title: Joined Cases T-300/05 and T-316/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 2 October 2009 — Cyprus v Commission (Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Transitional measures to be adopted by reason of the accession of new Member States — Regulation (EC) No 651/2005 laying down transitional measures in the sugar sector — Action for annulment — Period within which proceedings must be commenced — Point from which time starts to run — Delay — Amendment of a provision of a regulation — Reopening of the action against that provision and all provisions forming a body of rules with it — Inadmissibility — Regulation (EC) No 832/2005 on the determination of surplus quantities of sugar, isoglucose and fructose — Plea of illegality — Jurisdiction — Principle of non-discrimination — Legitimate expectations — Action for annulment — Proportionality — Statement of reasons — Non-retroactivity — Collegiality)

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/37

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 2 October 2009 — Cyprus v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-300/05 and T-316/05) (1)

   (Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Transitional measures to be adopted by reason of the accession of new Member States - Regulation (EC) No 651/2005 laying down transitional measures in the sugar sector - Action for annulment - Period within which proceedings must be commenced - Point from which time starts to run - Delay - Amendment of a provision of a regulation - Reopening of the action against that provision and all provisions forming a body of rules with it - Inadmissibility - Regulation (EC) No 832/2005 on the determination of surplus quantities of sugar, isoglucose and fructose - Plea of illegality - Jurisdiction - Principle of non-discrimination - Legitimate expectations - Action for annulment - Proportionality - Statement of reasons - Non-retroactivity - Collegiality)
   2009/C 282/68
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: P. Kliridis, K. Lykourgos and A. Pantazi-Lamprou, Agents)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: initially L. Visaggio and H. Tserepa-Lacombe and subsequently by T. van Rijn and H. Tserepa-Lacombe, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the applicant: Republic of Estonia (Case T-316/05) (represented by: L. Uibo, Agent); and Republic of Latvia (represented by: E. Balode-Buraka, Agent)

      Re:
   In Case T-300/05, application for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 651/2005 of 28 April 2005 amending Regulation (EC) No 60/2004 laying down transitional measures in the sugar sector by reason of the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (OJ 2005 L 108, p. 3) and, in Case T-316/05, application for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 832/2005 of 31 May 2005 on the determination of surplus quantities of sugar, isoglucose and fructose for the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (OJ 2005 L 138, p. 3)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the actions;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Cyprus to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission;

               3.

               Orders the Republic of Estonia and the Republic of Latvia to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 271, of 29.10.2005.


title: Case C-52/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 1 February 2010 — Eleftheri Tileorasi A.E. Alter Channel and Konstantinos Giannikos v Ipourgos Tipou kai Meson Mazikis Enimerosis and Ethniko Simvoulio Radiotileorasis

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/25

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 1 February 2010 — Eleftheri Tileorasi A.E. ‘Alter Channel’ and Konstantinos Giannikos v Ipourgos Tipou kai Meson Mazikis Enimerosis and Ethniko Simvoulio Radiotileorasis
   (Case C-52/10)
   2010/C 100/37
   Language of the case: Greek

      Referring court

   Simvoulio tis Epikratias

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Eleftheri Tileorasi A.E. ‘Alter Channel’ and Konstantinos Giannikos

      Defendants: Ipourgos Tipou kai Meson Mazikis Enimerosis (Minister for the Press and the Mass Media) and Ethniko Simvoulio Radiotileorasis (National Council for Radio and Television)

      Question referred

   Is Article 1(d) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (OJ 1989 L 298, p. 23), as amended by Article 1(c) of Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 1997 L 202, p. 60), to be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of ‘surreptitious advertising’, the provision of payment or of consideration of another kind is a necessary defining element of the intention to advertise?


title: Case T-77/11: Action brought on 31 January 2011 — Truvo Belgium v OHIM — AOL (TRUVO)

text:
               26.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/11

         Action brought on 31 January 2011 — Truvo Belgium v OHIM — AOL (TRUVO)
   (Case T-77/11)
   2011/C 95/17
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Truvo Belgium (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented by: O.F.A.W. van Haperen, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: AOL LLC (Dulles, United States)

