title: Case T-211/02: Action brought on 15 July 2002 by Tideland Signal Limited against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
14.9.2002             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 219/23
Action brought on 12 July 2002 by the British Aggregates                 certain sectors are not taxed in order to protect their competi-
Association Co Limited against the Commission of the                     tiveness. Therefore, the Levy must be considered to be State
                    European Communities                                 Aid.
                        (Case T-210/02)
                                                                         Furthermore, the applicant submits that the Commission failed
                                                                         to state reasons in the contested Decision, as required by
                        (2002/C 219/54)                                  Article 253 EC Treaty. According to the applicant, the
                                                                         Commission also violated its obligation to initiate a formal
                                                                         investigation procedure, where the preliminary investigation
                  (Language of the case: English)                        was carried out in insufficient depth to resolve the serious
                                                                         difficulties regarding the compatibility of the measure with the
                                                                         State Aid provisions. The applicant also submits that the
                                                                         Commission violated its procedural obligations in the prelimi-
                                                                         nary investigation. In this respect, the applicant claims that
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                the Commission did not conduct a diligent and impartial
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               examination of the applicant’s complaint and did not provide
European Communities on 12 July 2002 by the British                      the applicant with an adequate explanation for rejecting its
Aggregates Association Co Limited, represented by Craig                  arguments.
Pouncey and Lode Van Den Hende of Herbert Smith, Brussels
(Belgium).
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul Commission Decision C(2002) 1478fin of 24 April
      2002 ‘State Aid N 863/01- United Kingdom/Aggregates
      Levy’ save as regards the exemption for Northern Ireland;
                                                                         Action brought on 15 July 2002 by Tideland Signal
                                                                         Limited against the Commission of the European Com-
—     order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs in the                                        munities
      present proceedings.
                                                                                (Case T-211/02)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (2002/C 219/55)
The applicant is an association representing smaller and
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
independent quarrying companies in the United Kingdom.
The competitive position of its members is affected by the
Aggregates Levy, an environmental tax raised by the United
Kingdom on certain aggregates. The objective of the Levy is to
reflect the environmental impacts of aggregate quarrying more
fully in the price of aggregates. These environmental costs              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
include noise, dust, damage to biodiversity and visual amenity.          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
A further objective of the Levy is the encouragement of the              European Communities on 15 July 2002 by Tideland Signal
use of recycled or alternative material.                                 Limited, represented by Christopher Thomas and Ciara Kenne-
                                                                         dy of Lovells, Brussels (Belgium).
In the contested Decision, the Commission declared the Levy
to be compatible with the Common Market.                                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         —     annul the Commission Decision of 17 June 2002 rejecting
According to the applicant, the Commission made a manifest                     the tender submitted by Tideland Signal Limited in
error of assessment in deciding that the distinction made                      tender procedure EUROPEAID/112336/C/S/WW-TACIS-
between taxable and non-taxable situations is justified by the                 (RE-TENDER);
logic and nature of the tax system. The applicant claims,
however, that the objectives of the Levy cannot explain the
different treatment of similar situations. The applicant also            —     order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the
stated that the United Kingdom authorities admitted that                       applicant.
 ---pagebreak--- C 219/24              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     14.9.2002
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant submitted a tender for the delivery of buoys
to harbours in Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan                   —     annul the decision of the Selection Board in competition
following the supply procurement notice issued by the Com-                     PE/90/A of 3 April 2002 refusing to admit the applicant
mission. The notice was subject to a corrigendum, after which                  to the next stages in the competition for having obtained
the applicant was given the opportunity to modify its tender.                  insufficient marks in one of the written tests (test C) and
Since the corrigendum did not give rise to any changes as                      annul the decision of the Selection Board in competition
regards the applicant, it sent back the same tender unchanged                  PE/90/A of 31 May 2002 confirming its decision of
to the Commission. After this, the applicant was informed that                 3 April 2002 and rejecting the applicant’s request seeking
its tender was rejected, since it did not comply with the 90-                  access to certain documents;
day validity period fixed for a tender from the date of its
submission.
                                                                         —     annul the whole of the competition;
The applicant considers that this Decision contains an error of
fact. The end date of the validity of the tender, i.e. 28 July
2002, was calculated from the date of the initial deadline of
29 April 2002. This date was not altered by the second                   —     at the very least, annul all the aspects and acts of the
submission of the tender, following the corrigendum of the                     competition subsequent to the unlawful elements of the
notice by the Commission, since the applicant sent back the                    individual decisions of 3 April 2002 and 31 May 2002,
same tender. The applicant claims, however, that it was clear                  in particular, the list of successful candidates and the
from the surrounding circumstances and other indications in                    appointments made on the basis of that list;
the tender that the tender was valid for 90 days from the
revised deadline of 11 June 2002 onwards.
                                                                         —     in any event, order the defendant to adopt all the
                                                                               necessary measures in order to restore the applicant’s
Furthermore, the applicant claims that the Commission has
                                                                               rights as a candidate who has passed tests A, B and C of
violated paragraph 19.5 of the Instructions to Tenderers, the
                                                                               the competition in question;
duty of care and the principle of proportionality. According to
paragraph 19.5 of these Instructions, the Commission can
require Tenderers to provide clarification of a tender within
24 hours. The applicant claims that other statements in the              —     failing that, order the defendant to pay damages assessed,
tender and the surrounding circumstances in general should
                                                                               at the material time, at EUR 10 389,46, subject to
have given rise to doubt which required clarification of the
                                                                               increment;
duration of the tender’s validity. The Commission has not,
however, made use of this possibility.
                                                                         —     order the defendant to produce the corrected copy of
                                                                               test C and general and objective assessment criteria, to
                                                                               identify the publicly accessible documents which the
                                                                               Board used when marking test C and to produce the
                                                                               Board’s reasoned report;
Action brought on 15 July 2002 by María-Angeles Martí-
            nez Valls against European Parliament
                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                        (Case T-214/02)
                        (2002/C 219/56)
                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
An action against the European Parliament was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
15 July 2002 by María-Angeles Martínez Valls, residing in
Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure                  The applicant alleges breach of the duty to provide reasons,
Levi, lawyers.                                                           breach of the general principle of transparency, breach of the


title: Case T-298/10: Action brought on 7 July 2010 — Arrieta D. Gross v OHIM — Toro Araneda (BIODANZA)

text:
               25.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/17

         Action brought on 7 July 2010 — Arrieta D. Gross v OHIM — Toro Araneda (BIODANZA)
   (Case T-298/10)
   ()
   2010/C 260/24
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Christina Arrieta D. Gross (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: J.-P. Ewert, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rolando Mario Toro Araneda (Santiago de Chile, Chile)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office For Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 13 April 2010 in case R 1149/2009-2;

