title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) of 1 June 1995 in Case C-459/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof): Hauptzollamt Hamburg-St. Annen v. Thyssen Haniel Logistic GmbH (Common Customs Tariff - Council Regulation (EEC) No 3618/86 - Tariff headings 21.07 and 30.03 - Mixtures of amino acids used for the preparation of infusion solutions)

text:
No C 189/2              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       22 . 7 . 95
Ascoli Piceno awarded a private contract for the 11th and               right of establishment and freedom to provide services (2),
12th supplementary reports for the completion of the                    the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
section of rapid transit highway 'Ascoli—Mare ' entitled                that Article and under Article 1 of Council Directive
' Stage IV — Project 5134' and failed to publish a notice of            78/687/EEC of 25 July 1978 concerning the coordination of
invitation to tender in the Official Journal of the European            provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative
Communities, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its              action in respect of the activities of dental practitioners ( 3 )
obligations under Council Directive 71/305/EEC of 26 July               — the Court ( Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann,
1971 concerning the coordination of procedures for the                  President of the Chamber, P. Jann, J. C. Moitinho de
award of public works contracts (2 ) — the Court, composed              Almeida, D. A. . O. Edward ( Rapporteur ) and J.-P.
of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias , President, F. A. Schockweiler            Puissochet, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett,
( Rapporteur ), P. J. G. Kapteyn and P. Jann ( Presidents of            Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, C. N. Kakouris, J. C. Moitinho               1 June 1995 , in which it:
de Almeida , J. L. Murray, J. -P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and H.
Ragnemalm, Judges ; M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General; L.                   1 , declares that, by deferring, by Law No 471 of
Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment                    31 October 1988, until 1984/85, with regard to
on 18 May 1 995 , the operative part of which is as                           diplomas in medicine and surgery, the final date set in
follows :                                                                     Article 19 of the Council Directive 78/686/EEC of
                                                                              25 July 1978 concerning the mutual recognition of
1 , in so far as the provincial administration of Ascoli                      diplomas, certificates and other evidence of the formal
      Piceno awarded a private contract for the 11th and 12th                 qualifications of practitioners of dentistry, including
      supplementary reports for the completion of the section                 measures to facilitate the effective exercise ofthe right of
      ofrapid transit highway 'Ascoli-Mare ' entitled 'Stage IV               estrablishment and freedom to provide services, the
      — Project 5134 ' and failed to publish a notice of                      Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      invitation to tender in the Official Journal of the                     that Article and under Article 1 of Council Directive
      European Communities, the Italian Republic has failed                   78/6871EEC of 25 July 1978 concerning the
      to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive                       coordination ofprovisions laid down by law, regulation
      71 /305/EEC of 26 July 1971 concerning the                              or administrative action in respect of the activities of
      coordination of procedures for the award of public                      dental practitioners;
      works contracts;
                                                                        2 , orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
2 , the Italian Republic is ordered to pay the costs.
                                                                        (!) OJ No C 70, 12 . 3 . 1993 .
(M OJ No C 90 , 26 . 3 . 1994 .                                         (2 ) OJ No L 233 , 24 . 8 . 1978 , p . 1 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 185 , 16 . 8 . 1971 , p . 5 .                             ( 3 ) OJ No L 233 , 24 . 8 . 1978 , p . 10 .
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                                        ( Third Chamber)
                           of 1 June 1995                                                          of 1 June 1995
        in Case C-40/93 : Commission of the European                    in Case C-459/93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
              Communities v. Italian Republic (*)                       the Bundesfinanzhof): Hauptzollamt Hamburg-St. Annen
 (Failure to fulfil obligations — Directives 78/686/EEC and                          v. Thyssen Haniel Logistic GmbH ( x )
                              78/687/EEC)                                (Common Customs Tariff — Council Regulation (EEC)
                             ( 95/C 189/03 )                            No 3618/86 — Tariff headings 21.07 and 30.03 —
                                                                        Mixtures ofamino acids usedfor thepreparation ofinfusion
                                                                                solutions)
                 (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                ( 95/C 189/04 )
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
           published in the European Court Reports)                                      (Language of the case: German)
In Case C-40/93 : Commission of the European                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Communities ( Agent: Enrico Traversa ) v . Italian Republic                        published in the European Court Reports)
 ( Agent: Umberto Leanza ) — application for a declaration
that, by deferring, by Law No 471 of 31 October 1988 , until            In Case C-459/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
 1984/85 , with regard to diplomas in medicine and surgery,             of the EC Treaty by the Bundesfinanzhof ( German Federal
the final date set in Article 19 of Council Directive                   Finance Court) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
 78/686/EEC of 25 July 1978 concerning the mutual                       pending before that court between Hauptzollamt
recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of             Hamburg-St. Annen and Thyssen Haniel Logistic GmbH on
the formal qualifications of practitioners of dentistry,                the interpretation of tariff headings 21.07 and 30.03 of
including measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the          the Common Customs Tariff as amended by Council
 ---pagebreak--- 22 . 7. 95             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 189/3
Regulation ( EEC ) No 3618/86 of 24 November 1986 ,                 No 3734/87 of 8 December 1987, (EEC) No 1779/88 of
amending Regulation ( EEC ) No 3331/85 amending                     9 June 1988, (EEC) No 3696/88 of 18 November 1988,
Regulation ( EEC ) No 950/68 on the Common Customs                  (EEC) No 1656/89 of29 May 1989 and (EEC) No 3393/89
Tariff ( 2 ), the Court (Third Chamber ), composed of: C.           of 16 October 1989, temporarily suspending the
Gulmann ( Rapporteur ), President of the Chamber, J. C.             autonomous Common Customs Tariff duty on certain
Moitinho de Almeida and J. -P. Puissochet, Judges; G.               industrial products, must be intepreted as meaning that the
Cosmas, Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy                   description of the product ex tariff heading 85.21 D II and
Registrar, gave a judgment on 1 June 1995 , the operative           subsequently ex 8542 1 1 99, defined as an analog-to-digital
part of which is as follows :                                       converter contained in a housing the exterior dimensions of
                                                                    which do not exceed 18 x 10 mm, also covers converters
the Common Customs Tariff as amended by Council                     contained in circular housings the diameter of which does
Regulation (EEC) No 3618/86 of 24 November 1986,                    not exceed 1 0 mm .
amending Regulation (EEC) No 3331 /85 amending
Regulation (EEC) No 950/68 on the Common Customs                     !) OJ No C 43 , 12 . 2 . 1994 .
Tariff, must be interpreted to the effect that a sterile powder      2) OJ No L 362 , 20 . 12 . 1986 , p . 1 .
made up of amino acids mixed in precise proportions and              3) OJ  No L 177,  1 . 7 . 1987, p . 1 .
used for the preparation of infusion solutions falls under           4) OJ  No L 358 , 19 . 12 . 1987, p . 1 .
                                                                     5) OJ  No L 164 , 30 . 6 . 1988 , p . 1 .
heading 30.03 (subheading 30.03 A II (b)).                           6) OJ  No L 329 , 1 . 12 . 1988 , p . 1 .
                                                                     7) OJ  No L 167,  16 . 6 . 1989 , p . 1 .
H OJ No C 43 , 12 . 2 . 1994 .                                       8) OJ  No L 332 , 16 . 11 . 1989 , p . 1 .
(2 ) OJ No L 345 , 8 . 12 . 1986, p. 1 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
                        (Third Chamber)
                                                                                of 1 June 1995
                          of 1 June 1995
                                                                        in Case C-42/94 : Heidemij Advies BV v. European
in Case C-467/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                       Parliament (M
the Bundesfinanzhof): Hauptzollamt Munchen-West v.
                    Analog Devices GmbH (*)                         (Article 181 of the EC Treaty — Arbitration clause —
                                                                    Extension of the European Parliament in Brussels —
(Common Customs Tariff — Suspension of duties —                     Unilateral termination by the European Parliament of the
analog-to-digital converters for the calculation of the             contract for services — Claim for damages by the
              average value of variable wave-forms)                                                contractor)
                           ( 95/C 189/05
                                                                                ( 95/C 189/06 )
                 (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                             published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-467/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                    In Case C-42/94 : Heidemij Advies BV ( Lawyer: Vera Van
of the EC Treaty by the Bundesfinanzhof ( Federal Finance
Court) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending          Houtte ) v. European Parliament (Agent: François Vainker )
before that court between Hauptzollamt Miinchen-West                — application for damages for unilateral termination of a
                                                                    contract for services — the Court (Third Chamber ),
and Analog Devices GmbH on the interpretation of Council
Regulations ( EEC ) No 3841 /86 of 8 December 1986 ( 2),            composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, J. C.
( EEC ) No 1828/87 of 15 June 1987 ( 3 ), ( EEC ) No 3734/87        Moitinho de Almeida and J. -P. Puissochet ( Rapporteur ),
of 8 December 1987 (4 ), ( EEC ) No 1779/88 of 9 June               Judges; P. Léger, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
1988 ( 5), ( EEC ) No 3696/88 of 18 November 1988 ( 6 ),            given a judgment on 1 June 1995 , in which it:
( EEC ) No 1656/89 of 29 May 1989 ( 7) and ( EEC )
No 3393/89 of 16 October 1989 ( 8 ), temporarily                    1 , orders the defendant to pay the applicant the sum of
suspending the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duty                     ECU 20 883,33 together with default interest at the rate
on certain industrial products — the Court (Third                        of 8% as from 1 5 September 1 993;
Chamber ), composed of: C. Gulman (President of
Chamber ), J. C. Moitinho de Almeida and J. -P. Puissochet          2 , dismisses the remainder of the application;
( Rapporteur ), Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate-General; R.
Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 1 June 1 995 , in         3 , orders the defendant to pay the costs.
which it rules :
                                                                    0 ) OJ No C 90 , 26 . 3 . 1994 .
Council Regulations (EEC) No 3841 /86 of 8 December
1986, (EEC) No 1828/87 of 15 June 1987, (EEC)


