder & Schuh International v OHIM — Epple (VALDASAAR) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark VALDASAAR — Earlier Community word mark Val d’Azur — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               2.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 34/38

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2014 — Leder & Schuh International v OHIM — Epple (VALDASAAR)
   (Case T-519/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark VALDASAAR - Earlier Community word mark Val d’Azur - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 034/44)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Leder & Schuh International AG (Salzburg, Austria) (represented by: S. Korn, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Valeria Epple (Bronnen, Germany)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 July 2013 (Case R 719/2012-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Valerie Epple and Leder & Schuh International AG.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Leder & Schuh International AG is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 344, 23.11.2013.


title: Joined Cases C-57/09 and C-101/09: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 9 November 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Bundesrepublik Deutschland v B (C-57/09), D (C-101/09) (Directive 2004/83/EC — Minimum standards for the grant of refugee status or of subsidiary protection — Article 12 — Exclusion from refugee status — Article 12(2)(b) and (c) — Notion of serious non-political crime — Notion of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations — Membership of an organisation involved in terrorist acts — Subsequent inclusion of that organisation on the list of persons, groups and entities which forms the Annex to Common Position 2001/931/CFSP — Individual responsibility for part of the acts committed by that organisation — Conditions — Right of asylum by virtue of national constitutional law — Compatibility with Directive 2004/83/EC)

text:
               15.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/4

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 9 November 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Bundesrepublik Deutschland v B (C-57/09), D (C-101/09)
   (Joined Cases C-57/09 and C-101/09) (1)

   (Directive 2004/83/EC - Minimum standards for the grant of refugee status or of subsidiary protection - Article 12 - Exclusion from refugee status - Article 12(2)(b) and (c) - Notion of ‘serious non-political crime’ - Notion of ‘acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations’ - Membership of an organisation involved in terrorist acts - Subsequent inclusion of that organisation on the list of persons, groups and entities which forms the Annex to Common Position 2001/931/CFSP - Individual responsibility for part of the acts committed by that organisation - Conditions - Right of asylum by virtue of national constitutional law - Compatibility with Directive 2004/83/EC)
   2011/C 13/07
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesverwaltungsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

      Defendant: B (C-57/09), D (C-101/09)

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesverwaltungsgericht Leipzig — Interpretation of Articles 3 and 12(2)(b) and (c) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted (OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12) — National of a non-member country who in his country of origin actively supported the armed struggle of an organisation included in the list of terrorist organisations in the annex to Council Common Position 2002/462/CFSP of 17 June 2002 (OJ 2002 L 160, p. 32) and has been tortured and twice sentenced to life imprisonment in that country — Application of the provisions of Directive 2004/83/EC excluding the grant of refugee status to a person who has carried on terrorist activity in his country of origin — Power of the Member States to grant refugee status on the basis of their constitutional provisions in the face of a ground of exclusion from that status under that directive

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 12(2)(b) and (c) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted must be interpreted as meaning that:

                           —

                           the fact that a person has been a member of an organisation which, because of its involvement in terrorist acts, is on the list forming the Annex to Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism and that that person has actively supported the armed struggle waged by that organisation does not automatically constitute a serious reason for considering that that person has committed ‘a serious non-political crime’ or ‘acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations’;

                           —

                           the finding, in such a context, that there are serious reasons for considering that a person has committed such a crime or has been guilty of such acts is conditional on an assessment on a case-by-case basis of the specific facts, with a view to determining whether the acts committed by the organisation concerned meet the conditions laid down in those provisions and whether individual responsibility for carrying out those acts can be attributed to the person concerned, regard being had to the standard of proof required under Article 12(2) of the directive.

               2.

               Exclusion from refugee status pursuant to Article 12(2)(b) or (c) of Directive 2004/83 is not conditional on the person concerned representing a present danger to the host Member State.

               3.

               The exclusion of a person from refugee status pursuant to Article 12(2)(b) or (c) of Directive 2004/83 is not conditional on an assessment of proportionality in relation to the particular case.

               4.

               Article 3 of Directive 2004/83 must be interpreted as meaning that Member States may grant a right of asylum under their national law to a person who is excluded from refugee status pursuant to Article 12(2) of the directive, provided that that other kind of protection does not entail a risk of confusion with refugee status within the meaning of the directive.

      (1)  OJ C 129, 6.6.2009.


title: Case F-104/06: Action brought on 4 September 2006 — Arpaillange and Others v Commission

text:
               28.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/35

         Action brought on 4 September 2006 — Arpaillange and Others v Commission
   (Case F-104/06)
   (2006/C 261/73)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Joséphine Arpaillange (Santiago do Chile, Chile) and Others (represented by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought by the applicants
   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decisions of the authority authorised to conclude contracts stipulating the applicants' conditions of employment, as set out in their contracts as contract staff, on the ground that the number of years of professional experience recognised in their cases by the authority authorised to conclude contracts is less than the number of years' professional experience actually acquired by the applicants;

               —

               give the authority authorised to conclude contracts directions as to the effects of the annulment of the contested decisions, and particularly the regrading of the applicants in the grade and step which take account of their actual professional experience and of their seniority as individual experts;

               —

               convert, if appropriate, the applicants' contracts into contracts for an unlimited period;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicants the difference between the salary corresponding to the grade and step in which they were placed and the salary corresponding to the grade and step in which they should have been placed, with interest for delay in payment;

               —

               in the alternative, order the defendant, first, to compensate the applicants for the loss they suffered, in terms of loss of income, because of their passage from the status of individual expert to that of contract staff, by the payment of a monthly compensatory allowance and, second, to pay to the applicants the difference between the salary which they have received since taking up their duties as contract staff and the salary plus the aforementioned allowance, with interest for delay in payment;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants, after having worked for several years in Commission delegations outside the Community with the status of individual experts, were recruited with the status of contract staff, following the disappearance of the other status.
   At the time of the applicants' grading, the Commission recognised them as having less professional experience than that which they submit they had actually gained, and, in any event, less than that which they were recognised as having acquired at the time of their recruitment as individual experts.
   In support of their action, the applicants plead breach of the Conditions of employment of other servants of the European Communities (‘Conditions of Employment’) on the ground that Article 2 of the General Provisions for Implementing the procedures governing the engagement and the employment of contract staff of 7 April 2004 (‘GPI’) imposes a requirement for the engagement of contract staff — one year of appropriate professional experience — which is not required by Article 82 of the Conditions of Employment.
   Furthermore, the applicants submit that, at the time of the evaluation of their professional experience, the Commission infringed the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations, was in breach of the duty to have regard for the interests of officials and made a manifest error of assessment.
   Next, the applicants plead infringement of the principles of equal treatment and of non-discrimination on the grounds; first, that the GPI provide that staff having nearly 20 years of experience are graded in the same grade as staff having no more than seven years' experience; second, that contract staff covered by Article 3a of the Conditions of Employment, such as the applicants, and those covered by Article 3b of the Conditions of Employment are treated differently, in terms of possible grading on recruitment, and of developing their professional experience and career, whereas their situation is comparable; third, that compensation for loss of income, such as that which is provided for former local staff has not been provided for former individual experts.
   Finally, the applicants allege breach of the principle of respect for vested rights, because of, first, a consequent reduction in their salary for identical duties and, second, the failure to take into account the years for which they had worked with the status of individual experts for the purposes of their grading in step and for the purposes of the conversion of their contracts as contract staff for a limited period into contracts for a fixed term.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 February 2003 in Case T-20/00 OP: Commission of the European Communities v Ivo Camacho-Fernandes (Officials — Occupational disease — Irregularity in the opinion of the medical committee — Objection against a judgment given by default)