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings; and

               —

               Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal, should it become an intervening party in this case.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘BIODANZA’, for goods and services in classes 16, 41 and 44

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

      Mark or sign cited: German trade mark registration No 2905152 of the word mark ‘BIODANZA’, for goods and services in classes 16 and 41; Danish trade mark registration No VA 199500708 of the word mark ‘BIODANZA’, for goods and services in classes 16, 41 and 44

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for part of the contested goods and services and allowed the application to proceed for the remaining goods of the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Upheld the appeal, annulled the contested decision and rejected the opposition entirely

      Pleas in law: The applicant advances two pleas in law in support of its application.
   On the basis of its first plea, the applicant claims that the contested decision infringes Articles 42(2) and 42(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly found that the applicant did not prove that the earlier trade mark has been put to genuine use in a Member State in which the earlier national trade mark is protected for use in the Community.
   By its second plea, the applicant considers that the contested decision infringes Rule 22(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95, as the Board of Appeal failed to invite the applicant to provide the proof required as it should have specified.


title: Case C-44/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht des Landes Brandenburg by order of that court of  12 October 2005  in Gerlach & Co. mbH v Hauptzollamt Frankfurt (Oder)

text:
               8.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht des Landes Brandenburg by order of that court of 12 October 2005 in Gerlach & Co. mbH v Hauptzollamt Frankfurt (Oder)
   (Case C-44/06)
   (2006/C 86/21)
   Language of the case: German
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht des Landes Brandenburg (Finance Court of the Land of Brandenburg) (Germany) of 12 October 2005, received at the Court Registry on 30 January 2006, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Gerlach & Co. mbH and Hauptzollamt Frankfurt (Oder) on the following question:
   Is a national customs administration entitled to enter duties in its accounts before granting the period provided for in Article 11a(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1062/87, (1) as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1429/90, (2) with regard to the place where the offence or irregularity has been committed and to make that period legally binding for the first time during appeal proceedings?

      (1)  OJ L 107, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ L 137, p. 21.


title: Case C-382/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Vestre Landsret by order of that Court of 9 October 2002 in the case of Cimber Air A/S against Skatteministeriet

text:
C 7/12                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   11.1.2003
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Vestre Landsret                  (Copenhagen District Court) of 14 August 2002, received at
by order of that Court of 9 October 2002 in the case of                    the Court Registry on 25 October 2002, for a preliminary
            Cimber Air A/S against Skatteministeriet                       ruling in the case of Anklagemyndigheden against Knud
                                                                           Grøngaard and Allan Bang on the following questions:
                          (Case C-382/02)
                            (2003/C 7/20)                                  Question 1
                                                                           Does Article 3(a) of Directive 89/592 (1) preclude a person
                                                                           from disclosing inside information in the case where that
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     person received the inside information in his capacity as an
European Communities by order of the Vestre Landsret                       employee-elected member of the board of the undertaking to
(Western Regional Court) of 9 October 2002, received at the                which the inside information relates and that information is
Court Registry on 23 October 2002, for a preliminary ruling                disclosed to the general secretary of the trade union which
in the case of Cimber Air A/S against Skatteministeriet on the             organises the employees who elected the person concerned as
following questions:                                                       a board member?
1.     Are Article 15(7) and (9) (referring to Article 15(6)) of
       the Sixth VAT Directive (Council Directive 77/388/
       EEC (1), to be interpreted as meaning that a Member State           Question 2
       is entitled not to exempt from VAT supplies to aircraft
       operating on a domestic route, regardless of the fact that
       the company using the aircraft operates chiefly on                  Does Article 3(a) of Directive 89/592 preclude a person from
       international routes, or is the Member State bound to               disclosing inside information in the case where that person
       exempt such supplies from VAT?                                      received the inside information in his capacity as a member
                                                                           of the undertaking’s corporate liaison committee and that
                                                                           information is disclosed to the general secretary of the trade
2.     If the Court finds that supplies must be exempted from              union which appointed the person concerned to be a member
       VAT if the airline operates chiefly on international routes,        of the corporate liaison committee?
       the Court is asked to state which criteria in the form of, for
       example, turnover, available seat kilometres, passenger
       kilometres or number of passengers and flights, are
       decisive under Article 15(6) for determining whether an             Question 3
       airline can be said to be operating ‘chiefly’ on international
       routes?
                                                                           Does Article 3(a) of Directive 89/592 preclude the general
                                                                           secretary of a trade union from disclosing inside information
                                                                           in the case where that general secretary received the inside
( 1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
     harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
                                                                           information under the circumstances outlined in Question 1
     turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform            and the information is passed on to:
     basis of assessment (OJ L 145 of 13.06.1977, p. 1).
                                                                           (a)   the general secretary’s two deputies;
                                                                           (b)   the senior administrative manager of the union’s sec-
                                                                                retariat; and
                                                                           (c)   colleagues of the general secretary within the union’s
                                                                                secretariat?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Københavns
Byret by order of that Court of 14 August 2002 in the
case of Anklagemyndigheden against Knud Grøngaard                          Question 4
                           and Allan Bang
                                                                           Does Article 3(a) of Directive 89/592 preclude the general
                          (Case C-384/02)                                  secretary of a trade union from disclosing inside information
                                                                           in the case where that general secretary received the inside
                                                                           information under the circumstances outlined in Question 2
                            (2003/C 7/21)                                  and the information is passed on to:
                                                                           (a)   the general secretary’s two deputies;
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     (b)   the senior administrative manager of the union’s sec-
European Communities by order of the Københavns Byret                            retariat; and


title: Case T-364/13: Judgment of the General Court of 30 September 2015 — Mocek, Wenta KAJMAN Firma Handlowo-Usługowo-Produkcyjna v OHIM — Lacoste (KAJMAN) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark KAJMAN — Earlier Community figurative mark representing a crocodile — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Applications for annulment and alteration brought by the intervener — Article 134(3) of the Rules of Procedure of 2 May 1991)

text:
               23.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 389/33