title: Case F-134/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 17 December 2015 — T v Commission (Civil service — Social security — Occupational disease — Article 73 of the Staff Regulations — Application for recognition of the occupational origin of a disease — Causation — Claim for damages for the non-material harm suffered as a result of the delay taken by the institution to acknowledge the occupational origin of the sickness — Obligation to adjudicate within a reasonable time — Non-material damage)

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/94

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 17 December 2015 — T v Commission
   (Case F-134/14) (1)

   ((Civil service - Social security - Occupational disease - Article 73 of the Staff Regulations - Application for recognition of the occupational origin of a disease - Causation - Claim for damages for the non-material harm suffered as a result of the delay taken by the institution to acknowledge the occupational origin of the sickness - Obligation to adjudicate within a reasonable time - Non-material damage))
   (2016/C 048/106)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: T (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Tymen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by J. Currall and C. Ehrbar, acting as Agents, and subsequently by C. Ehrbar, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   The application to annul the Commission’s decision to exclude the existence of harm arising from the delay taken by the Commission to establish the occupational origin of the applicant’s sickness and to pay her the amount of EUR 2 000 only as compensation for the uncertainty as regards recognition of the occupational origin of her illness and the claim for damages for the non-material harm allegedly suffered.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Orders the European Commission to pay T the amount of EUR 5 000;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder.

               3.

               Declares that the European Commission is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay the costs incurred T.

      (1)  OJ C 34, 2/2/2015, p. 53.


title: Case T-494/11: Order of the General Court of 25 November 2015 — Missir Mamachi di Lusignano and Others v Commission

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/75

         Order of the General Court of 25 November 2015 — Missir Mamachi di Lusignano and Others v Commission
   (Case T-494/11) (1)

   (2016/C 027/94)
   Language of the case: Italian
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  C 331, 12.11.2011.


title: Case T-448/12: Action brought on 10 October 2012 — Davril v Council and Commission

text:
               8.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 379/27

         Action brought on 10 October 2012 — Davril v Council and Commission
   (Case T-448/12)
   2012/C 379/47
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Philippe Davril (Épargnes, France) (represented by: C.-É. Gudin, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission and Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Award full compensation for the damage sustained by virtue of the monetary penalties imposed, that is to say, the sum of EUR 174 900;

               —

               Award full compensation of the non-material damage sustained by him, that is to say, the sum of EUR 100 000;

               —

               Order the Council and the Commission to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied upon in Cases T-195/11 Cahier and Others v Council and Commission
       (1) and T-458/11 Riche v Council and Commission. (2)

      (1)  OJ 2011 C 173, p. 14.

      (2)  OJ 2011 C 298, p. 28.


title: Case T-557/13: Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2015 — Germany v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Expenditure in the context of the European quota system in relation to the production of potato starch — Rights of the defence)

text:
               23.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 389/36

         Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2015 — Germany v Commission
   (Case T-557/13) (1)

   ((EAGGF - Guarantee Section - EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure in the context of the European quota system in relation to the production of potato starch - Rights of the defence))
   (2015/C 389/37)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and J.Möller, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Eggers and P. Rossi, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M.K. Bulterman, C.S. Schillemans and J. Langer, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision 2013/433/EU of 13 August 2013 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2013 L 219, p. 49), in so far as it applies a financial correction to the Federal Republic of Germany, in the context of the European quota system in relation to the production of potato starch for 2003 to 2005, totalling EUR 6 1 92  951,34.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Implementing Decision 2013/433/EU of 13 August 2013 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as it applies a financial correction to the Federal Republic of Germany, in the context of the European quota system in relation to the production of potato starch, for 2003 to 2005;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

               3.

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

      (1)  OJ C 9, 11.1.2014.


title: Case T-51/17: Action brought on 27 January 2017 — Poland v Commission

text:
               20.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/31

         Action brought on 27 January 2017 — Poland v Commission
   (Case T-51/17)
   (2017/C 086/41)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/2018 of 15 November 2016 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (notified under document C(2016) 7232) (OJ 2016 L 312, p. 26), in so far as it excludes from European Union financing the sums of EUR 38 984 850,50 and EUR 76 816 098,12 paid by the paying agency accredited by the Republic of Poland;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 52(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 (1) through the application of a financial correction based on incorrect factual findings and an incorrect interpretation of the law, despite the fact that the expenditure was effected by the Republic of Poland in accordance with the provisions of EU law.