text:
10.5.2003                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 112/25
26 August 1999 (SG(99) D/7.040) rejecting a complaint                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
submitted pursuant to Article 82 EC, the Court of First
Instance (First Chamber, Extended Composition), composed
of: B. Vesterdorf, President, K. Lenaerts, J. Azizi, N.J. Forwood
                                                                                of 6 March 2003
and H. Legal, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 4 March 2003, in which it:
1.     Dismisses the application;                                           in Case T-56/00: Dole Fresh Fruit International Ltd v
                                                                            Council of the European Union and Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
2.     Orders the applicant to bear its own costs together with those
       incurred by the Commission.
                                                                            (Bananas — Common organisation of the markets —
( 1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.                                                  Decision 94/800/EC — Regulation (EC) No 478/95 —
                                                                                Export licence scheme — Action for damages)
                                                                                (2003/C 112/46)
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                        of 27 February 2003
in Case T-20/00 OP: Commission of the European Com-
             munities v Ivo Camacho-Fernandes (1)
                                                                            In Case T-56/00, Dole Fresh Fruit International Ltd, established
                                                                            in San José (Costa Rica), represented by B. O’Connor, Solicitor,
(Officials — Occupational disease — Irregularity in the                     with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Council of the
opinion of the medical committee — Objection against a                      European Union (Agents: S. Marquardt and J.-P. Hix) and
                     judgment given by default)                             Commission of the European Communities (Agents: initially
                                                                            P. Oliver and C. Van der Hauwaert, then L. Visaggio and
                          (2003/C 112/45)                                   K. Fitch): Application for compensation for the damage
                                                                            allegedly suffered by the applicant by reason of the introduc-
                                                                            tion of the export licence scheme by Council Decision 94/
                     (Language of the case: French)                         800/EC of 22 December 1994 concerning the conclusion on
                                                                            behalf of the European Community, as regards matters within
                                                                            its competence, of the agreements reached in the Uruguay
                                                                            Round multilateral negotiations (1986-1994) (OJ 1994 L 336,
In Case T-20/00 OP: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                            p. 1) and by Commission Regulation (EC) No 478/95 of
ties (Agents: J. Currall and J.-L. Fagnart) against Ivo Camacho-
                                                                            1 March 1995 on additional rules for the application of
Fernandes, an official of the Commission of the European
                                                                            Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 as regards the tariff quota
Communities, residing in Overijse (Belgium), represented by
                                                                            arrangements for imports of bananas into the Community and
N. Lhoëst, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                            amending Regulation (EEC) No 1442/93 (OJ 1995 L 49, p. 13),
— objection against the judgment of the Court of First Instance
                                                                            the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
of 15 November 2000 in Case T-20/00 Camacho-Fernandes v
                                                                            J.D. Cooke, President, R. García-Valdecasas and P. Lindh,
Commission [2000] ECR-SC I-A-249 and II-1149 given by
                                                                            Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the
default, annulling the Commission decision of 10 February
                                                                            Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 March 2003, in which it:
1999 refusing to recognise the occupational origin of the lung
cancer which resulted in the death of Mr Camacho Fernandes’s
wife — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed
of: B. Vesterdorf, President, M. Vilaras and N.J. Forwood,                  1.     Dismisses the application;
Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
given a judgment on 27 February 2003, in which it:
                                                                            2.     Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay those of
                                                                                the Council and the Commission.
1.     Dismisses the objection;
2.     Orders the Commission to pay the costs of the objection.
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 135 of 13.05.2000.
( 1) OJ C 122 of 29.4.2000.


title: Case C-399/07: Order of the President of the Court of 28 January 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/25

         Order of the President of the Court of 28 January 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-399/07) (1)

   (2008/C 92/51)

      Language of the case: Portuguese

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

      (1)  OJ C 247, 20.10.2007.


title: Case T-306/06: Action brought on 13 November 2006 — Air Products and Chemicals v OHIM — Messer Group (INOMIX)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/62

         Action brought on 13 November 2006 — Air Products and Chemicals v OHIM — Messer Group (INOMIX)
   (Case T-306/06)
   (2006/C 326/133)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Air Products and Chemicals Inc. (Allentown, USA) (represented by: S. Heurung, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Messer Group GmbH (Sulzbach, Germany)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 12 September 2006 of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM in joined Cases R 1226/2005-2 and R 1398/2005-2;

               —

               reject the contested application for registration of the trade mark ‘INOMIX’ CTM 3 190 031 in its entirety;

               —

               send the decision of the Court of First Instance to OHIM;

               —

               order Messer Group to pay all the costs and expenses.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: Messer Group GmbH

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘INOMIX’ for goods in classes 1 and 4 — application No 3 190 031

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited: The Community word mark ‘INOMAXX’ for goods in class 1

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in respect of all goods in class 1; opposition rejected in respect of all goods in class 4

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal brought by the applicant (R 1226/2005-2) dismissed; appeal brought by Messer Group GmbH (R 1398/2005-2) upheld

      Pleas in law: Violation of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal among others:

               —

               overestimated the knowledge and awareness of non professional consumers of welding gas;

               —

               erroneously assumed that the trade mark ‘INOMAXX’ was inherently weak;

               —

               did not pay sufficient attention to the fact that the goods in question are partially identical, partially highly similar; and

               —

               failed to consider the overall impression of the marks as a whole.


title: Case C-262/14: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 May 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Neamț — Romania) — Sindicatul Cadrelor Militare Disponibilizate în rezervă și în retragere (SCMD) v Ministerul Finanțelor Publice (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Directive 2000/78/EC — Articles 2, 3(1) and 6 — Prohibition of discrimination based on age — Discrimination on grounds of membership of a socio-professional category or place of work — National legislation prohibiting, subject to certain limits, the combination of a pension with employment income from professional activity in the public sector — Automatic termination of the employment relationship or service relationship)

text:
               20.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 236/17