      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 7 November 2010 in case R 923/2009-2; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘TRUVO’, for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 38, 41 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 5560099

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 4756169 of the figurative mark ‘TRUVEO’ for services in class 42

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for all the contested services in class 38 and 42, and rejected the Community trade mark application for all the contested services

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: The applicant considers that the contested decision infringes Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as well as it lacks proper motivation or is otherwise impaired to fulfil lawful demands on European Legal proceedings, as the Board of Appeal erred (i) in its comparison of the services, (ii) in its comparison of the signs, (iii) in its assessment of the relevant public, and (iv) in its assessment of likelihood of confusion.


title: Case C-324/13 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 January 2014 — Fercal — Consultadoria e Serviços, Ld a v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Word mark PATRICIA ROCHA — Opposition by the proprietor of the national word mark ROCHAS — Refusal to register by the Opposition Division of OHIM — Inadmissibility of the action brought before the Board of Appeal of OHIM)

text:
               16.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/7

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 January 2014 — Fercal — Consultadoria e Serviços, Lda v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-324/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Community trade mark - Word mark PATRICIA ROCHA - Opposition by the proprietor of the national word mark ROCHAS - Refusal to register by the Opposition Division of OHIM - Inadmissibility of the action brought before the Board of Appeal of OHIM))
   2014/C 184/10
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Appellant: Fercal — Consultadoria e Serviços, Lda (represented by: A. J. Rodrigues, advogado)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: V. Melgar, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 April 2013 in Case T-360/11 Fercal — Consultadoria e Serviços v OHIM — Parfums Rochas (PATRIZIA ROCHA) by which the General Court dismissed an action against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 April 2011 (Case R 2355/2010-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Parfums Rochas SAS and Fercal — Consultadoria e Serviços, Lda

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Fercal — Consultadoria e Serviços, Lda. is ordered to pay the costs

      (1)  OJ C 260, 07.09.2013.


title: Case F-104/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 5 November 2013 — Hanschmann v Europol (Civil service — Europol staff — Non-renewal of a contract — Refusal to grant a contract of an indefinite duration — Annulment by the Tribunal — Compliance with the judgment of the Tribunal)

text:
               21.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 377/21

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 5 November 2013 — Hanschmann v Europol
   (Case F-104/12) (1)

   (Civil service - Europol staff - Non-renewal of a contract - Refusal to grant a contract of an indefinite duration - Annulment by the Tribunal - Compliance with the judgment of the Tribunal)
   2013/C 377/49
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Ingo Hanschmann (Leipzig, Germany) (represented by: J. Dammingh and N. D. Dane, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Police Office (represented by: D. Neumann and D. El Khoury, agents, B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application to annul Europol’s decision, taken to implement the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 June 2010 in Case F-27/09 Hanschmann v Europol, by which Europol granted the applicant a lump sum by way of compensation for the harm caused to him by the decision annulled by that judgment

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of 28 November 2011 by which the European Police Office granted Mr Hanschmann the sum of EUR 13 000 in order to comply with the judgment of the Tribunal of 29 June 2010 in Case F-27/09 Hanschmann v Europol;

               2.

               Orders the European Police Office to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Hanschmann.

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.01.2013, p. 70.