                           —

                           The amounts excluded from European Union financing under the contested decision were spent in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 (2) and Commission Implementing Regulation No 543/2011 (3) and there was therefore no basis for excluding those amounts from that financing.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 52(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 through the application of a flat-rate correction which was grossly excessive in relation to the risk of potential financial loss for the European Union budget.

                           —

                           The flat-rate correction of 25 % applied by the Commission is too high and exceeds the maximum potential loss that could be borne by the Fund. In addition, the applicant makes reference to Guidelines No VI/5330/97 for the calculation of financial consequences and points out that it has fulfilled all of the conditions described in those guidelines necessary for the application by the Commission of a lower rate or for the non-application of the correction.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 52(4)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 by reason of the calculation of a flat-rate correction in relation to expenditure effected more than 24 months before the Commission notified the Member State in writing of its inspection findings.

                           —

                           Under Article 52(4)(a) of that regulation, financing may not be refused for expenditure which was effected more than 24 months before the Commission notifies the Member State in writing of its inspection findings.

      (1)  Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (OJ 2007 L 299, p. 1).

      (3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (OJ 2011 L 157, p. 1).


title: Case T-96/09: Action brought on 10 March 2009 — UCAPT v Council

text:
               18.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/37

         Action brought on 10 March 2009 — UCAPT v Council
   (Case T-96/09)
   2009/C 90/57
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Union des Coopératives Agricoles des Producteurs de Tabac de France (UCAPT) (Paris, France) (represented by: B. Peignot and D. Garreau, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003;

               —

               Order the Council to pay costs in the amount of EUR 10 000.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of Council Regulation No 73/2009 (1) relating to direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy, Article 135 of which provides for a reduction, as from the financial year 2011, in the level of direct support for the production of tobacco to 50% of the average level of support granted in 2000, 2001 and 2002. Such a reduction was already provided for by Article 143e of Regulation No 1782/2003. (2)

   In support of its action the applicant submits four pleas in law alleging:

               —

               a procedural irregularity in that no study of the impact of the reform of the aid scheme on the tobacco sector was carried out prior to the adoption of the contested regulation;

               —

               accordingly, a misuse of powers;

               —

               infringement of the principle of proportionality as the reduction in direct support to 50% is inappropriate to attain the two objectives of the reform of the tobacco support scheme, namely the alignment of prices to those of the world market and the promotion of conversion measures for tobacco-producing regions in rural development programmes;

               —

               infringement of Article 33 EC in so far as the contested regulation fails to have regard for some of the objectives of the common agricultural policy, namely that of ensuring a fair standard of living for the agricultural community and of stabilising markets.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ 2009 L 30, p. 16).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001 (OJ 2003 L 270, p. 1).


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 March 2005 in Joined Cases C-21/03 and C-34/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État): Fabricom SA v État belge (Public procurement — Works, supplies and services — Water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors — Prohibition on participation in a procedure of submission of a tender by a person who has contributed to the development of the works, supplies or services concerned)

text:
               30.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/5

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 3 March 2005
   in Joined Cases C-21/03 and C-34/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État): Fabricom SA v État belge (1)

   (Public procurement - Works, supplies and services - Water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors - Prohibition on participation in a procedure of submission of a tender by a person who has contributed to the development of the works, supplies or services concerned)
   (2005/C 106/08)
   Language of the case: French
   In Joined Cases C-21/03 and C-34/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Conseil d'État (Belgium), made by decision of 27 December 2002, received at the Court on 29 and 22 January 2003, respectively, in the proceedings pending before that court between Fabricom SA and État belge — the Court (Second Chamber) composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, N. Colneric and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 3 March 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, as amended by European Parliament and Council Directive 97/52/EC of 13 October 1997, and, more particularly, Article 3(2) thereof, Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts, as amended by Directive 97/52, and, more particularly, Article 5(7) thereof, Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, as amended by Directive 97/52, and, more particularly, Article 6(6) thereof, and also Council Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors, as amended by European Parliament and Council Directive 98/4/EC of 16 February 1998, and, more particularly, Article 4(2) thereof, preclude a rule such as that laid down in Article 25 of the Royal Decree of 25 March 1999 amending the Royal Decree of 10 January 1996 on public works, supply and service contracts in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors, and Article 32 of the Royal Decree of 25 March 1999 amending the Royal Decree of 8 January 1996 on public works, supply and service contracts and on the award of public contracts, whereby a person who has been instructed to carry out research, experiments, studies or development in connection with a public works, supplies or services contract is not permitted to apply to participate in or to submit a tender for those works, supplies or services and where that person is not given the opportunity to prove that, in the circumstances of the case, the experience which he has acquired was not capable of distorting competition.

               2.

               Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts and, more particularly, Articles 2(1)(a) and 5 thereof, and Council Directive 92/13/EEC of 25 February 1992 coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of Community rules on the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors and, more particularly, Articles 1 and 2 thereof, preclude the contracting entity from refusing, until the end of the procedure for the examination of tenders, to allow an undertaking connected with any person who has been instructed to carry out research, experiments, studies or development in connection with works, supplies or services to participate in the procedure or to submit a tender, even though, when questioned on that point by the awarding authority, that undertaking states that it has not thereby obtained an unfair advantage capable of distorting the normal conditions of competition.

      (1)  OJ C 55 of 08.03.2003.

      OJ C 70 of 22.03.2003.


title: Case C-162/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht, by order of that court of 22 March 2000 in the case of Land Nordrhein-Westfalen against Beata Pokrzeptowicz-Meyer