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 May 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Neamț — Romania) — Sindicatul Cadrelor Militare Disponibilizate în rezervă și în retragere (SCMD) v Ministerul Finanțelor Publice
   (Case C-262/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Directive 2000/78/EC - Articles 2, 3(1) and 6 - Prohibition of discrimination based on age - Discrimination on grounds of membership of a socio-professional category or place of work - National legislation prohibiting, subject to certain limits, the combination of a pension with employment income from professional activity in the public sector - Automatic termination of the employment relationship or service relationship))
   (2015/C 236/23)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Tribunalul Neamt

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sindicatul Cadrelor Militare Disponibilizate în rezervă și în retragere (SCMD)

      Defendant: Ministerul Finanțelor Publice

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 2(2) and 3(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation do not apply to national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, that provides for automatic termination of employment relationships or service relationships of public sector employees benefitting from a pension that is higher than the gross average income who have not opted for continuing that employment relationship or service relationship within a specified time.

      (1)  OJ C 315, 15.9.2014.


title: Case C-354/05: Action brought on 22 September 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               12.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/13

         Action brought on 22 September 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-354/05)
   (2005/C 281/26)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 September 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Muriel Heller and Bernhard Schima, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/55/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC and, in any event, by not informing the Commission thereof, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposing the Directive expired on 1 July 2004.

      (1)  OJ L 176 of 15.07.2003, p. 57


title: Case T-376/14: Action brought on 30 May 2014  — Yassin v Council

text:
               28.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/26

         Action brought on 30 May 2014 — Yassin v Council
   (Case T-376/14)
   2014/C 245/35
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Khadiga Ahmed Ahmed Kamel Yassin (Cairo, Egypt) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, R. Luff, A. Bailleux, Q. Declève, P. Vovan, S. Rowe and A. Yehia, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the action admissible and well-founded;

               —

               annul Decision 2014/153, in so far as it extends until 22 March 2015 the restrictive measures directed against the applicant in Decision 2011/172/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt;

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those raised in Case T-375/14 Al Naggar v Council.


title: Case T-332/12: Action brought on 23 July 2012 — ING Groep v Commission

text:
               22.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/35

         Action brought on 23 July 2012 — ING Groep v Commission
   (Case T-332/12)
   2012/C 287/65
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ING Groep NV (Amsterdam, The Netherlands) (represented by: O. Brouwer, J. Blockx and N. Lorjé, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the European Commission of 11 May 2012 C(2012)3150 final, State aid SA.28855 (N 373/2009) (ex C 10/2009 and ex N 528/2008)-The Netherlands ING — restructuring aid; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached the principle of sound administration and the right to be heard by not consulting the Dutch State and ING with respect to facts and its views and assumptions that were pertinent for its conclusion that the amendment to the terms of the core-tier-1 capital injection constituted aid under Article 107(1) TFEU.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant erred in law and committed a manifest error of assessment in applying the market economy investor principle (‘MEIP’) test and failed to provide adequate reasoning when qualifying the amendment to the core-tier-1 capital injection as State aid and an aggravating factor in its assessment of the compensatory measures.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached Article 107(3)(b) TFEU and the principles of sound administration, proportionality, legal certainty, equal treatment and the duty to state reasons by failing to take into account the amount of aid when assessing the compensatory measures, and by wrongly calculating the relative amount of the aid and the circumstances under which the aid was granted when assessing the compensatory measures.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached Article 107(3)(b) TFEU, the principle of sound administration, proportionality and the duty to state reasons when making the price leadership bans legally binding on ING.


title: Case T-136/17: Action brought on 2 March 2017 — Cotecnica v EUIPO — Mignini & Petrini (cotecnica MAXIMA)

text:
               24.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/29

         Action brought on 2 March 2017 — Cotecnica v EUIPO — Mignini & Petrini (cotecnica MAXIMA)
   (Case T-136/17)
   (2017/C 129/43)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Cotecnica, SCCL (Bellpuig, Spain) (represented by: J. Erdozain López, J. Galán López and J. Devaureix, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mignini & Petrini SpA (Petrignano di Assisi, Italy)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘cotecnica MAXIMA’ — Application for registration No 13 292 495

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 November 2016 in Case R 853/2016-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case T-418/11 P: Appeal brought on 3 August 2011 by Carlo De Nicola against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 28 June 2011 in Case F-49/10, De Nicola v EIB

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/42

         Appeal brought on 3 August 2011 by Carlo De Nicola against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 28 June 2011 in Case F-49/10, De Nicola v EIB
   (Case T-418/11 P)
   2011/C 282/79
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Carlo De Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by L. Isloa, lawye)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Vary the judgment delivered on 28 June 2011 by the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-49/10, concerning:

               —

               the annulment of the decision in the e-mail of 11 May 2010, in so far as the EIB refused to allow the administrative procedure to be completed and obstructed the attempted amicable settlement of the matter, rejecting by implication the claim for reimbursement of medical expenses in the sum of EUR 3 000,00;

               —

               order the EIB to reimburse the sum of EUR 3 000 incurred by the appellant for laser therapy treatment prescribed for him and carried out in Italy, together with interest, monetary inflation and the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of his claims, the appellant submits as follows:

               A.

               The facts:

                           1.

                           The appellant alleges distortion of one claim and failure to rule on another.

                           2.

                           The appellant also complains of the privileged position enjoyed by the Institution, which, once again, has confined itself to asserting certain facts, which the Tribunal then found to be proved.

               B.

               The application for annulment

                           3.

                           The appellant sought annulment of the decision communicated to him by e-mail on 11 May 2010, in so far as the EIB refused to appoint a third doctor, refused to initiate the mediation procedure under Article 41 of the Staff Regulations and refused to reimburse expenditure in the sum of EUR 3 000 incurred for laser therapy treatment prescribed for the appellant and carried out in Italy.

                           4.

                           As regards the challenge of the refusal to appoint a third doctor, the Civil Service Tribunal found that the claim was inadmissible, on the assumption that the appellant should have challenged a non-existent provision of 24 March 2008, without explaining the link between the provision challenged and that which it assumes to be in breach of the law, and without clarifying under which rules the opinion attributed to the EIB’s representative became a decision refusing a claim on the part of the EIB.

                           5.

                           The appellant submits that, since it forms part of an internal procedure, an opinion is without prejudice and can never be challenged automatically.
                           The General Court, however, overturned all previous case-law and held that it was entitled to introduce a three-month period for challenging any measure forming part of an internal procedure, stating that the time-limit for bringing court proceedings starts to run from the same date on which the employee submits an application, irrespective of whether a measure has been adopted and without the employee’s even being aware of the reasons.