         Judgment of the General Court of 30 September 2015 — Mocek, Wenta KAJMAN Firma Handlowo-Usługowo-Produkcyjna v OHIM — Lacoste (KAJMAN)
   (Case T-364/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark KAJMAN - Earlier Community figurative mark representing a crocodile - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Applications for annulment and alteration brought by the intervener - Article 134(3) of the Rules of Procedure of 2 May 1991))
   (2015/C 389/34)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Eugenia Mocek and Jadwiga Wenta KAJMAN Firma Handlowo-Usługowo-Produkcyjna (Chojnice, Poland) (represented by: K. Grala and B. Szczepaniak, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by P. Geroulakos, and subsequently by D. Gája, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Lacoste SA (Paris, France) (represented by: P. Gaultier, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 May 2013 (Case R 2466/2010-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Lacoste SA and Eugenia Mocek, Jadwiga Wenta KAJMAN Firma Handlowo-Usługowo-Produkcyjna.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Dismisses the applications for annulment and alteration submitted by Lacoste SA;

               3.

               Orders Eugenia Mocek, Jadwiga Wenta KAJMAN Firma Handlowo-Usługowo-Produkcyjna to pay all the costs relating to the action and to bear its own costs relating to the applications of Lacoste SA for annulment and alteration;

               4.

               Orders Lacoste SA to bear its own costs relating to its applications for annulment and alteration.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.


title: Case T-220/01: Action brought on 24 September 2001 by Calberson G.E. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
10.11.2001             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 317/35
Pleas in law and principal arguments                                      lenging the decision. The applicant also disputes the stipulation
                                                                          in the decision that other information and supporting docu-
                                                                          ments were necessary. According to the applicant it had
The applicant is a non-governmental organisation whose                    submitted all the necessary documents and, if the Commission
objects are to fight racism and to protect the interests of               required other material, it should have requested it from the
immigrants in the European Union. To that end the applicant               applicant.
received subsidies from the Commission for the year 2000, in
accordance with the agreement entered into by the two parties.
In the challenged decision the Council terminated that financial
aid because of financial irregularities established against the
applicant.
In support of its action the applicant relies on:                         Action brought on 24 September 2001 by Calberson G.E.
                                                                            against the Commission of the European Communities
—     failure to observe the general conditions of the grant
      agreement of 24 May 2000;                                                                    (Case T-220/01)
—     failure to respect the rights of the defence in an adminis-
                                                                                (2001/C 317/69)
      trative case. According to the applicant the disputed
      decision was made without the applicant being heard and
      was not based on proper reasons;                                                        (Language of the case: French)
—     breach of the principle of legitimate expectations.                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 24 September 2001 by Calberson
                                                                          G.E., a company established in Paris, represented by Thierry
                                                                          Gallois, lawyer.
Action brought on 21 September 2001 by Laboratoire                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
Monique Remy against the Commission of the European
                           Communities                                    —     order the Commission to pay to the applicant compen-
                                                                                sation equal to the amounts of the following invoices:
                          (Case T-218/01)
                                                                                —     BRU 0135 963 for DEM 82 991,96 — additional
                                                                                loading charges;
                          (2001/C 317/68)
                                                                                —     BRU 0135 098 for DEM 900 corresponding to fines
                    (Language of the case: French)                                    paid to the Polish authorities;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                       —     BRU 0135 099 for DEM 6 960 corresponding to
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                            fines paid to the Polish authorities;
European Communities on 21 September 2001 by Laboratoire
Monique Remy, established at Grasse (France), represented by                    —     BRU 0135 964 for DEM 16 050 — the cost of
Jean-Félix Pupel, lawyer.                                                             plastic sheeting charged by the store manager;
                                                                          —     order that interest at the legal rate be added to the
The applicant challenges Commission Decision C(2001)1380                        compensation from the 8th day after each unpaid invoice;
of 2 July 2001 withdrawing the financial assistance granted
to the applicant by Commission Decision C(93)3185 of                      —     order that all the costs be paid by the Commission.
10 November 1993 concerning the grant of aid from the
EAGGF Guidance Section pursuant to Council Regulation
(EEC) No 4256/88 in the context of Project No 93.FR.06.027
entitled: ‘Pilot project to demonstrate exploitation of the Iris, a       Pleas in law and principal arguments
Mediterranean plant, for the luxury perfume industry and food
flavourings (France, Spain, Greece)’.                                     This case concerns the execution of Lots 5 and 7 of Regulation
                                                                          No 1799/1999 on the transport of beef from the intervention
                                                                          stock in Germany to Russia. Under the terms of that regulation,
Pleas in law and principal arguments                                      the applicant was to provide, at the departure points, services
                                                                          comprising handling and loading the means of transport. The
                                                                          applicant invoiced the intervention agency for those services
The applicant claims that the decision does not observe the               in compliance with the quotation which had been given to the
code of sound administrative conduct because it does not                  applicant by the intervention agency, which had itself received
contain any information concerning the possibilities of chal-             the quotation from the company managing the store.
 ---pagebreak--- C 317/36               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    10.11.2001
According to the applicant, the company managing the store               23 September 1999, the contract in respect of Lot No 5 for
did not properly carry out its loading obligations, and as the           the transport of 6 500 tonnes of skimmed-milk powder from
Polish police found overloading, they levied fines on the                Ireland to Russia.
applicant. Also, the managing company required prior pay-
ment of the additional charges for those loading operations.             According to the applicant the intervention agency, the
                                                                         Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development
In support of its claims, the applicant relies on the contractual        (D.A.F.) sent it the goods with substantial delay, which forced
and non-contractual liability of the Commission.                         it to pay demurrage to the owner of the ship which it had
                                                                         chartered.
The applicant relies on the same arguments as in Case                    In support of its claims seeking compensation for the losses
T-215/01, taking account of the fact that in the present case            suffered, the applicant pleads contractual liability and, alterna-
the additional charges were caused by the actions of the                 tively, non-contractual liability of the Commission by putting
warehouse of the intervention agency, which required prior               forward pleas and arguments similar to those presented in
payment of an additional sum for releasing and loading the               Case T-215/01.
goods and carried out the relevant operations badly, exposing
the applicant to the fines.
                                                                         (1) Commission Regulation (CE) No 1815/1999 of 18 August 1999
                                                                             on the supply of skimmed-milk powder to Russia (OJ 1999 L 220,
                                                                             p. 13).
Action brought on 24 September 2001 by Calberson G.E.
  against the Commission of the European Communities                             Removal from the Register of Case T-42/00 (1)
                         (Case T-221/01)                                                          (2001/C 317/71)
                         (2001/C 317/70)                                                    (Language of the case: German)
                   (Language of the case: French)                        By order of 5 June 2001, the President of the Second Chamber
                                                                         of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                         has ordered the removal from the Register of Case
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                T-42/00, City-Broker Deutschland GmbH v the Office for
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
European Communities on 24 September 2001 by Calberson                   Designs).
G.E., a company established in Paris, represented by Thierry
Gallois, lawyer.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.00.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     order the Commission to pay to the applicant compen-
      sation equal to the totals of invoices BRU 114 4316
      (USD 25 761,11) and BRU 413 1828 (23 115,49 Euros);                       Removal from the Register of Case T-359/00 (1)
—     order interest at the legal rate to be added to the                                         (2001/C 317/72)
      compensation from the 8th day following each unpaid
      invoice;                                                                              (Language of the case: Spanish)
—     order that all the costs be paid by the Commission.                By order of 21 June 2001, the President of the Fourth Chamber
                                                                         of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                         has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-359/00,
                                                                         Organización de Productores Asociados de Grandes Atuneros
Pleas in law and principal arguments                                     Congeladores (OPAGAC) y Empresarios Asociados v Com-
                                                                         mission of the European Communities.
The applicant states that, in the context of Regulation
No 1815/1999 (1), the Commission awarded it, by decision of              (1) OJ C 45 of 10.2.01.