text:
C 211/6                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    22.7.2000
     acknowledgment of receipt, the Member State shall waive             Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesar-
     application of Article 589(1) of Regulation No 2454/93.             beitsgericht, by order of that court of 22 March 2000
     Compensatory interest thus comes within the scope of the            in the case of Land Nordrhein-Westfalen against Beata
     customs debt.                                                                           Pokrzeptowicz-Meyer
— Infringement of Article 221 of Council Regulation (EEC)
     No 2913/92 (2) (Community Customs Code) in so far as                                       (Case C-162/00)
     the contested decision declared part of the application to
     be inadmissible on the ground that the part in question                                    (2000/C 211/10)
     had become time-barred: the Commission misconstrues
     Article 221 of the Community Customs Code and fails to
     appreciate that the question whether a customs debt                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     has become time-barred is a matter coming within the                European Communities by order of the Bundesarbeitsgericht
     jurisdiction of national courts and not within the power of         (Federal Labour Court), of 22 March 2000, received at the
     the Commission.                                                     Court Registry on 2 May 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                         case of Land Nordrhein-Westfalen against Beata Pokrzeptow-
— Infringement of Article 239 of the Community Customs                   icz-Meyer on the following questions:
     Code and of Article 905 of Regulation No 2454/93; in the
     alternative, infringement of the principle of pro-                  1. Does Article 37(1) of the Europe Agreement of
     portionality; in the further alternative, infringement of the           16 December 1991 establishing an association between
     obligation to state reasons laid down in Article 253 EC so              the European Communities and their Member States and
     far as Article 1(2) of the contested decision is concerned              the Republic of Poland preclude the application — to
     (rejection of the remainder of the application for remission            Polish nationals — of national law according to which
     of import duties): although the Commission is correct in                posts for foreign-language assistants may be filled by
     stating that the party concerned has extensive professional             means of employment contracts of limited duration where-
     experience in the agricultural products sector, the Com-                as, for other teaching staff performing special duties,
     mission errs in its view that it ought to have been obvious             recourse to such contracts must be individually justified by
     to that party that neither the authorisation for inward                 an objective reason?
     processing nor the Community legislation published and
     in force allows wheat to be used in place of maize for the
     manufacture of glucose exported by that party. In finding           2. If the Court of Justice answers the first question in the
     at the same time that the competent customs authorities                 affirmative:
     had not raised a single objection against the transactions
     of the party concerned, even though these had been carried              Does Article 37(1) of the Europe Agreement also preclude
     out for many years, the Commission imposed more                         the application of national law where the employment
     stringent requirements on the party concerned than those                contract of limited duration was concluded before the
     which could have been imposed by the competent auth-                    Europe Agreement entered into force and the agreed
     orities. Furthermore, the Commission fails to take account              period comes to an end after its entry into force?
     of the fact that it has also been known to take the view
     that equivalence may be authorised between two products
     which do not satisfy the equivalence criteria.
     The Commission has expressly determined that there was
     no question of manipulation on the part of the party
     concerned and that the financial advantage is attributable
     to price fluctuations under which the procedure followed
     by the party concerned might just as easily have resulted
     in a financial loss. That procedure resulted in a total
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht,
     customs debt of NLG 17 491 244,45, while the intended
                                                                         Cologne, Federal Republic of Germany, by order of that
     surplus (profit) during the period in question came to
                                                                         court of 14 April 2000 in the case of Ferring Arzneimittel
     NLG 710 700. Under those circumstances and those
                                                                                GmbH v Eurim-Pharm Arzneimittel GmbH
     already pointed out, it would be disproportionate not to
     proceed with remission of the customs debt in so far as
     that debt is higher than the advantage obtained by the                                     (Case C-172/00)
     party concerned.
                                                                                (2000/C 211/11)
(1) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying
    down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation
    (EEC) No 2913/92, as last amended by Regulation (EEC)                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    No 1662/99 (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1).                                    European Communities by an order of the Landgericht
(2) OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.                                                 (Regional Court), Cologne, of 14 April 2000, which was
                                                                         received at the Court Registry on 10 May 2000, for a
                                                                         preliminary ruling in the case of Ferring Arzneimittel GmbH v
                                                                         Eurim-Pharm Arzneimittel GmbH, on the following questions:


title: Case F-140/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 14 May 2014  — Alexandrou v Commission (Civil Service — Open competition EPSO/AD/231/12 — Access to documents — Refusal of the confirmatory request for access to the multiple-choice questions put in the admission tests)

text:
               24.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/39

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 14 May 2014 — Alexandrou v Commission
   (Case F-140/12) (1)

   ((Civil Service - Open competition EPSO/AD/231/12 - Access to documents - Refusal of the confirmatory request for access to the multiple-choice questions put in the admission tests))
   2014/C 194/56
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Christodoulos Alexandrou (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: R. Duta, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commimssion (represented by: B. Eggers and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the refusal of the confirmatory request for access, made by the applicant to the Commission, to some questions put to him in the pre-selection procedure of open competitions EPSO/AD/230 231/12.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Alexandrou to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013, p. 76.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 13 April 2000 in Case T-263/97: GAL Penisola Sorrentina v Commission of the European Communities (Economic and social cohesion — Structural interventions — Leader II Community initiative — Natural or legal persons — Measures not of individual concern to them — Inadmissibility)

text:
22.7.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 211/19
2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;                                        ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
3. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.                                                        of 13 April 2000
                                                                           in Case T-263/97: GAL Penisola Sorrentina v Commission
(1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.                                                                 of the European Communities (1)
                                                                           (Economic and social cohesion — Structural interventions
                                                                           — Leader II Community initiative — Natural or legal
                                                                           persons — Measures not of individual concern to them —
                                                                                Inadmissibility)
                                                                                (2000/C 211/39)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                          of 15 June 2000                                  In Case T-263/97: GAL Penisola Sorrentina, established in
                                                                           Naples (Italy), represented by G.L. Lemmo and V. Mormile, of
in Case T-51/99: Sophia Fantechi v Commission of the                       the Naples Bar, with an address for service at 31 Via del
                    European Communities (1)                               Parco Margherita, Naples, v Commission of the European
                                                                           Communities (Agents: J.M. Flett and F.P. Ruggeri Laderchi) —
                                                                           application for annulment of the Commission’s decision C(97)
(Officials — Expatriation allowance — Work done for an                     1261 of 15 May 1997 amending decision C(95) 444/3 of 5
international organisation established in a place other than               April 1995 concerning a grant of aid from the European
the place of employment — Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to                  Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), Guidance
                       the Staff Regulations)                              Section, from the European Regional Development Fund
                                                                           (ERDF) and from the European Social Fund (ESF) for use in
                                                                           an operational programme forming part of the Leader II
                          (2000/C 211/38)                                  Community initiative in the region of Campania in favour of
                                                                           areas falling within objective No 1 in Italy — the Court of First
                                                                           Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas,
                    (Language of the case: French)                         President, and P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung,
                                                                           Registrar, made an order on 13 April 2000, the operative part
                                                                           of which is as follows:
In Case T-51/99: Sophia Fantechi, a member of the temporary
staff of the Commission of the European Communities,                       1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
residing at Tervuren (Belgium), represented by E. Boigelot, of
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at             2. The applicant shall pay all the costs.
the Chambers of L. Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim, v
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall                 (1) OJ C 387 of 20.12.1997.
and D. Waelbroeck) — application, first, for annulment of the
Commission’s decision of 7 July 1998 refusing to grant the
applicant the expatriation allowance provided for in Article 4
of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of officials and, second,
for payment of that allowance together with default interest
— the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed
of: J. Pirrung, President, and A. Potocki and A.W.H. Meij,                       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
has given a judgment on 15 June 2000, in which it:                                                  of 5 May 2000
1. Annuls the Commission’s decision of 7 July 1998;                        in Case T-29/99: VASA Energy GmbH & Co. KG v
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities (1)
2. Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the application
     for payment of the expatriation allowance;                            (Action for failure to act under the EC Treaty — Case not
                                                                                proceeding to judgment)
3. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs
     of the applicant.                                                                             (2000/C 211/40)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(1) OJ C 136 of 15.5.1999.
                                                                           In Case T-29/99: VASA Energy GmbH & Co. KG, established
                                                                           in Hamburg (Germany), represented by D.A. Fouquet,
                                                                           Rechtsanwältin, Hamburg, with an address for service in