                           6.

                           The appellant challenges the entire system of rules laid down for public institutions, which the Tribunal claims apply to the EIB, which is organised as a private bank and whose employees have a private-law contract of employment. The effect of this is that measures affecting such employees are not administrative measures, do not represent the exercise of public authority, are not authoritative acts and do not enjoy a presumption of legitimacy, so that no analogy can be made with public employees and nor is there any need to confer immediate effect on measures of internal organisation adopted in the same way as in any private bank.

                           7.

                           Moreover, the appellant complains that the reasoning is illogical, in so far as it fails to have regard to his excusable error, attributing to him knowledge of a measure notified only to his lawyer.

                           8.

                           Lastly, the appellant states that, under any legal system, an act that is null and void may be challenged at any time, not solely within the time limit laid down for measures capable of being annulled.

                           9.

                           The appellant submits that the mediation procedure under Article 41 of the Staff Regulations is not a procedural requirement. Nevertheless, the Tribunal unlawfully claims that it may be treated in the same was as an administrative appeal, which public employees of the European Union are required to lodge and which is, by contrast, obligatory, establishing the limits of any subsequent court proceedings.

                           10.

                           As regards the challenge of the refusal to initiate the mediation procedure, the appellant submits that the decision of the Civil Service Tribunal is unlawful, since the bank can never refuse such a procedure.
                           It follows from the above, first, that no reasons can legitimately justify such a refusal and, second, that the upholding of the employee’s claim should give rise to aggravated liability on the part of the bank and it being ordered without question to pay the costs of the proceedings.

                           11.

                           As regards the refusal by implication to reimburse the laser therapy treatment expenditure, the appellant submits that the lack of reasoning is a clear sign of misuse of power, given that reimbursement may lawfully be refused in only three cases, and the fact that there existed no formal measure provides grounds for absolute nullity, which can as such be challenged at any time.

                           12.

                           Lastly, the decision by which the Civil Service Tribunal failed to give a ruling on the basis of the assumption that it did not have before it the necessary evidence must clearly be regarded as unlawful.

               C.

               The order as to costs

                           13.

                           The Tribunal found that the application was inadmissible on grounds of litis pendenza, whereas no provision is made for the defect of litis pendenza in the Code of Procedure. Moreover, it failed to explain how there can be identity of claims between a case pending at first instance and a case pending on appeal and also failed to clarify how the facts on which that decision was based were established and by whom.

                           14.

                           Lastly, the appellant claims that the granting of the appeal and the variation of the judgment under appeal should give rise to a new ruling as to costs, including the costs of the proceedings at first instance.


title: Case T-497/09: Action brought on 7 December 2009 — LG Electronics v OHIM

text:
               13.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/45

         Action brought on 7 December 2009 — LG Electronics v OHIM
   (Case T-497/09)
   2010/C 37/64
   Language in which the application was lodged: French

      Parties

      Applicant: LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (represented by J. Blanchard, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare the present action to be admissible;

               —

               annul in part the decision made on 23 September 2009 by the First Board of Appeal of OHIM in so far as it dismissed in part an action brought by LG ELECTRONICS against the decision of 5 February 2009 refusing registration of the application for Community trade mark No 7 282 924 in so far as it applies to ‘electronic vacuum cleaners’;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘KOMPRESSOR PLUS’ for goods in Class 7 (Application No 7 282 924).

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application for registration.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partial dismissal of the appeal.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark.


title: Case C-118/12 P: Order of the Court of 24 January 2013 — Enviro Tech Europe Ltd v European Commission, Enviro Tech International Inc. (Appeal — Directives 67/548/EEC and 2004/73/EC — Classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances — Classification of n-propyl-bromide)

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/9

         Order of the Court of 24 January 2013 — Enviro Tech Europe Ltd v European Commission, Enviro Tech International Inc.
   (Case C-118/12 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Directives 67/548/EEC and 2004/73/EC - Classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances - Classification of n-propyl-bromide)
   2013/C 108/17
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Enviro Tech Europe Ltd (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, avocats)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: P. Oliver and E. Manhaeve, Agents), Enviro Tech International Inc.

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 16 December 2011 in Case T-291/04 Enviro Tech Europe Ltd and Enviro Tech International, Inc. v European Commission by which the General Court dismissed an action for (i) annulment in part of Commission Directive 2004/73/EC of 29 April 2004 adapting to technical progress for the twenty-ninth time Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (OJ 2004 L 152, p. 1), in so far as it classifies n-propyl-bromide as a ‘highly flammable’ substance, and for (ii) damages for the loss which the applicants claim they had sustained — Legal interest in bringing proceedings — Lack of individual concern

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Enviro Tech Europe Ltd is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 227, 28.7.2012.


title: Case C-99/99: Action brought on 17 March 1999 by the Italian Republic against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 188/6                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       3.7.1999
Action brought on 9 December 1998 by Antillean Rice                     Action brought on 17 March 1999 by the Italian Republic
Mills NV, supported by the Kingdom of the Netherlands,                    against the Commission of the European Communities
against the Council of the European Union, supported
by the Commission of the European Communities, the
Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic and the Italian                                            (Case C-99/99)
                              Republic
                                                                                (1999/C 188/13)
                         (Case C-451/98)
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                         (1999/C 188/11)                                Communities on 17 March 1999 by the Italian Republic,
                                                                        represented by Umberto Leanza, acting as Agent, assisted by
                                                                        Oscar Fiumara, Avvocato dello Stato, with an address for
                                                                        service in Luxembourg at the Italian Embassy, 5 Rue Marie-
An action was brought before the Court of Justice of the                Adelaïde.
European Communities on 9 December 1998 which Antillean
Rice Mills NV had previously brought before the Court of First
Instance. That action, registered under case number T-41/97,            The applicant claims that the Court should:
resulted in a declaration of inadmissibility and the Court of
First Instance has referred the case to the Court of Justice in
order that the latter Court may rule on the application for             — Annul Commission Regulation No 2815/98 (1) or at least
annulment.                                                                   Articles 1, 2(1) and the third subparagraph of 2(2), the
                                                                             third subparagraph of Article 3(2), and Article 3(3);
The pleas in law and main arguments are set out in a communi-           — Order the Commission of the European Communities to
cation in OJ C 108 of 5 April 1997, p. 23.                                   pay the costs.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        1.     The regulation does not state the legal basis on which it
                                                                        was adopted.
                                                                        2.     The regulation provides for the protection only of extra
Action brought on 9 December 1998 by the Netherlands                    virgin and virgin olive oil. That restriction is unjustified and
Antilles against the Council of the European Union,                     unacceptable. Olive oil, too, (other than extra virgin or virgin
supported by the Commission of the European Communi-                    olive oil) possesses or may possess characteristics which
                ties and the Kingdom of Spain                           vary according to its geographical origin. Sound and proper
                                                                        protection of the product and the consumer requires that
                                                                        designation of origin of that product should be made possible.
                         (Case C-452/98)
                                                                        3.     The criterion applied to define the geographical origin of
                         (1999/C 188/12)                                the product is unacceptable. It is identified by reference to the
                                                                        place where the mill in which the olives were pressed is
                                                                        located, without taking any account of the place where the
                                                                        olives themselves were produced.
An action was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 9 December 1998 which the
Netherlands Antilles had previously brought before the Court
of First Instance. That action, registered under case number            4.     The regulation makes an exception of the names of
T-179/97, resulted in a declaration of inadmissibility and the          brands or firms whose registration was applied for before
Court of First Instance has referred the case to the Court of           1 January 1999 purportedly in accordance with the relevant
Justice in order that the latter Court may rule on the application      directive. Not only does the regulation, unlike the directive,
for annulment.                                                          make no to reference to good faith, it also makes it possible to
                                                                        apply for registration even after publication of the regulation,
                                                                        thus legitimizing out and out abuses.
The pleas in law and main arguments are set out in a communi-
cation in OJ C 228 of 26 July 1997, p. 25.
                                                                        (1) OJ 1998 L 349, p. 56.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 September 1999 in Case T-110/98: RJB Mining plc v Commission of the European Communities (ECSC Treaty - State aid - Operating aid - Authorisation ex post facto of aid already paid - Improvement of viability of recipient undertakings for the purpose of Article 3 of Decision No 3632/93/ECSC)