title: Case C-296/05: Order of the President of the Court of 21 November 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Minister voor Vreemdelingenzaken en Integratie v I. Günes

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/31

         Order of the President of the Court of 21 November 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Minister voor Vreemdelingenzaken en Integratie v I. Günes
   (Case C-296/05) (1)

   (2008/C 64/46)

      Language of the case: Dutch

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

      (1)  OJ C 296, 26.11.2005.


title: Case C-626/15: Action brought on 23 November 2015 — European Commission v Council of the European Union

text:
               15.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 59/5

         Action brought on 23 November 2015 — European Commission v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-626/15)
   (2016/C 059/04)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet, E. Paasivirta, C. Hermes, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               —

               partially annul the decision of the Council of 11 September 2015, as contained in the conclusion of the Chairman of the Permanent Representatives Committee of 11 September 2015 approving the submission — on behalf of the European Union and its Member States — of a reflection document on a future proposal to the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources for the creation of a marine protected area in the Weddell Sea, referred to in the summary record of 23 September 2015 of the 2554th meeting of the Permanent Representatives Committee (Document 11837/15, point 65, pages 19 and 20, and Document 11644/1/15/REV), inasmuch as the Council required that the reflection document be submitted on behalf of the European Union and its Member States, rather than on behalf of the European Union alone;

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its action, the Commission respectfully asks the Court to annul the decision of the Council of 11 September 2015 inasmuch as the Council required that the reflection document to the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources for the creation of a marine protected area in the Weddell Sea be submitted on behalf of the European Union and its Member States, rather than on behalf of the European Union alone.
   The Commission submits that, by considering that competence in the matter is shared and indicating, consequently, that the reflection document should be decided by consensus and be submitted on behalf of the European Union and its Member States, the contested decision is unlawful, in that it thus precludes the Commission from submitting that document on behalf of the European Union alone, in breach of the European Union’s exclusive competence in the matter (and of the Commission’s prerogatives to represent the European Union).
   The Commission raises two pleas in law in support of its action for annulment of the contested decision.
   In the first place, the Commission submits that, by adopting the contested act, the Council breached the European Union’s exclusive competence in the matter of the conservation of marine biological resources, as laid down in Article 3(1)(d) TFEU. First, the Commission argues that the Council disregarded the legal context of the measure concerned by the contested act, both in connection with the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources and with the European Union. Secondly, the Commission maintains that the Council disregarded the purpose and the content of that measure.
   In the second place, the Commission submits, in the alternative, that even if the measure did not have to be regarded as a measure for the conservation of marine biological resources within the meaning of Article 3(1)(d) TFEU, by adopting the contested act, the Council, in any event, infringed the European Union’s exclusive competence inasmuch as the European Union has exclusive external competence in the matter because the measure envisaged may affect rules of the European Union or alter their scope for the purpose of Article 3(2) TFEU. First, the Commission argues that the Council disregarded the fact that the measure envisaged may affect or alter two regulations of secondary law (Regulation (EC) No 600/2004 (1) and Regulation (EC) No 601/2004 (2)). Secondly, the Commission submits that the Council did not take account of the effect on, or alteration of, the framework position of the European Union of June 2014.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 600/2004 of 22 March 2004 laying down certain technical measures applicable to fishing activities in the area covered by the Convention on the conservation of Antarctic marine living resources (OJ 2004 L 97, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 601/2004 of 22 March 2004 laying down certain control measures applicable to fishing activities in the area covered by the Convention on the conservation of Antarctic marine living resources and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 3943/90, (EC) No 66/98 and (EC) No 1721/1999 (OJ 2004 L 97, p. 16).


title: Case C-580/13: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)) — Coty Germany GmbH v Stadtsparkasse Magdeburg (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual and industrial property — Directive 2004/48/EC — Article 8(3)(e) — Sale of counterfeit goods — Right to information in the context of proceedings for infringement of an intellectual property right — Legislation of a Member State which allows banking institutions to refuse a request for information relating to a bank account (banking secrecy))

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/4

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)) — Coty Germany GmbH v Stadtsparkasse Magdeburg
   (Case C-580/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual and industrial property - Directive 2004/48/EC - Article 8(3)(e) - Sale of counterfeit goods - Right to information in the context of proceedings for infringement of an intellectual property right - Legislation of a Member State which allows banking institutions to refuse a request for information relating to a bank account (banking secrecy)))
   (2015/C 302/04)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Coty Germany GmbH

      Defendant: Stadtsparkasse Magdeburg

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 8(3)(e) of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights must be interpreted as precluding a national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allows, in an unlimited and unconditional manner, a banking institution to invoke banking secrecy in order to refuse to provide, pursuant to Article 8(1)(c) of that directive, information concerning the name and address of an account holder.