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 February 2001 in Case T-89/98 National Association of Licensed Opencast Operators (NALOO) v Commission of the European Communities (ECSC — UK market for electricity generating coal — Rejection of a complaint alleging discriminatory pricing and abusive royalties — Powers of the Commission — Duty to state reasons)

text:
C 161/14              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                              2.6.2001
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                      of 7 February 2001                                                          of 13 February 2001
in Case T-89/98 National Association of Licensed Open-
cast Operators (NALOO) v Commission of the European                      in Joined Cases T-133/98 and T-134/98 Hewlett Packard
                         Communities (1)                                 France and Hewlett Packard Europe BV, v Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
(ECSC — UK market for electricity generating coal —
Rejection of a complaint alleging discriminatory pricing and             (Action for annulment — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff
abusive royalties — Powers of the Commission — Duty to                   headings — Tariff classification of certain hardware for use
                           state reasons)                                in local area computer networks — Classification in the
                                                                                Combined Nomenclature)
                         (2001/C 161/30)
                                                                                (2001/C 161/31)
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-89/98 National Association of Licensed Opencast
Operators (NALOO), whose registered office is in Newcastle
upon Tyne (United Kingdom), represented by M. Cran QC                    In Joined Cases T-133/98 and T-134/98 Hewlett Packard
and M. Hoskins, Barrister, with an address for service in                France, established in Courcouronnes (France), and Hewlett
Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communi-                  Packard Europe BV, established in Amstelveen (Netherlands),
ties (Agents: K. Leivo, M. Erhart and J. Flynn), supported by            represented initially by F. Goguel and A. Trager, and sub-
British Coal Corporation, whose registered office is in London,          sequently by F. Goguel and F. Foucault, avocats, with an
represented by D. Vaughan QC, D. Lloyd Jones, Barrister, and             address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the
C. Mehta, Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg,          European Communities (Agents: R. Wainwright and R. Tricot)
by National Power plc, whose registered office is in Swindon             — application for the annulment of Commission Decision
(United Kingdom), represented by D. Anderson and P. Roth,                98/406/EC of 16 June 1998 concerning the validity of certain
Barristers, and G. Chapman, Solicitor, with an address for               binding tariff information (OJ L 178, 1998, p. 45) in so far as
service in Luxembourg, and by PowerGen plc, whose registered             it requires the revocation of, in particular, in Case T-133/98,
office is in London, represented by P. Lasok, Barrister, and             Binding Tariff Information FR 12030199700151 and, in Case
N. Lomas, Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg           T-134/98, FR 12030199701394, FR 12030199702134 and
— application for the annulment of Decision IV/E—3/NALOO                 FR 12030199702135 — the Court of First Instance (Fifth
of the Commission of 27 April 1998 rejecting the applicant’s             Chamber), composed of: P. Lindh, President, R. Garcı́a-Valdeca-
complaint concerning infringement of the ECSC Treaty — the               sas and J.D. Cooke, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator,
Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of:                   for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 February 2001,
J. Pirrung, President, A. Potocki and A.W.H. Meij, Judges;               in which it:
G. Herzig, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 7 February 2001, in which it:
                                                                         1.    Annuls Commission Decision 98/406/EC of 16 June 1998
                                                                               concerning the validity of certain binding tariff information in
1.    Annuls Decision IV/E-3/NALOO of 27 April 1998;                           so far as it requires the revocation of Binding Tariff Information
                                                                               FR      12030199700151,              FR      12030199701394,
                                                                               FR 12030199702134 and FR 12030199702135;
2.    Orders the Commission to pay its own costs and those of the
      applicant;
                                                                         2.    Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those
3.    Orders the interveners British Coal Corporation, National                of the applicants.
      Power plc and PowerGen plc to pay their own costs.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 358 of 21.11.98.
(1) OJ C 234 of 25.7.98.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 14 September 1995 in Case C-49/94: Ireland v. Commission of the European Communities (Clearance of EAGGF accounts - 1990)

text:
No C 286/2             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   28 . 10 . 95
    constitutes a charge having an effect equivalent to a              expenditure for 1990 of the European Agricultural
    customs duty on imports, notwithstanding the fact that             Guidance and Guarantee Fund ( EAGGF ), Guarantee
    it is also levied on goods entering that region from               Section ( OJ 1993 L 301 , p. 13 ) is void in part — the Court
    another part of the same State 's territory, and                   ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of C. Gulmann, President of the
    notwithstanding the fact that an ad valorem charge is              Chamber, P. Jann, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida , D. A. O.
    also levied on goods exported from the region in                   Edward and L. Sevon ( Rapporteur ), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo
    question;                                                          Colomer, Advocate-General ; M. von Holstein , Deputy
                                                                       Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 September 1995 , in
                                                                       which it :
2 . an ad valorem charge levied by a Member State on goods
    exported to another Member State by reason of their
    leaving a region of the first Member State 's territory            1 . dismisses the application;
    constitutes a charge having an effect equivalent to a
    customs duty on exports, notwithstanding the fact that
    it is also levied on goods leaving that region for another         2 . orders Ireland to pay the costs.
    part of the territory of the same State;
                                                                       (') OJ No C 90, 26 . 3 . 1994 .
3 . a national rule under which there is levied a charge
    having an effect equivalent to a customs duty is not
    compatible with Article 9 et seq . of the EEC Treaty;
4 . ad valorem charges levied by a Member State on goods
    entering a region of its territory solely from other
    regions of the same State and on goods despatched from             Action brought on 10 August 1995 by the Kingdom of
    one region solely to other regions of the same State               Belgium against the Commission of the European
    constitute charges having an effect equivalent to                                             Communities
    customs duties on imports and exports respectively;                                         Case C-271 /95
                                                                                ( 95/C 286/04 )
5 . the provisions of the EEC Treaty relating to charges
    having an effect equivalent to customs duties cannot be
    relied on in support of claims for refunds of sums levied          An action against the Commission of the European
    by way of the contested duty before 1 6 July 1 992, except         Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
    by claimants who had, before that date, initiated legal            European Communities on 10 August 1995 by the Kingdom
    proceedings or raised an equivalent claim .                        of Belgium, represented by J. Devadder, Director of
                                                                       Administration in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Foreign
                                                                       Trade and Cooperation with Developing Countries, acting
(') O J No C 76 , 12 . 3 . 1994 .
                                                                       as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                       Belgian Embassy, 4 Rue des Girondins .
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                       — annul Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 1219/95 ( ),
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          ( Fifth Chamber)                             — order the Commission to pay the costs .
                     of 14 September 1995
in Case C-49/94 : Ireland v. Commission of the European                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                          Communities (')
           (Clearance of EAGGF accounts — 1990)                        — Inapplicability of the legal basis relied on: Article 149(1 )
                                                                            of the 1994 Act of Accession relates only to ancillary
                            ( 95/C 286/03 )
                                                                            rules in the case where a common organization of the
                                                                            market applies by virtue of the Treaty of Accession . This
                 (Language of the case: English)                            means in particular that measures adopted pursuant to
                                                                            Article 149 ( 1 ) cannot restrict the operation of
                                                                            Article 137(2 ) of the Act of Accession, which introduces
In Case C-49/94 : Ireland ( Agent: Michael A. Buckley ) v.                  the title dealing with agriculture . The contested
Commission of the European Communities ( Agent: Xavier                      regulation, however, deals essentially not with
Lewis , assisted by John Flandoll, Solicitor) — application                 transitional measures but rather with derogations
for a declaration that Commission Decision 93/659/EC of                     allowing the new Member States to avoid application of
25 November 1993 on the clearance of the accounts                           the common organization of the market, contrary to
presented by the Member States in respect of the                            Article 137 ( 2 ) of the Act of Accession.


title: Case T-344/09: Judgment of the General Court of 27 June 2012 — Hearst Communications, Inc., v OHIM — Vida Estética (COSMOBELLEZA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark COSMOBELLEZA — Earlier national and international word and figurative marks COSMO, COSMOPOLITAN, COSMOTEST, COSMOPOLITAN TELEVISION and THE COSMOPOLITAN SHOW — Non registered marks and trade names COSMO and COSMOPOLITAN — Relative grounds for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity between the marks — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               4.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/13