text:
C 314/8                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        30.10.1999
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        of 9 September 1999
                                                                                of 9 September 1999
in Case T-110/98: RJB Mining plc v Commission of the
                    European Communities (1)                                in Case T-127/98, UPS Europe SA v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
(ECSC Treaty — State aid — Operating aid — Authoris-
ation ex post facto of aid already paid — Improvement of
viability of recipient undertakings for the purpose of                      (Competition — Action for failure to act — Commission’s
            Article 3 of Decision No 3632/93/ECSC)                                   obligation to investigate — Reasonable period)
                           (1999/C 314/18)                                                             (1999/C 314/19)
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
In Case T-110/98: RJB Mining plc, established in Harworth,
United Kingdom, represented by Mark Brealey, Barrister, of the
Bar of England and Wales, and Jonathan Lawrence, Solicitor,                 In Case T-127/98: UPS Europe SA, established in Brussels,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                represented by Tom R. Ottervanger, of the Rotterdam Bar, and
Arendt and Medernach, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt, v Com-                        Dirk Arts, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
mission of the European Communities (Agents: Paul F. Nemitz                 Luxembourg at the chambers of Loeff, Claeys and Verbeke,
and Nicholas Khan), supported by Federal Republic of German,                5 Rue Charles Martel v Commission of the European Com-
(Agents: Claus-Dieter Quassowski and Michael Schütte),                      munities (Agents: Barry Doherty and Klaus Wiedner) — Appli-
Kingdom of Spain (Agent: Rosario Silva de Lapuerta) and RAG                 cation for a declaration under Article 175 of the EC Treaty
Aktiengesellschaft, established in Essen, Germany represented               (now Article 232 EC) that the Commission has failed to act by
by Sven B. Völcker, Rechtsanwalt, Berlin, with an address for               not having delivered a decision on the applicant’s complaint
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Loesch, 11                    lodged under Article 3(2) of Regulation No 17 of the Council
Rue Goethe — application for annulment of Commission                        of 6 February 1962 — First Regulation implementing
Decision 98/687/ECSC of 10 June 1998 on German aid to the                   Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty (OJ, English Special Edition
coal industry for 1997 (OJ 1998 L 324, p. 30) — the Court                   1959-62, p. 87) objecting to certain anti-competitive practices
of First Instance (First Chamber, Extended Composition)                     on the part of Deutsche Post AG, the Court of First Instance
composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, C.W. Bellamy, J. Pirrung,             (Fourth Chamber), composed of R.M. Moura Ramos, President,
A.W.H. Meij and M. Vilaras, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator,                 V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Adminis-
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 September 1999,                trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 September
in which it:                                                                1999, in which it:
1. Declares that the plea based on breach of the alleged prohibition        1. Declares that the Commission has failed to fulfil its obligations
     on giving ex post facto approval to aid paid without prior                  under the EC Treaty by failing either to initiate a procedure
     approval is unfounded;                                                      against the person who is the subject of the complaint lodged by
                                                                                the applicant on 7 July 1994 or to adopt a definitive decision
2. Declares that the plea of infringement of Article 3 of Commission             rejecting that complaint following the observations of 2 February
     Decision No 3632/93/ECSC of 28 December 1993 estab-                         1998 on the notification to the applicant under Article 6 of
     lishing Community rules for State aid to the coal industry is               Regulation No 99/63/EEC of the Commission of 25 July 1963
     unfounded;                                                                  on the hearings provided for in Article 19(1) and (2) of Council
                                                                                Regulation No 17;
3. Dismisses the application in so far as it is based on those two
     pleas;
                                                                            2. For the rest, dismisses the application;
4. Invites the parties to state their views, within a period to be fixed
     by the President of the Court of First Instance, on the further        3. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
     steps to be taken in the proceedings;
5. Reserves the costs.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 340 of 7.11.1998.
(1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber) of 14 November 1996 in Case C-305/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du Travail, Brussels): Claude Rotsart de Hertaing v. J. Benoidt SA, in liquidation, and IGC Housing Service SA (Safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses - Transfer to the transferee of the rights and obligations arising from a contract of employment - Date of transfer)