title: Case C-254/00: Action brought on 26 June 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
C 259/6                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           9.9.2000
      Article 1(3) of Directive 91/439 cannot be invoked in               Action brought on 26 June 2000 by the Commission of
      order to justify a compulsory, systematic scheme for the            the European Communities against the Kingdom of the
      registration of licences issued by other Member States.                                         Netherlands
      The view taken by the Netherlands authorities is based
      on a misapprehension of the relationship between                                              (Case C-254/00)
      Article 1(2) and Article 1(3) of the directive and between
      the directive and Article 43 EC. In addition, the measures                                    (2000/C 259/09)
      applied by the Netherlands authorities are dispro-
      portionate.                                                         An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought
                                                                          before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                          on 26 June 2000 by the Commission of the European
—     Infringement of Article 1(2) of Directive 91/439,                   Communities, represented by H. van Lier, Legal Adviser in the
      resulting from the reduction in the period of validity of a         Commission’s Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address
      driving licence issued by another Member State following            for service in Luxembourg at the office of C. Gómez de la
      the date of issue in that Member State: the Netherlands             Cruz, also of the Legal Service, Wagner Centre.
      authorities apply the national rules concerning the val-
      idity of licences as from the time of becoming established          The applicant claims that the Court should:
      in the Netherlands. In that respect too, the Netherlands
      authorities have misapprehended the relationship                    1.    Declare that, by failing to notify all of the laws, regulations
      between Article 1(2) and Article 1(3) of the directive,                   and administrative provisions necessary for compliance
      in that, for a great many licence-holders, the mutual                     with Directive 95/47/EC of the European Parliament and
      recognition provided for by Article 1(2) is ineffective. The              of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the use of
      Netherlands authorities have misunderstood the notion                     standards for the transmission of television signals (1) or
      of ‘mutual recognition’: this does not mean that holders                  by failing to adopt the measures necessary for that
      of driving licences issued by the Netherlands and by other                purpose, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to
      Member States must be treated in the same way, but that                   fulfil its obligations under that directive;
      the legal effects attaching to driving licences issued by
                                                                          2.    Order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
      another Member State are the same as in the issuing
      Member State. The aim is not to allow discrimination
      against holders of Netherlands driving licences by com-             Pleas in law and main arguments
      parison with holders of other driving licences, but to
      prevent a situation in which the latter group are faced             In view of the mandatory nature of the third paragraph of
      with obstacles to the exercise of freedom of establishment          Article 249 EC, Member States are required to adopt the
      in the Netherlands.                                                 measures necessary for compliance with directives which are
                                                                          addressed to them, and to do so before the expiry of the period
                                                                          specified therein. That period expired on 23 August 1996
—     Infringement of Article 6(1)(c) of Directive 91/439: the            without the Netherlands having adopted the requisite pro-
      Netherlands statute prescribes a minimum age of 18 for              visions.
      drivers of category D vehicles, whereas, in accordance
      with Article 6(1)(c) of the directive, that age should be           (1) OJ 1995 L 281, p. 51.
      21.
—     Infringement of point 4 in Annex III to Directive 91/439:
      inasmuch as Article 100 of the (Netherlands) Reglement
      Rijbewijzen (Rules on Driving Licences) does not provide            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
      for a periodic medical examination for Group 2 drivers              Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division
      (lorry drivers and bus drivers), it is contrary to point 4 in       (Crown Office), by order of that court of 21 June 2000, in
      Annex III to the directive.                                         the case of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise
                                                                                against the Zoological Society of London
                                                                                (Case C-267/00)
(1) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 29 February 1996 in Case                                    (2000/C 259/10)
    C-193/94 Skanavi [1996] ECR I-929.
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          European Communities by an order of the High Court of
                                                                          Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Crown
                                                                          Office) of 21 June 2000, which was received at the Court
                                                                          Registry on 3 July 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                          the Commissioners of Customs and Excise against the Zoologi-
                                                                          cal Society of London, on the following questions:


title: Case C-374/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 21 June 2017 — Finanzamt B v A-Brauerei

text:
               18.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 309/27

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 21 June 2017 — Finanzamt B v A-Brauerei
   (Case C-374/17)
   (2017/C 309/35)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Defendant and appellant on a point of law: Finanzamt B

      Applicant and respondent in the appeal on a point of law: A-Brauerei

      Question referred

   Is Article 107(1) TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that there is aid prohibited under that provision in the case where legislation of a Member State provides that real property transfer tax is not charged on a taxable acquisition pursuant to a transformation (merger) in the event that certain legal entities (a controlling undertaking and a dependent company) are involved in the transformation procedure and the controlling undertaking’s 100 % holding in the dependent company has existed for five years prior to the legal procedure and for five years thereafter?


title: Case T-358/08: Action brought on 3 September 2008 — Spain v Commission

text:
               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/45

         Action brought on 3 September 2008 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-358/08)
   (2008/C 272/88)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: J. Rodríquez Cárcamo)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul Decision C(2008) 3249 of 25 June 2008 relating to the reduction of assistance granted the Cohesion Fund to Project No 96/11/61/018 — ‘Saneamiento de Zaragoza’.