         Judgment of the General Court of 27 June 2012 — Hearst Communications, Inc., v OHIM — Vida Estética (COSMOBELLEZA)
   (Case T-344/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark COSMOBELLEZA - Earlier national and international word and figurative marks COSMO, COSMOPOLITAN, COSMOTEST, COSMOPOLITAN TELEVISION and THE COSMOPOLITAN SHOW - Non registered marks and trade names COSMO and COSMOPOLITAN - Relative grounds for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity between the marks - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2012/C 235/31
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Hearst Communications, Inc., (New York, United States) (represented by: A. Nordemann, C. Czychowski and A. Nordemann-Schiffel, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented: initially by C. Bartos, and subsequently by V. Melgar, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Vida Estética, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: A.I. Alejos Cutuli, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 June 2009 (Case R 770/2007-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Hearst Communications, Inc. and Vida Estética, SL

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Hearst Communications, Inc. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 256, 24.10.2009.


title: Case F-48/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 5 November 2008 — Avanzata and Others v Commission (Staff cases — Contractual staff — Classification and remuneration — Persons formerly employed under Luxembourg law)

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/69

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 5 November 2008 — Avanzata and Others v Commission
   (Case F-48/06) (1)

   (Staff cases - Contractual staff - Classification and remuneration - Persons formerly employed under Luxembourg law)
   (2009/C 44/118)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Eric Avanzata (Hussigny, France) and 20 other members of contract staff (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and G. Berscheid, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of the Commission decisions determining the applicants' conditions of appointment, in particular, their function groups, grades, steps and remuneration as laid down in their contracts of employment.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 154 of 1.7.2006, p. 26.


title: Case T-577/14: Action brought on 4 August 2014  — Gascogne Sack Deutschland and Gascogne v Court of Justice

text:
               6.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 351/19

         Action brought on 4 August 2014 — Gascogne Sack Deutschland and Gascogne v Court of Justice
   (Case T-577/14)
   2014/C 351/24
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Gascogne Sack Deutschland GmbH (Wieda, Germany) and Gascogne (Saint-Paul-lès-Dax, France) (represented by: F. Puel and E. Durand, lawyers)

      Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               declare that the European Union is non-contractually liable for the proceedings before the General Court which failed to have regard to the requirement that the case be dealt with within a reasonable time;

         Consequently, it should:

               —

               order the European Union to pay full and sufficient compensation for the material and non-material damage which the applicants have suffered as a result of the European Union’s unlawful conduct, corresponding to the following amounts, together with compensatory and default interest at the rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations, increased by two percentage points, starting from the date when the application was submitted:

                           —

                           EUR 1 1 93  467 for losses suffered as a result of paying the additional legal interest applied to the nominal amount of the fine beyond a reasonable period;

                           —

                           EUR 1 87  571 for losses suffered as a result of making additional bank guarantee payments beyond a reasonable period;

                           —

                           EUR 2 0 00  000 for profits lost and/or losses suffered as a result of ‘uncertainty’, and

                           —

                           EUR 5 00  000 for the non-material damage suffered;

               —

               In the alternative, if the Court finds that the amount of damage suffered needs to be re-assessed, it should order the commissioning of an expert’s report in accordance with Article 65(d), Article 66(1) and Article 70 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court;

               —

               In any event, the Court should order the European Union to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union owing to the excessive duration of the proceedings before the General Court, that is, infringement of their fundamental right to a hearing within a reasonable time.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 2 June 2003 in Case T-276/02: Forum 187 asbl v Commission of the European Communities (State aid — Tax regime — Existing aid — Decision to initiate the procedure provided for in Article 88(2) EC — Legal effects — None — Inadmissibility)

text:
6.9.2003               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                                C 213/35
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                (Agents: J. Monteiro and M. Balta) — application for annulment
                                                                           of Council Decision 2002/973/EC of 10 December 2002
                          of 2 June 2003                                   amending Decision 89/688/EEC of 22 December 1989 con-
                                                                           cerning the dock dues in the French overseas departments (OJ
                                                                           2002 L 337, p. 83) — the Court of First Instance (First
in Case T-276/02: Forum 187 asbl v Commission of the                       Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, and H. Legal
                   European Communities ( 1)                               and E. Martins Ribeiro, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an
                                                                           order on 25 June 2003, in which it:
(State aid — Tax regime — Existing aid — Decision to
initiate the procedure provided for in Article 88(2) EC —                  1.    Dismisses the action as inadmissible;
            Legal effects — None — Inadmissibility)
                                                                           2.    Declares that there is no need to give a ruling on the applications
                         (2003/C 213/68)                                         for leave to intervene made by the Republic of Portugal, the
                                                                                Kingdom of Spain, the Société Immobilière et de Service Boétie
                                                                                and others, and by the Commission;
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                           3.    Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and those incurred
                                                                                by the Council;
In Case T-276/02, Forum 187 ASBL, established in Brussels
                                                                           4.    Orders the parties which have applied for leave to intervene to
(Belgium), represented by A. Sutton and J. Killick, Barristers, v
                                                                                bear their own costs.
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: R. Lyal
and V. Di Bucci): Application for annulment of the Com-
mission decision of 27 February 2002 to initiate the procedure             (1 ) OJ C 55 of 8 March 2003.
laid down in Article 88(2) EC in respect of Belgian provisions
concerning coordination centres, the Court of First Instance
(Second Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of:
N.J. Forwood, President, J. Pirrung, P. Mengozzi, A.W.H. Meij
and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order
on 2 June 2003, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                           ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
1.    Dismisses the action as inadmissible;                                                              INSTANCE
2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.                                                         of 31 March 2003
( 1) OJ C 289 of 23.11.2002.                                               in Case T-65/03 R: Fondation Alsace v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
                                                                                (Application for interim relief — Admissibility)
                                                                                (2003/C 213/70)
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                         of 25 June 2003
                                                                           In Case T-65/03 R: Fondation Alsace, having its registered
in Case T-5/03 Ayassami et Fils EURL v Council of the
                                                                           office in Strasbourg (France), represented by F. Ruhlmann,
                       European Union ( 1)
                                                                           lawyer, against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           (Agents: C. Giolito and G. Wilms) — application for suspension
(Decision 2002/973/EC — Dock dues — Action for annul-                      of the operation of the decision of the Commission of
                     ment — Inadmissibility)                               20 December 2002 requiring the Fondation Alsace to repay to
                                                                           it EUR 18 000 following its breach of subsidy agreement PSS*/
                         (2003/C 213/69)                                   0534 — the President of the Court of First Instance made an
                                                                           order on 31 March 2003, the operative part of which is as
                                                                           follows:
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           1.    The application for interim relief is dismissed.
In Case T-5/03 Ayassami et Fils EURL, established at Saint-                2.    Costs are reserved.
François (France), and 23 other applicants, represented by
J.S. Dagnon, avocat, against Council of the European Union


title: Case T-275/11: Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2013 — TF1 v Commission (State aid — Public service broadcasting — Aid proposed by the French authorities for France Télévisions — Annual budgetary grant — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market — Article 106(2) TFEU — Strict interdependence of a tax and an aid measure)

text:
               30.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/13

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2013 — TF1 v Commission
   (Case T-275/11) (1)