text:
No C 26 /4                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      25 . 1 . 97
1 . ( a ) When a competent authority of a Member State                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
            concludes that a proprietary medicinal product
                                                                                ( Second Chamber )
            covered by a marketing authorization in another
            Member State and a proprietary medicinal product                                     of 14 November 1996
            for which it has already issued a marketing
            authorization are manufactured by independent                  in Case C-305/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
             companies pursuant to agreements concluded with               the Tribunal du Travail, Brussels): Claude Rotsart de
             the same licensor and that those two products,                Hertaing v. J. Benoidt SA, in liquidation, and IGC
            although not identical in all respects, have at                                      Housing Service SA (*)
             least been manufactured according to the same
             formulation and using the same active ingredient              (Safeguarding of employees ' rights in the event of transfers
            and that they also have the same therapeutic                   of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses —
             effects, it must treat the imported proprietary                Transfer to the transferee of the rights and obligations
             medicinal product as being covered by                 the     arising from a contract of employment — Date of
             latter marketing authorization unless there           are                                     transfer)
             countervailing considerations relating to             the                                  ( 97/C 26/06 )
             effective protection of the life and health            of
             humans .
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
        (b) If the competent authority concludes that the
             proprietary medicinal product to be imported does
             not satisfy those criteria, a new marketing
             authorization is required. That authorization can                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
             be issued only in accordance with the conditions                         published in the European Court Reports)
             laid down in Articles 3 and 4 of Council
             Directive 65/65/EEG of 26 January 1965 on the
             approximation of provisions laid down by law,                  In Case C-305/94 : reference to the Court pursuant to
             regulation or administrative action relating to                Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Tribunal du Travail
             proprietary medicinal products, as amended in                  ( Labour Court), Brussels, for a preliminary ruling in the
             particular by Council Directive 87/21 /EEC of                  proceedings pending before that court between Claude
              22 December 1986.                                             Rotsart de Hertaing and J. Benoidt SA, in liquidation, and
                                                                            IGC Housing Service SA — on the interpretation of
                                                                            Council Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on
                                                                            the approximation of the laws of the Member States
 2 . The fact that the grantor of the licences in respect of                relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the
        the two proprietary medicinal products in question is               event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of
        situated outside the European Community does not                    businesses (2 ) — the Court ( Second Chamber ), composed
        affect the answer given above.                                      of: G. F. Mancini, President of the Chamber ( Rapporteur),
                                                                            J. L. Murray and G. Hirsch, Judges; C. O. Lenz,
                                                                            Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
                                                                            judgment on 14 November 1996 , in which it has ruled:
 3 . The holder of an original marketing authorization
         issued pursuant to the procedure referred to in
         Directive 65/65/EEC may rely on the provisions of                   1 . Article 3 (1 ) of Council Directive 77/187/EEC of
         that Directive, as amended in particular by Directive                    14 February 1977 on the approximation of the laws
         87/21 /EEC, and specifically on Article 5 thereof, in                    of the Member States relating to the safeguarding
         proceedings before a national court in order to                          of employees ' rights in the event of transfers of
         challenge the validity of an authorization issued by the                 undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses is
         competent national authority on the basis of Directive                   to be interpreted as meaning that the contracts
         65/65/EEC, as amended, to one of its competitors for                     of employment and employment relationships existing
         a proprietary medicinal product bearing the same                         on the date of the transfer of an undertaking between
         name. The same applies where the authorization,                          the transferor and the workers employed in the
         although issued under another procedure laid down at                     undertaking transferred are automatically transferred
         national level, should have been issued on the basis of                  from the transferor to the transferee by the mere fact
         the Directive.
                                                                                of the transfer of the undertaking, despite the contrary
                                                                                intention of the transferor or transferee and despite the
                                                                                latter's refusal to fulfil his obligations.
  (!) OJ No C 275 , 1 . 10 . 1994 .
  (2 ) Official Journal , English Special Edition 1965— 1966 , p. 20 .
  ( 3 ) OJ No L 15 , 17. 1 . 1987, p . 36 .
                                                                              2 . The transfer of the contracts of employment and
                                                                                employment relationships pursuant to Article 3 (1 ) of
                                                                                Directive 77/187/EEC necessarily takes place on the
                                                                                date of the transfer of the undertaking and cannot be
 ---pagebreak--- 25 . 1 . 97             1 EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 26/5
       postponed to another date at the will of the transferor                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
       or transferee.                                                                          of 26 November 1996
                                                                        in Case C-68/95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
(!) OJ No C 386, 31 . 12. 1994 .                                        the Hessischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof): T. Port GmbH &c
( 2 ) OJ No L 61 , 5 . 3 . 1977, p . 26.                                Co .    KG     v.    Bundesanstalt     fur  Landwirtschaft  und
                                                                                Ernahrung ( 1 )
                                                                        (Bananas — Common organization of the markets —
                                                                        Import rules — Cases of hardship — Assessment of
                                                                                validity — Interim measures)
                                                                                ( 97/C 26/08 )
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                    (Language of the case: German)
                             (Fifth Chamber)
                         of 14 November 1996                               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
in Case C-333/94 P: Tetra Pak International SA v.
          Commission of the European Communities 0 )                    In Case C-68/95 : reference to the Court pursuant to
                                                                        Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Hessischer
 (Appeal — Competition — Dominant position —                            Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Higher Administrative Court,
Definition of the product markets — Application of                      Hesse ), Germany, for a preliminary ruling in the
Article 86 of the Treaty to practices carried out by a                  proceedings pending before that court between T. Port
 dominant undertaking on a market distinct from the                     GmbH & Co . KG and Bundesanstalt fur Landwirtschaft
 dominated market — Tied sales — Predatory prices —                      und Ernahrung, supported by Federal Republic of
                                    Fine)
                                                                         Germany — on the interpretation of Articles 16 and 30 of
                               ( 971C 26/07)                             Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/93 of 13 February
                                                                         1993 on the common organization of the market in
                                                                         bananas (2 ), on the validity of Article 19 of that
                                                                         Regulation and on the interpretation of the EC Treaty,
                  (Language of the case: English)                        with particular regard to a national court's power to order
                                                                         interim measures until rules dealing with cases of hardship
                                                                         are adopted — the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez
 In Case C-333/94 P: Tetra Pak International SA, whose                   Iglesias, President, G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de
 seat is in Pully, Switzerland, represented by Michel                    Almeida ( Rapporteur ), J. L. Murray and L. Sevón
 Waelbroeck and Alexandre Vandencasteele, of the Brussels                ( Presidents of Chambers ), C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G.
 Bar, and by Vivien Rose, Barrister, with an address for                 Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet,
 service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt,                 G. Hirsch, P. Jann and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; M. B.
  8—10 rue Mathias Hardt — appeal against the judgment                   Elmer, Advocate-General; H. von Holstein , Deputy
  of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber ) of                    Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
  6 October 1994 in Case T-83/91 Tetra Pak v. Commission                 26 November 1996, in which it has ruled :
  [1994] ECR 11-755, seeking to have that judgment set
  aside — the other party to the proceedings being: the                   1 . Article 16 (3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93
  Commission of the European Communities (Agent: Julian                       of 13 February 1993 on the common organization of
  Currall, assisted by Nicholas Forwood QC ) — the Court                      the market in bananas does not allow the Commission
  (Fifth Chamber), composed of: L. Sevón, President of the                    to lay down rules catering for cases of hardship arising
  First Chamber, acting for the President of the Fifth                        from the fact that importers of third-country bananas
  Chamber, C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet                     or non-traditional ACP bananas meet difficulties
  and P. Jann ( Rapporteur ), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo                          threatening their existence when an exceptionally low
  Colomer, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator,                       quota was allocated to them on the basis of the
  for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 November                      reference years to be taken into consideration pursuant
   1996 , in which it:                                                        to Article 19 (2) of the Regulation.
                                                                              Article 30 of Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 authorizes
   1 . Dismisses the appeal.                                                  and, depending on the circumstances, requires the
                                                                               Commission to lay down rules catering for cases of
                                                                               hardship arising from the fact that importers of third-
   2 . Orders the appellant to pay the costs.                                  country bananas or non-traditional ACP bananas
                                                                               meet difficulties threatening their existence when an
                                                                               exceptionally low quota has been allocated to them on
   (') OJ No C 386 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .                                          the basis of the reference years to be taken into
                                                                               consideration pursuant to Article 19 (2) of that
                                                                               Regulation, where those difficulties are inherent in the
                                                                               transition from the national arrangements existing