      (1)  OJ C 31, 1.2.2014.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 November 2002 in Case C-436/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsrätten): X, Y v Riksskatteverket (Freedom of establishment — Free movement of capital — Income tax — Tax advantages for the transfer at undervalue of shares to companies in which the transferor has a holding)

text:
11.1.2003               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                                  C 7/3
of the limitation periods laid down in Article 3(1) of Council              Point 3 of Section A of the Annex to Council Directive 93/22/EEC
Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on                  of 10 May 1993 on investment services in the securities field, which
the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests, to         defines managing portfolios of investments, precludes national
reduce the area actually determined in order to calculate the aid           legislation which departs from that definition by not requiring, for
payable in respect of the previous years.                                   the purposes of the implementation of that directive, that the
                                                                            management of portfolios of investments should be ‘on a discriminat-
                                                                            ory, client-by-client basis’ and ‘in accordance with mandates given by
In accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 9(2) of Regulation
                                                                            investors’. However, there is nothing to prevent a Member State from
No 3887/92, the reductions referred to in the first and second              extending by national legislation the applicability of the provisions of
paragraphs of that article are not to be applied if the farmer shows
                                                                            that directive to operations not covered by it, provided that it is made
that his determination of the area was accurately based on information
                                                                            clear that the national legislation in question does not constitute the
recognised by the competent authority. It is for the national court to      transposition of the directive, but arises from the independent will of
establish whether or not that has been shown in the case in the main
                                                                            the legislature.
proceedings.
( 1) OJ C 285 of 7.10.2000.                                                 (1 ) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                       of 21 November 2002
in Case C-356/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                                          of 21 November 2002
the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Toscana):
Antonio Testa, Lido Lazzeri v Commissione Nazionale
              per le Società e la Borsa (Consob) ( 1)                       in Case C-436/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                                the Regeringsrätten): X, Y v Riksskatteverket (1)
(Directive 93/22/EEC — Investment services in the securities
          field — Managing portfolios of investments)                       (Freedom of establishment — Free movement of capital —
                                                                            Income tax — Tax advantages for the transfer at undervalue
                                                                            of shares to companies in which the transferor has a holding)
                            (2003/C 7/04)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                                                      (2003/C 7/05)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                          (Language of the case: Swedish)
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-356/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Toscana
(Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Antonio Testa, Lido Lazzeri and
Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob),                   In Case C-436/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
intervener: Banca Fideuram SpA, on the interpretation of                    EC by the Regeringsrätten (Sweden) for a preliminary ruling in
Point 3 of Section A of the Annex to Council Directive 93/22/               the proceedings pending before that court between X, Y and
EEC of 10 May 1993 on investment services in the securities                 Riksskatteverket, on the interpretation of Articles 43 EC, 46
field (OJ 1993 L 141, p. 27), the Court (Fifth Chamber),                    EC, 48 EC, 56 EC and 58 EC, the Court (Fifth Chamber),
composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber,                         composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber,
C.W.A. Timmermans, A. La Pergola, P. Jann and S. von                        C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann
Bahr (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General;                 and A. Rosas, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; H. von
L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given           Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 No-
a judgment on 21 November 2002, in which it has ruled:                      vember 2002, in which it has ruled:
 ---pagebreak--- C 7/4                    EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                          11.1.2003
1.    Articles 43 EC and 48 EC preclude a national provision such            preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
      as that at issue in the main proceedings, which excludes the           court between Cofidis SA and Jean-Louis Fredout, on the
      transferor at undervalue of shares in companies from the benefit       interpretation of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993
      of deferral of tax due on capital gains made on those shares           on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95,
      where the transfer is to a foreign legal person in which the           p. 29), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet,
      transferor directly or indirectly has a holding — provided that        President of the Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans,
      that holding gives him definite influence over the decisions of        D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola and P. Jann (Rapporteur),
      that foreign legal person and allows him to determine its              Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal
      activities — or to a Swedish limited company which is a branch         Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
      of such a foreign legal person.                                        21 November 2002, in which it has ruled:
2.    Articles 56 EC and 58 EC preclude a national provision such
                                                                             Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in
      as that at issue in the main proceedings, which excludes the
                                                                             consumer contracts precludes a national provision which, in proceed-
      transferor at undervalue of shares in companies from the benefit
                                                                             ings brought by a seller or supplier against a consumer on the basis
      of deferral of tax due on capital gains made on those shares
                                                                             of a contract concluded between them, prohibits the national court,
      where the transfer is to a foreign legal person in which the
                                                                             on expiry of a limitation period, from finding, of its own motion or
      transferor directly or indirectly has a holding which is not such
                                                                             following a plea raised by the consumer, that a term of the contract
      as to give him definite influence over the decisions of that
                                                                             is unfair.
      foreign legal person or allow him to determine its activities.
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 61 of 24.2.2001.
( 1) OJ C 45 of 10.2.2001.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                                            (Sixth Chamber)
                       of 21 November 2002                                                         of 21 November 2002
in Case C-473/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                    in Case C-23/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the tribunal d’instance de Vienne): Cofidis SA v Jean-                       the Hof van Beroep te Brussel): Robelco NV v Robeco
                           Louis Fredout (1)                                                             Groep NV (1)
(Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts                    (Directive 89/104/EEC — Article 5(5) — Provisions on
— Action brought by a seller or supplier — National                          protection against use of a sign other than for the purposes
provision prohibiting the national court from finding a term                 of distinguishing goods or services — Extent of such
unfair, of its own motion or following a plea raised by the                              protection — Signs similar to the mark)
        consumer, after the expiry of a limitation period)
                                                                                (2003/C 7/07)
                            (2003/C 7/06)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                          in the European Court Reports)
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             In Case C-23/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
In Case C-473/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234                   by the Hof van Beroep te Brussel (Belgium) for a preliminary
EC by the Tribunal d’instance de Vienne (France) for a                       ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between


title: Case T-326/06: Action brought on 21 November 2006 — Total v OHIM — Peterson (Beverly Hills Formula TOTAL PROTECTION)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/75

         Action brought on 21 November 2006 — Total v OHIM — Peterson (Beverly Hills Formula TOTAL PROTECTION)
   (Case T-326/06)
   (2006/C 326/153)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Total SA (Courbevoie, France) (represented by: S. Aldred, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Eric Peterson (London, United Kingdom)
   Form of order sought

               —

               The decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal dated 5 September 2006 shall be annulled.

               —

               The Court either directs the Board or the Office to refuse Mr Peterson's Community trade mark application No 2 988 228, or at its discretion remit the opposition to the Board for reconsideration.