   (State aid - Public service broadcasting - Aid proposed by the French authorities for France Télévisions - Annual budgetary grant - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market - Article 106(2) TFEU - Strict interdependence of a tax and an aid measure)
   2013/C 352/23
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Télévision française 1 (TF1) (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented initially by J.-P Hordies and C. Smits, and subsequently by J. Vogel, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and D. Grespan, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented initially by M. Muñoz Pérez, then by S. Centeno Huerta and subsequently by N. Díaz Abad, Abogados del Estato); French Republic (represented initially by G. de Bergues and J. Gstalter, and subsequently by D. Colas and J. Rossi, Agents); and France Télévisions (Paris, France) (represented by: J.-P. Gunther and A. Giraud, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2011/140/EU of 20 July 2010 on State Aid C-27/09 (ex N 34/B/09) Budgetary grant for France Télévisions which the French Republic plans to implement in favour of France Télévisions (OJ 2011 L 59, p. 44).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Télévision française 1 (TF1) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and by France Télévisions;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain and the French Republic each to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 232, 6.8.2011.


title: Case T-537/13: Action brought on 4 October 2013 — Roeckl Sporthandschuhe v OHIM — Roeckl Handschuhe & Accessoires (representation of a hand)

text:
               14.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 367/33

         Action brought on 4 October 2013 — Roeckl Sporthandschuhe v OHIM — Roeckl Handschuhe & Accessoires (representation of a hand)
   (Case T-537/13)
   2013/C 367/58
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Roeckl Sporthandschuhe GmbH & Co. KG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: O. Baumann, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Roeckl Handschuhe & Accessoires GmbH & Co. KG (Munich, Germany)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 July 2013 in so far as it upheld the intervener’s complaint in part and refused registration of a Community trade mark in respect of goods in Class 18 (leather and imitations of leather, and goods made of these materials, in particular purses, pocket wallets, key cases, included in class 18) and in Class 25 (clothing, in particular gloves, included in class 25);

               —

               order the intervener to pay the applicant’s costs, including the costs of the opposition and appeal proceedings, and order the defendant (OHIM) to bear its own costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Roeckl Sporthandschuhe GmbH & Co. KG

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark, representing a hand, for goods in Classes 18, 25 and 28 ‒ Community trade mark No 6 961 965

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Roeckl Handschuhe & Accessoires GmbH & Co. KG

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community figurative mark and German figurative mark ‘Roeckl’, containing the representation of a hand, for goods in Classes 18 and 25

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Decision of the Opposition Division annulled in part

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


title: Case T-593/10: Action brought on 29 December 2010 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Ruan (B)

text:
               12.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/20

         Action brought on 29 December 2010 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Ruan (B)
   (Case T-593/10)
   2011/C 80/38
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. L. Rivas Zurdo and E. Seijo Veiguela, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Jian Min Ruan (Mem Martins, Portugal)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 4 October 2010, in Case R 576/2010-2, and declare that, in accordance with Article 8(1)(b) of the CTMR, the opponent’s appeal before OHIM ought to have been upheld and the Opposition Division’s decision to grant in full the complex Community trade mark ‘B’ (No 6.379.721) annulled;

               —

               order the party or parties which oppose this action to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Jian Min Ruan.

      Community trade mark concerned: Red and white figurative mark containing the letter ‘B’ for goods in Class 25.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: El Corte Inglés, SA.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative mark containing the letter ‘B’ for goods in Class 25.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) since there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).


title: Case T-590/14: Action brought on 7 August 2014 — Zuffa v OHIM (ULTIMATE FIGHTING CHAMPIONSHIP)

text:
               6.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 351/23

         Action brought on 7 August 2014 — Zuffa v OHIM (ULTIMATE FIGHTING CHAMPIONSHIP)
   (Case T-590/14)
   2014/C 351/29
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Zuffa, LLC (Las Vegas, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, K. Gilbert and C. Balme, Solicitors)

      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 Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 May 2014 given in Case R 1425/2013-2.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ULTIMATE FIGHTING CHAMPIONSHIP’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 28 and 41

      Decision of the Examiner: Partially rejected the CTM application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b),(c) and 7(2) CTMR.


title: Case C-133/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Ordinario di Torino — Sezione del giudice per le indagini preliminari by order of that Court of 25 February 2003 in the criminal proceedings against Alessandro Nizza and Giacomo Pizzi