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 July 2005 in Case C-40/03 P: Rica Foods (Free Zone) NV v Commission of the European Communities, Kingdom of the Netherlands, Kingdom of Spain (Appeal — Arrangements for association of the overseas countries and territories — Imports of sugar and mixtures of sugar and cocoa — Regulation (EC) No 2081/2000 — Safeguard measures — Article 109 of the OCT Decision — Commission's power of assessment — Principle of proportionality — Reasons)

text:
               17.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 229/1

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 14 July 2005
   in Case C-40/03 P: Rica Foods (Free Zone) NV v Commission of the European Communities, Kingdom of the Netherlands, Kingdom of Spain (1)

   (Appeal - Arrangements for association of the overseas countries and territories - Imports of sugar and mixtures of sugar and cocoa - Regulation (EC) No 2081/2000 - Safeguard measures - Article 109 of the OCT Decision - Commission's power of assessment - Principle of proportionality - Reasons)
   (2005/C 229/01)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   In Case C-40/03 P: appeal under Article 49 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice, lodged on 29 January 2003 — Rica Foods (Free Zone) NV, established in Oranjestad (Aruba), (lawyer: G. van der Wal), the other parties to the proceedings being: Commission of the European Communities (Agent: T. van Rijn), Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agent: H. Sevenster), Kingdom of Spain (Agents: N. Díaz Abad and D. Miguel Muñoz Pérez) — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C. W. A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta, R. Schintgen (rapporteur), G. Arestis and J. Klučka, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; M. Ferreira, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 July 2005, in which it:

               1)

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2)

               Orders Rica Foods (Free Zone) NV to pay the costs;

               3)

               Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Kingdom of Spain to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 146 of 21.06.2003.


title: Case T-202/09: Judgment of the General Court of 13 April 2011 — Deichmann v OHIM (Representation of a curved band with dotted lines) (Community trade mark — International registration designating the European Community — Figurative mark representing a curved band with dotted lines — Absolute ground for refusal — Absence of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               28.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 160/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 April 2011 — Deichmann v OHIM (Representation of a curved band with dotted lines)
   (Case T-202/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - International registration designating the European Community - Figurative mark representing a curved band with dotted lines - Absolute ground for refusal - Absence of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2011/C 160/24
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Deichmann SE, formerly Heinrich Deichmann-Scuhe GmbH & Co. KG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: O. Rauscher, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 April 2009 (Case R 224/2007-4) concerning an international registration designating the European Community of a figurative mark representing a curved band with dotted lines

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Deichmann SE to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 180, 1.8.2009.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal, by order of that court of 9 October 1997, in the case of Secretary of State for the Home Department against Mustafa Saglam (Case C-370/98)