               —

               The applicant receives an award of costs in respect of the opposition, a reversal of the award of costs made in the Board's Decision, and an award of costs in respect of this Application.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: Eric Peterson

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘Beverly Hills Formula TOTAL PROTECTION’ for goods in class 3 — application No 2 988 228

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

      Mark or sign cited: The national word mark ‘TOTAL’ for goods in classes 3, 10 and 21

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 in that the Board of Appeal found a lack of similarity between the two marks concerned and of Article 63(2) of the regulation as the Board of Appeal didn't notify any of the observations submitted by Eric Peterson to the applicant.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 11 June 1996 in Case T-110/94: Beatriz Sánchez Mateo v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Transfers of part of an official's remuneration in the currency of a Member State other than that in which the institution has its seat - Inadmissibility)

text:
20 . 7. 96             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                              No C 21 0/ 13
4 , orders the applicants jointly and severally to bear the            with an address for service in Luxembourg a the Chambers
      costs, with the exception of those of the intervener,            of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim v. Council of the
      which shall bear its own costs .                                 European Union ( Agents : Giorgio Maganza and Antonio
                                                                       Tanca ) — application for annulment of Council Decision
(!) OJ No C 246 , 24 . 9 . 1992 .                                      94/660/EC, Euratom, of 26 September 1994 appointing the
                                                                       members of the Economic and Social Committee for the
                                                                       period from 21 September 1994 to 20 September 1998 ( OJ
                                                                       No L 257, 1994 , p . 20 ) — the Court of First Instance
                                                                       ( Fourth Chamber ), composed of K. Lenaerts , President, P.
                                                                       Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez,
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                       Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 6 June
                          of 5 June 1996                               1996 , in which it:
in     Case   T-75 /95 :      Giinzler Aluminium      GmbH     v.
        Commission of the European Communities (')                     1 , rejects the application;
(Action for annulment — Commission decision refusing
                  remission of import duties)
                                                                       2 , orders the applicants jointly and severally to pay the
                           ( 96/C 210/31 )                                  costs .
                (Language of the case: German)                         (') OJ No C 386 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .
In Case T-75/95 : Giinzler Aluminium GmbH, established at
Ostfildern, Germany, represented by Jurgen StrauE,
Rechtsanwalt, 11 Uhlandstrafêe, Stuttgart, against
Commission of the European Communities ( Agent: Claudia
Schmidt ) — application for annulment of the Commission's
decision of 14 November 1994, document K(91 1)3006                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
final, concerning remission of import duties, which is
addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany — the Court                                       of 11 June 1996
of First Instance (Third Chamber ), composed of C. P. Briët,           in Case T-l 10/94 : Beatriz Sanchez Mateo v . Commission of
President, B. Vesterdorf and A. Potocki, Judges; B. Pastor,                            the European Communities ( 1 )
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment            (Officials — Transfers ofpart of an official's remuneration
on 5 June 1996 , in which it:                                          in the currency of a Member State other than that in which
                                                                               the institution has its seat — Inadmissibility)
1 , dismisses the application as inadmissible in so far as it                                      96/C 210/33 )
      seeks that directions be issued to the Commission;
2 , dismisses the remainder of the application as                                     (Language of the case: Spanish)
      unfounded;
                                                                       In Case T-l 10/94 : Beatriz Sanchez Mateo, an official of the
3 , orders the applicant to pay the costs.                             Commission of the European Communities , represented by
                                                                       Antonio Creus, of the Barcelona Bar, and Bonifacio Garcia
( ] ) OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 .                                      Porras, of the Salamanca Bar v . Commission of the
                                                                       European Communities ( Agents : Amparo Alcover San
                                                                       Pedro, Ana Maria Alves Vieira and Carlos Gômez de la
                                                                       Cruz ) — application for ( 1 ) annulment of the decision
                                                                       rejecting the complaint concerning the transfer of part of the
                                                                       applicant's remuneration to a building account in Danish
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               crowns ( 2 ) confirmation of the applicant's entitlement to
                           of 6 June 1996                              such a transfer ( 3 ) damages — the Court of First Instance
in Case T-3 82/94 : Confederazione Generale dell'Industria              ( Third Chamber ), composed of C. P. Briët, President, B.
Italiana ( Confindustria ) and Aldo Romoli v. Council of the           Vesterdorf and A. Potocki, Judges ; B. Pastor, Principal
                       European Union ( 1 )                            Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on
                                                                         11 June 1996 , the operative part of which is as follows :
 (Appointment of the members of the Economic and Social
                              Committee)
                            ( 96/C 210/32 )                             1 , the application is dismissed as inadmissible;
                 (Language of the case: Italian)                        2 , each of the parties shall bear its own costs.
 In Case T-382/94 : Confederazione Generale dell'Industria
                                                                        (') OJ No C 120 , 30 . 4 . 1994 .
 Italiana ( Confindustria ), established in Rome , and Aldo
 Romoli, residing in Milan, represented by Fausto Capelli, of
 the Milan Bar, and Louis Schiltz, of the Luxembourg Bar,


title: Case T-405/05: Action brought on  14 November 2005  — Manpower Personalservice v OHIM

text:
               28.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/17

         Action brought on 14 November 2005 — Manpower Personalservice v OHIM
   (Case T-405/05)
   (2006/C 22/33)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Manpower Personalservice GmbH (Sankt Pölten, Austria) (represented by: B. Kuchar, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Manpower Inc. (Milwaukee, Wisconsin, United States of America)
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 July 2005 in Case R 499/2004-4 and declare the Community trade mark 000076059 invalid for all goods and services;

               —

               in the alternative, annul the contested decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 July 2005 in Case R 499/2004-4 inasmuch as it relates to the failure to prove the acquired distinctiveness of the Community trade mark 000076059 and refer the case back to the Fourth Board of Appeal

               —

               In any case, order OHIM and — in the event of written intervention — the proprietor of the Community trade mark to pay their own costs and the applicant's costs as regards the proceedings before OHIM and these proceedings

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought:‘MANPOWER’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 41 and 42 — Community trade mark No 76059

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Manpower Inc.