text:
C 135/12                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                         7.6.2003
       Spanish authorities to the Commission, it is clear that               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
       various municipalities in the Baix Ter area have exceeded             Ordinario di Torino — Sezione del giudice per le indagini
       on several occasions the maximum nitrate parameters                   preliminari by order of that Court of 25 February 2003 in
       laid down in Directive 80/778/EEC, in some cases                      the criminal proceedings against Alessandro Nizza and
       reaching extremely elevated concentrations.                                                    Giacomo Pizzi
( 1) Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975
                                                                                (Case C-133/03)
     L 194, p. 39).
( 2) Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 amending
     Directive 75/442/EEC on waste (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32).
( 3) Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment                                  (2003/C 135/17)
     of the effects of certain public and private projects on the
     environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40).
( 4) Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/
     EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private
     projects on the environment (OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5).
( 5) Council Directive 80/68/EEC of 17 December 1979 on the                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     protection of groundwater against pollution caused by certain           European Communities by order of the Tribunale Ordinario di
     dangerous substances (OJ 1980 L 20, p. 43).
                                                                             Torino — Sezione del giudice per le indagini preliminari
( 6) Council Directive 80/778/EEC of 15 July 1980 relating to the
     quality of water intended for human consumption (OJ 1980                (Turin District Court, Chamber of the Investigating Judge) of
     L 229, p. 11).                                                          25 February 2003, received at the Court Registry on 25 March
                                                                             2003, for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings
                                                                             against Alessandro Nizza and Giacomo Pizzi on the following
                                                                             questions:
                                                                             1.   May Article 6 of Directive 68/151/EEC (1) be interpreted
                                                                                as imposing an obligation upon the Member States to
                                                                                establish appropriate penalties not only for failure on the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Consiglio di                            part of commercial companies to publish their balance
Stato, Sezione Quarta by decision and order of that Court                         sheet and profit and loss statement but also for publishing
of 28 January 2003 in the case of Ministry of Health                              inaccurate versions of those statements or of other
against Codacons and Federconsumatori, and concerning                             company information addressed to shareholders or the
                      Lega delle Cooperative                                      public or of any other information concerning their
                                                                                economic, asset or financial position which they are
                                                                                required to provide and which concern the company
                           (Case C-132/03)
                                                                                itself or the group of companies to which it belongs?
                           (2003/C 135/16)
                                                                             2.   With reference to the obligation upon each Member State
                                                                                to adopt ‘appropriate penalties’ for the infringements
                                                                                provided for in the First Directive 68/151/EEC and the
                                                                                Fourth Directive 78/660/EEC ( 2), must those directives
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                            and, in particular, the combined provisions of
European Communities by decision and order of the Consiglio                       Article 44(2)(g) of the Treaty Establishing the European
di Stato, Sezione Quarta (Council of State, Fourth Chamber) of                    Community, Article 2(1)(f) and Article 6 of the First
28 January 2003, received at the Court Registry on 25 March                       Directive and Article 2(2), (3) and (4) of the Fourth
2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ministry of Health                  Directive, as amended by Directive 83/349/EEC ( 3) and
against Codacons and Federconsumatori, and concerning Lega                        Directive 90/605/EEC ( 4), be interpreted as precluding the
delle Cooperative on the following question:                                      legislation of a Member State under which no penalty
                                                                                may be imposed for breach of the duty to publish true
Must Article 2(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1139/98 ( 1), as                       and fair company documents and which lays down a
amended by Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 49/2000 ( 2), apply                    system of penalties which are not responsive to the
also to baby foods for infants and for young children of up to                    criteria of effectiveness, proportionality and deterrent
three years of age, and, more specifically, in relation to such                   effect?
products, must the adventitious contamination by material
derived from genetically modified organisms in a proportion
                                                                             3.   Must the directives mentioned, and in particular the
of no more than 1 % be indicated on the labelling?                                provisions of Article 44(2)(g) of the Treaty Establishing
                                                                                the European Community, Article 2(1)(f) and Article 6 of
                                                                                the First Directive and Article 2 (2), (3) and (4) of the
( 1) OJ L 159 of 03.06.1998, p. 4.
                                                                                Fourth Directive, as amended by Directive 83/349/EEC
( 2) OJ L 6 of 11.01.2000, p. 13.
                                                                                and Directive 90/605/EEC, be interpreted as precluding
                                                                                the legislation of a Member State under which, in the case
                                                                                of breach of the duty to publish true and fair company
 ---pagebreak--- 7.6.2003                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 135/13
      information, which is intended to protect ‘the interests of               Article 9(1) of the directive (for which no provision is
      shareholders and third parties’, permits only shareholders                made in the Austrian legal system) — save in cases of
      and creditors to apply for the imposition of penalties, thus              urgency — where appeals against its decisions may be
      depriving third parties generally of effective protection?                lodged with the courts of public law only subject to the
                                                                                following limitations: such appeals have no suspensory
4.    Must the directives mentioned, and in particular the                      effect from the outset and the courts are not barred from
      provisions of Article 44(2)(g) of the Treaty Establishing                 taking a decision on appropriateness and are able merely
      the European Community, Article 2(1)(f) and Article 6 of                  to annul the contested decision. Moreover, is one court
      the First Directive and Article 2(2), (3) and (4) of the                  (the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — the Higher Administrative
      Fourth Directive, as amended by Directive 83/349/EEC                      Court) limited, as regards the findings of the facts, to
      and Directive 90/605/EEC, be interpreted as precluding                    an examination of conclusiveness, and the other (the
      the legislation of a Member State under which, in the case                Verfassungsgerichtshof — the Constitutional Court) also
      of breach of the duty to publish true and fair company                    limited to an examination of the infringement of rights
      information, which is intended to protect ‘the interests of               guaranteed by the constitution?
      shareholders and third parties’, lays down rules for the
      prosecution of offences and a system of penalties which             2.    Are the guarantees of judicial protection provided by
      are differentiated, reserving to cases where material                     Articles 8 and 9(1) of the directive referred to in
      damage or loss is caused to shareholders or creditors the                 paragraph 1 to be applied to Turkish nationals who enjoy
      right to submit a complaint and apply for the imposition                  legal status under Article 6 or Article 7 of Decision No 1/
      of sanctions and reserving to such cases sanctions which                  80 of the Association Council — set up by the Agreement
      are serious and effective?                                                establishing an Association between the European Econ-
                                                                                omic Community and Turkey — of 19 September 1980
                                                                                on the development of the Association (‘the Association
( 1) OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (I), p. 41.                               Council decision’)?
( 2) OJ L 222 of 14.08.1978, p. 11.
( 3) OJ L 193 of 18.07.1983, p. 1.
( 4) OJ L 317 of 16.11.1990, p. 60.                                       (1 ) OJ L 56 of 04.04.1964, p. 850.
                                                                          Action brought on 27 March 2003 by Italian Republic
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-                       against Commission of the European Communities
richtshof by order of that Court of 18 March 2003 in the
joint appeals lodged by (1) Georg Dörr and by (2) Ibrahim
                                  Ünal                                                             (Case C-138/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 135/19)
                           (Case C-136/03)
                           (2003/C 135/18)
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                          Communities on 27 March 2003 by the Italian Republic,
                                                                          represented by Umberto Leanza, acting as Agent, assisted by
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    Ivo Maria Braguglia and Antonio Cingolo, Avvocati dello
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgerichts-                 Stato, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
hof (Higher Administrative Court [Austria]) of 18 March 2003,
received at the Court Registry on 26 March 2003, for a
preliminary ruling in the joint appeals lodged by (1) Georg               The applicant claims that the Court should:
Dörr and by (2) Ibrahim Ünal on the following questions:
                                                                          —     annul the memorandum of 20 January 2003 No 100629
1.    Are Articles 8 and 9 of Council Directive 64/221/EEC of                   (doc. 19), received on 21 January 2003, by which the
      25 February 1964 (1) on the co-ordination of special                      Commission’s Directorate General Regional Policy —
      measures concerning the movement and residence of                         Regional intervention in France, Greece, Italy, communi-
      foreign nationals which are justified on grounds of public                cated its decision to deduct part of the amount requested
      policy, public security or public health (‘the directive’)                by way of assistance in the context of the POP ‘Ricerca,
      to be interpreted as meaning that the administrative                      Sviluppo Tecnologico e Alta Formazione’ (Research,
      authorities may not — notwithstanding the existence of                    Technological development and Higher Education) 2000-
      an internal appeal facility — take a decision ordering                    2006; the memorandum of 3 March 2003 No 102627
      expulsion from the territory without obtaining an opinion                 (doc. 21) quantifying the amount to be deducted; and all
      from a competent authority within the meaning of                          other measures connected therewith and entailed thereby;


title: Case T-119/16: Order of the General Court of 26 January 2017 — Topera v EUIPO (RHYTHMVIEW) (EU trade mark — Application for the European Union word mark RHYTHMVIEW — Absolute grounds for refusal — No distinctive character — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               13.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/31

         Order of the General Court of 26 January 2017 — Topera v EUIPO (RHYTHMVIEW)
   (Case T-119/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Application for the European Union word mark RHYTHMVIEW - Absolute grounds for refusal - No distinctive character - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
   (2017/C 078/43)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Topera, Inc. (Abbott Park, Illinois, United States) (represented by: H. Sheraton, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: H. O’Neill, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 January 2016 (Case R 1368/2015-4), relating to an application for registration of the word sign RHYTHMVIEW as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Topera, Inc., shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 200, 6.6.2016.


title: Case T-314/08: Action brought on 12 August 2008 — Euromar di Ganesio Pietro v Commission

text:
               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/34

         Action brought on 12 August 2008 — Euromar di Ganesio Pietro v Commission
   (Case T-314/08)
   (2008/C 272/62)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Euromar di Ganesio Pietro & C. Snc (Aci Castello, Italy) (represented by: A. Maiorana, A. De Matteis and A. De Francesco, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 of 12 June 2008, published in OJ L 155 of 13 June 2008.

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those relied on in Case T-313/08 Veromar di Tudisco Alfio & Salvatore S.n.c v Commission.