text:
C 397/18               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   19.12.98
                agricultural aid in respect of the same land as        (1) Did Article 12 of the Agreement establishing an
                the former claimant even where the former                  Association between the European Economic
                claimant refuses to disclose the information;              Community and Turkey signed at Ankara on
                                                                           12 September 1963 (the EEC-Turkey Agreement')
                and as regards the information to be                       become directly effective at the end of the transitional
                disclosed:                                                 period (31 December 1993) in accordance with
                                                                           Article 36 of the Additional (Financial) Protocol to
           (c) to that information which does not constitute               the EEC-Turkey Agreement signed at Brussels on
                commercially confidential information; and/                23 November 1970 (the Additional Protocol')?
                or
           (d) to that information which it is necessary to            (2) Is Article 6 of Decision 1/80 of the Council of
                disclose to ensure that the person requesting              Association (Decision 1/80'):
                the information can, by taking reasonable
                steps, avoid incurring penalties in connection             (i)   ultra vires the Council of Association by
                with his own application for agricultural aid.                   requiring satisfaction of the condition duly
                                                                                registered as belonging to the labour force of a
                                                                                Member State';
(2) If the answer to question 1(i) is yes', and the
      competent authorities have unlawfully failed to
                                                                           (ii) contrary to the principle of non-discrimination
      disclose information requested in circumstances where
                                                                                contained in Article 9 of the EEC-Turkey
      had the person received the information he would
                                                                                Agreement;
      have set aside only eligible land, is the imposition of
      penalties under Article 9 of Regulation (EEC)
      No 3887/92 (2) for this reason alone rendered                        (iii) unlawful after the expiry of the transitional
      unlawful;                                                                  period;
                                                                           (iv) otherwise unlawful;
(3) Whether or not the failure by the competent
      authorities to disclose the information referred to in
      question 1(i) above was lawful or unlawful, are they                 inasmuch as it limits the scope of Article 12 of the
      entitled to use against a person information which,                  EEC-Turkey Agreement?
      despite requests for same, they had refused to supply
      to that person.
                                                                       (3) If the answer to question 2 is that there is no factor
( ) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 of 27 November 1992
 1                                                                         affecting the validity of Article 6(1) of Decision 1/80,
    establishing an integrated administration and control system           is the phrase duly registered' as belonging to the
    for certain Community aid schemes (OJ L 355, 5.12.1992,                labour force of a Member State:
    p. 1).
(2) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 of 23 December
    1992 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated            (i)   to be interpreterd as meaning that a Turkish
    administration and control system for certain Community aid                  worker must comply with conditions imposed by
    schemes (OJ L 391, 31.12.1992, p. 36).                                       a Member State as part of its immigration laws,
                                                                                such as a condition restricting the duration of
                                                                                employment within that Member State, as well
                                                                                as satisfying the conditions of that Member
                                                                                State's employment law as to the legality,
                                                                                stability and permanence of his employment; or
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Immigration                      (ii) to be interpreted by reference to the concept of
Appeal Tribunal, by order of that court of 9 October                             lawful, permanent and stable employment under
1997, in the case of Secretary of State for the Home                             the applicable legislation of the Member State
              Department against Mustafa Saglam                                  relating to employment law; or
                        (Case C-370/98)
                                                                           (iii) to be interpreted as being satisfied, in any event,
                          (98/C 397/30)
                                                                                by the Turkish worker's name appearing on any
                                                                                systematic database maintained by the Member
                                                                                State for the purposes of social security which
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                           contains the details of every member of the
European Communities by an order of the Immigration                              workforce of that Member State?
Appeal Tribunal of 9 October 1997, which was received
at the Court Registry on 16 October 1998, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Secretary of State for the           (4) Is the answer to question 3, or to any part thereof,
Home Department against Mustafa Saglam, on the                             affected by Article 7 of Decision 2/76 and, if so, in
following questions:                                                       what way and with what result?
 ---pagebreak--- 19.12.98              EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 397/19
(5) Is the prohibition on discrimination, whether overt or        on 16 October 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case
     covert, contained in Article 9 of the EEC-Turkey             of The Queen against Minsitry of Agriculture, Fisheries
     Agreement, and/or Article 12 of the EEC-Turkey               and Food, ex parte: J. H. Cooke and Sons (a firm), on the
     Agreement and/or Article 37 of the Additional                following question:
     Protocol to be interpreted as precluding a Member
     State from applying its immigration rules in a way
     that grants a Turkish national temporary, rather than        Is the expression an area which has been cultivated in the
     permanent, permission to engage in employment?               previous year with a view to a harvest' in Article 2 of
                                                                  Commission Regulation (EC) No 762/94 (1) of 6 April
                                                                  1994, laying down detailed rules for the application of
                                                                  Council Regulation (EEC) No 1765/92 (2) with regard to
                                                                  the set-aside scheme, to be interpreted as including land
                                                                  which has been in grass in the previous year, where the
                                                                  grass has been cut and used for silage?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
Justice (England and Wales), Queen's Bench Division, by
                                                                  (1) OJ L 90, 7.4.1994, p. 8.
order of that court of 21 July 1998, in the case of The
                                                                  (2) OJ L 181, 1.7.1992, p. 12.
Queen against Secretary of State for the Environment,
Transport and the Regions, ex parte: First Corporate
                         Shipping Ltd
                       (Case C-371/98)
                        (98/C 397/31)
                                                                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht Kiel
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the            by order of that court of 13 October 1998 in the case of
European Communities by an order of the High Court of             PreussenElektra Aktiengesellschaft against Schleswag
Justice (England and Wales), Queen's Bench Division, of                                  Aktiengesellschaft
21 July 1998, which was received at the Court Registry on                                (Case C-379/98)
16 October 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
The Queen against Secretary of State for the Environment,                                  (98/C 397/33)
Transport and the Regions, ex parte: First Corporate
Shipping Ltd, on the following question:
                                                                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                  European Communities by order of the Second
Is a Member State entitled or obliged to take account of          Commercial Chamber of the Landgericht Kiel (Regional
the considerations laid down in Article 2(3) and Council          Court, Kiel) of 13 October 1998, received at the Court
Directive 92/43/EEC (1) on the conservation of natural            Registry on 23 October 1998, for a preliminary ruling in
habitats and of wild fauna and flora, namely, economic,           the case of PreussenElektra Aktiengesellschaft against
social and cultural requirements and regional and local           Schleswag Aktiengesellschaft on the following questions:
characteristics, when deciding which sites to propose to
the Commission pursuant to Article 4(1) of that Directive
and/or defining the boundaries of such sites?
                                                                  (a) Do the rules on payment and compensation for
                                                                       supplies of electricity, laid down in Paragraph 2 or 3
(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.                                         or 4 or in Paragraphs 2 to 4 of the Law governing the
                                                                       supply of electricity from renewable energy sources
                                                                       over the public grid (Law on the supply of electricity)
                                                                       of 7 December 1990 (BGBl I, at p. 26 to 33), in the
                                                                       version set out in Article 3(2) of the Law reforming
                                                                       the law governing the energy supply industry of
                                                                       24 April 1998 (BGBl I, p. 730 (p. 734 to 736)),
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of                constitute State aid for the purposes of Article 92 of
Justice (England and Wales), Queen's Bench Division, by                the EC Treaty?
order of that court, of 25 August 1998, in the case of
The Queen against Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and
       Food, ex parte: J. H. Cooke and Sons (a firm)                   Is Article 92 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as
                       (Case C-372/98)                                 meaning that the underlying concept of aid also
                                                                       covers national rules for the benefit of the recipient of
                        (98/C 397/32)                                  the payment, under which the costs entailed are not
                                                                       met, either directly or indirectly, from the public
                                                                       budget but are borne by individual undertakings in a
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 sector, which have a statutory obligation to purchase
European Communities by an order of the High Court of                  at fixed minimum prices, and which are precluded by
Justice (England and Wales), Queen's Bench Division, of                law and circumstance from passing those costs on to
25 August 1998, which was received at the Court Registry               the final consumer?


               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/35

         Removal from the register of Case C-76/03 (1)

   (2004/C 228/76)
   By order of 10 May 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case C-76/03: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria.

      (1)  OJ C 83 of 5.4.2003.


title: Case C-143/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 9 March 2015 — Abercrombie & Fitch Italia Srl v Antonino Bordonaro

text:
               6.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/7

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 9 March 2015 — Abercrombie & Fitch Italia Srl v Antonino Bordonaro
   (Case C-143/16)
   (2016/C 200/11)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte suprema di cassazione

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Abercrombie & Fitch Italia Srl

      Respondent and cross-appellant: Antonino Bordonaro

      Question referred

   Is the rule of national law set out in Article 34 of Legislative Decree No 276 of 2003, according to which an on-call employment contract may, in any event, be concluded in respect of services provided by persons under 25 years of age, contrary to the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age referred to in Directive 2000/78 (1) and Article 21(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?

      (1)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).


title: Case T-336/14: Action brought on 15 May 2014 — Société des produits Nestlé/OHIM (NOURISHING PERSONAL HEALTH)

text:
               11.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/27

         Action brought on 15 May 2014 — Société des produits Nestlé/OHIM (NOURISHING PERSONAL HEALTH)
   (Case T-336/14)
   2014/C 261/50
   Language of the case: English

      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)

      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 12 March 2014 in case R 149/2013-4;

               —

               Order the OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: International registration of the word mark ‘NOURISHING PERSONAL HEALTH’ for goods and services in Classes 5, 10, 41, 42 and 44 — Community trade mark application no 01 102 735

      Decision of the Examiner: The application was rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was rejected

      Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.