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: The applicant

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

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the applicant's appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the registered mark is descriptive throughout the Community and not distinctive. Moreover, the word 'MANPOWER' needs to be kept free for trade.


title: Case F-74/11: Action brought on 28 July 2011 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               1.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 290/20

         Action brought on 28 July 2011 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-74/11)
   2011/C 290/29
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Rodriguez, A. Blot and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      The subject matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of the Authority Authorised to Conclude Contracts of the Commission terminating the contract of employment of indefinite duration of the applicant.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Authority Authorised to Conclude Contracts of the Commission, terminating her contract of employment of indefinite duration and, so far as necessary, annul the decision rejecting the complaint;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Notice of an open competition

text:
5.12.2000         EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 348/19
                                             COURT OF JUSTICE
                                          NOTICE OF AN OPEN COMPETITION
                                                        (2000/C 348/20)
          The Court of Justice of the European Communities will be publishing in the Official Journal of the European
          Communities C 348 A of 5 December 2000 the following notice of open competition:
          English edition:
          CJ/LA/4 (lawyer-linguists of English mother tongue)
          To obtain a copy of this Official Journal please apply to the Personnel Division of the Court of Justice of
          the European Communities, L-2925 Luxembourg.
          Closing date for application: 31 January 2001.
                                          NOTICE OF AN OPEN COMPETITION
                                                        (2000/C 348/21)
          The Court of Justice of the European Communities will be publishing in the Official Journal of the European
          Communities C 348 A of 5 December 2000 the following notice of open competition:
          Italian edition:
          CJ/LA/8 (lawyer-linguists of Italian mother tongue)
          To obtain a copy of this Official Journal please apply to the Personnel Division of the Court of Justice of
          the European Communities, L-2925 Luxembourg.
          Closing date for application: 22 January 2001.


title: Case C-548/13: Order of the President of the Court of 16 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción No 2 de Marchena — Spain) — Caixabank SA v Francisco Javier Brenes Jiménez, Andrea Jiménez Jiménez

text:
               29.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/20

         Order of the President of the Court of 16 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción No 2 de Marchena — Spain) — Caixabank SA v Francisco Javier Brenes Jiménez, Andrea Jiménez Jiménez
   (Case C-548/13) (1)

   (2015/C 213/31)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.


title: Case T-155/14: Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2016 — ANKO v Commission (Arbitration clause — Subsidy contracts concluded in the context of the Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2002-2006) — Persona and Terregov projects — Eligible costs — Reimbursement of sums paid — Counter-claim — Default interest)

text:
               13.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/44

      Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2016 — ANKO v Commission
      (Case T-155/14) (1)

      ((Arbitration clause - Subsidy contracts concluded in the context of the Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2002-2006) - Persona and Terregov projects - Eligible costs - Reimbursement of sums paid - Counter-claim - Default interest))
      (2016/C 211/55)
      Language of the case: Greek

         Parties

         Applicant: ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, S. Paliou and A. Skoulikis, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and P. Arenas, acting as Agents, and by O. Lytra, lawyer)

         Re:

      Applications, under Article 272 TFEU, seeking, on the one hand, first, a declaration that the Commission’s demand for reimbursement of the subsidies paid to the applicant in implementation of the contracts No. 045459 ‘Perceptual spaces promoting independent aging’, and No. 507749 ‘Impact of e-governance on local and regional administrative services’, concluded in the context of the Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2002-2006) is unfounded, and, second, to order the Commission to pay the balance of the unpaid subsidies under the first of those contracts and, on the other, to order the applicant, by way of counterclaim, to reimburse the subsidies unduly paid under those contracts.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1)

                  Dismisses the appeal brought by ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias;

                  2)

                  Orders ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias to pay the European Commission the sum of EUR 606 570,61, corresponding to the reimbursement of the financial contributions which it received under contracts No. 045459 ‘Perceptual spaces promoting independent aging’ and No. 507749 ‘Impact of e-governance on local and regional administrative services’, concluded in the context of the Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2002-2006) plus default interest as from 3 May 2014 at the rate of 3,75 %;

                  3)

                  Orders ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 175, 10.6.2014.


title: Case T-179/07: Action brought on 23 May 2007 — Anvil Knitwear v OHIM — Aprile e Aprile (Aprile)

text:
               21.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 170/32

         Action brought on 23 May 2007 — Anvil Knitwear v OHIM — Aprile e Aprile (Aprile)
   (Case T-179/07)
   (2007/C 170/62)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Anvil Knitwear, Inc. (New York, USA) (represented by: G. Würtenberger, T. Wittmann, lawyers, and R. Kunze, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aprile e Aprile Srl (Frazione Funo, Italy)
   Form of order sought

               —

               The decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 22 March 2007 in Case R 1076/2006-2 concerning the opposition based on German trade mark registration No 30 011 766 ‘ANVIL’ against Community trade mark application No 3 800 232 ‘Aprile’ & device be annulled;

               —

               the opposition against Community trade mark application No 3 800 232 ‘Aprile’ & device be granted and application for registration of Community trade mark No 3 800 232 ‘Aprile’ & device be rejected;

               —

               defendant pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: Aprile e Aprile Srl

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘Aprile’ for goods in classes 18 and 25 — application No 3 800 232

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

      Mark or sign cited: The national word mark ‘ANVIL’ for goods in class 25

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1), 73 and 74 of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal did not evaluate the aspects of the partial identity and partial similarity of the goods in question as well as the increased distinctiveness of the earlier mark. Furthermore the Board of Appeal did neither objectively nor without prejudice state the reasons on which its decision was based, nor did it take the uncontested facts of the proceedings properly into account.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 8 June 2005 in Case T-298/03 Lavorazione Cuoio e Pelli Bieffe Srl v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — No disclosure of a document originating from a Member State without the prior consent of that State)

text:
               17.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 229/20

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 8 June 2005
   in Case T-298/03 Lavorazione Cuoio e Pelli Bieffe Srl v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Action for annulment - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - No disclosure of a document originating from a Member State without the prior consent of that State)
   (2005/C 229/42)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case T-298/03: Lavorazione Cuoio e Pelli Bieffe Srl, established in San Miniato (Italy), represented by M. Calabrese, lawyer, against Commission of the European Communities (agents: V. Di Bucci and P. Aalto, with A. Abate, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for annulment of the Commission's decision refusing the applicant access to certain documents relating to a State aid scheme declared compatible with the common market by Commission decision of 12 July 2000 (SG (2000) D/105754 — State Aid N 715/99) — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras, President, F. Dehousse and D. Sváby, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 8 June 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The action is dismissed;

               2.

               Each party is to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 264 of 1.11.2003.


title: Removal from the register of C-333/95

text:
10. 1. 98             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 7/11
national deriving taxable income from employment in                         Removal from the register of C-376/95 (1)
Germany without having a permanent residence or usual                                        (98/C 7/28)
abode there and his spouse, who is not permanently
separated from him and likewise has no permanent
residence or usual abode in Germany and earns income               By order of 10 October 1997, the President of the Court
abroad, are not to be treated as persons subject to                of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
unlimited taxation for the purposes of applying                    removal from the register of Case C-376/95 (reference for
Paragraph 26.1, sentence 1, EStG (joint assessment) on the         a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova):
ground that the combined income of the spouses for the             Cesare Regnoli & Figlio Srl v. Amministrazione delle
calendar year in question does not fall to at least 90 %           Finanze dello Stato.
within the German EStG, or that the income not subject
to the German EStG amounts to more than DM 24 000?                 (1) OJ C 16, 20. 1. 1996.
         Removal from the register of C-229/95 (1)                           Removal from the register of C-19/96 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 7/29)
                          (98/C 7/25)
                                                                   By order of 20 October 1997, the President of the Court
By order of 24 September 1997, the President of the Court          of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the             removal from the register of Case C-19/96 (Reference for
removal from the register of Case C-229/95 (reference for          a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Travail (Labour
a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Wiesbaden):           Court) Nivelles): Vito Casano v. Institut National
Simone Moll v. Berhane Mesghena.                                   d'Assurance Maladie InvaliditeÂ, Union Nationale des
                                                                   MutualiteÂs Libres.
(1) OJ C 229, 2. 9. 1995.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 77, 16. 3. 1996.
         Removal from the register of C-333/95 (1)
                          (98/C 7/26)                                        Removal from the register of C-86/96 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 7/30)
By order of 10 October 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the             By order of 10 October 1997, the President of the Court
removal from the register of Case C-333/95 (reference for          of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova): F.lli          removal from the register of Case C-86/96 (reference for a
Carli SpA and Others v. Amministrazione delle Finanze              preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova, Sezione
delle Stato.                                                       Prima Civile): Palmera SpA v. Amministrazione delle
                                                                   Finanze dello Stato.
(1) OJ C 351, 30. 12. 1995.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 133, 4. 5. 1996.
         Removal from the register of C-348/95 (1)
                                                                             Removal from the register of C-87/96 (1)
                          (98/C 7/27)
                                                                                (98/C 7/31)
By order of 7 October 1997, the President of the Court of          By order of 10 October 1997, the President of the Court
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the                of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-348/95 (reference for          removal from the register of Case C-87/96 (reference for a
a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal                     preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova, Sezione
Administrativo): FaÂbrica de Queijo Eru Portuguesa Lda. v.         Prima Civile): Cesare Regnoli & Figlio Srl v.
MinisteÂrio PuÂblico and Fazenda PuÂblica.                         Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato.
(1) OJ C 351, 30. 12. 1995.                                        (1) OJ C 133, 4. 5. 1996.


title: Case T-425/09: Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2011 — Honda Motor v OHIM — Blok (BLAST) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark BLAST — Earlier Community and Benelux word marks BLAST — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Weak distinctive character of the earlier marks)

text:
               19.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 340/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2011 — Honda Motor v OHIM — Blok (BLAST)
   (Case T-425/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark BLAST - Earlier Community and Benelux word marks BLAST - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Weak distinctive character of the earlier marks)
   2011/C 340/33
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Honda Motor Co. Ltd (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Hendrik Blok (Oudenaarde, Belgium)

      Re:

   ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 July 2009 (Case R 1097/2008-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Hendrik Blok and Honda Motor Co. Ltd.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Honda Motor Co. Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.


title: Case C-419/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 24 July 2013 — Art & Allposters International BV; other party: Stichting Pictoright

text:
               9.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 325/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 24 July 2013 — Art & Allposters International BV; other party: Stichting Pictoright
   (Case C-419/13)
   2013/C 325/18
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Art & Allposters International BV

      Other party: Stichting Pictoright

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 4 of the Copyright Directive (1) govern the answer to the question whether the distribution right of the copyright holder may be exercised with regard to the reproduction of a copyright-protected work which has been sold and delivered within the European Economic Area by or with the consent of the rightholder in the case where that reproduction had subsequently undergone an alteration in respect of its form and is again brought into circulation in that form?

               2.

                           (a)

                           If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, does the fact that there has been an alteration as referred to in Question 1 have any bearing on the answer to the question whether exhaustion within the terms of Article 4(2) of the Copyright Directive is hindered or interrupted?

                           (b)

                           If the answer to Question 2(a) is in the affirmative, what criteria should then be applied in order to determine whether an alteration exists in respect of the form of the reproduction which hinders or interrupts exhaustion within the terms of Article 4(2) of the Copyright Directive?

                           (c)

                           Do those criteria leave room for the criterion developed in Netherlands national law to the effect that there is no longer any question of exhaustion on the sole ground that the reseller has given the reproductions a different form and has disseminated them among the public in that form (judgment of the Hoge Raad of 19 January 1979 in Poortvliet, NJ 1979/412)?

      (1)  Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10).


title: Case C-297/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München (Germany) lodged on 29 May 2013 — Data I/O GmbH v Hauptzollamt München

text:
               7.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/21

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München (Germany) lodged on 29 May 2013 — Data I/O GmbH v Hauptzollamt München
   (Case C-297/13)
   2013/C 260/36
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht München

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Data I/O GmbH

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt München

      Question referred

   Is note 2(a) to Section XVI (1) to be interpreted as meaning that goods that fulfil the conditions both for classification as a part within the meaning of heading 8473 of the Combined Nomenclature (CN) and for classification as individual goods under another heading of Chapter 84 of the CN or a heading of Chapter 85 of the CN are to be classified under the other heading because heading 8473 of the CN does not take precedence over the other headings of Chapter 84 and the headings of Chapter 85 of the CN?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1); in the versions as amended by Commission Regulations (EC) Nos 2031/2001 of 6 August 2001 (OJ 2001 L 279, p. 1), 1832/2002 of 1 August 2002 (OJ 2002 L 290, p. 1), 1789/2003 of 11 September 2003 (OJ 2003 L 281, p. 1) and 1810/2004 of 7 September 2004 (OJ 2004 L 327, p. 1).