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   This action is brought against the decision to reduce the financial assistance initially granted by the Commission to various projects in the three phases of the ‘Proyecto de saneamiento de Zaragoza’. That decision results in a financial correction of 25 % of the co-financed expenditure with respect to the second and third phases of the project, which gives rise to an obligation to repay EUR 3 106 966. The Commission take the view that the Municipality of Zaragoza failed to comply with Community rules on public contracts by artificially splitting the works and failing to publish the contracts in the O.J.E.C, in accordance with the provisions of Council Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors, publishing it only in the Boletín Oficial de Aragón.
   In support of its form of order the applicant claims:

               —

               infringement of Article H of Annex II to Council Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 of 16 May 1994 establishing a Cohesion Fund and Article 14(13) of Directive 93/38/EEC. In that connection, the applicant takes the view that the defendant has committed a manifest error of assessment with respect to the basic definition of ‘works’ by denying the existence of technical or economic differences between the various projects since, it argues, the description of the works to be undertaken was similar and pursued the same economic function: the overall improvement of the network for the benefit of its users. To the contrary, the contracts concerned are technically distinct works, with clearly distinct functions and which require the performance of a variety of tasks.

               —

               infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and the principle patere quam ipse legem fecisti, in so far as the Commission approved the projects as they were submitted and that, both the original application in 1996 and the subsequent application in 1997 contain a description of each and every one of the projects included in each phase, together with the express mention of the fact that it was no necessary to publish the tender notices in the O.J.E.C.

               —

               inadequacy of the reasons set out in the contested decision.

               —

               expiry of the limitation period for the Commission to bring proceedings in accordance with the provisions of Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests

               —

               expiry of the period prescribed, in accordance with the provisions in Article H.2 of Annex II to Regulation 1164/94 and Article 18 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1386/2002 of 29 July 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 as regards the management and control systems for assistance granted from the Cohesion Fund and the procedure for making financial corrections.

         In the alternative, the applicant alleges infringement of the principle of proportionality.


title: Case T-242/11: Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2012 — Kaltenbach & Voigt v OHIM (3D eXam) (Community trade mark — International registration — Request for territorial extension of protection — Figurative mark 3D eXam — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character and lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2012 — Kaltenbach & Voigt v OHIM (3D eXam)
   (Case T-242/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - International registration - Request for territorial extension of protection - Figurative mark 3D eXam - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character and lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2012/C 138/32
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Kaltenbach & Voigt GmbH (Biberach an der Riß, Germany) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 March 2011 (Case R 2361/2010-2) relating to a territorial extension to the European Union of the protection of the international registration of the figurative mark 3D eXam

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Kaltenbach & Voigt GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 16.7.2011.


title: Case T-528/14: Action brought on 15 July 2014 — Information Resources v OHIM (Growth Delivered)

text:
               8.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/52

         Action brought on 15 July 2014 — Information Resources v OHIM (Growth Delivered)
   (Case T-528/14)
   2014/C 303/62
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Information Resources, Inc. (Chicago, United States) (represented by: C. Schulte, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 5 May 2014 given in Case R 1777/2013-4;

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Growth Delivered’ for services in Classes 35, 41 and 42

      Decision of the Examiner: Refused the application for registration

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

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


title: Case T-9/06: Action brought on  17 January 2006  — Equant Belgium v Commission

text:
               25.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/43

         Action brought on 17 January 2006 — Equant Belgium v Commission
   (Case T-9/06)
   (2006/C 48/81)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Equant Belgium SA (Brussels, Belgium) [represented by: T. Müller-Ibold, T. Graf, lawyers]

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul

                           (i)

                           the decision of the European Commission dated December 6, 2005 to suspend the signing of the contract identified in the Commission's earlier decision of November 3, 2005 relating to the award of the contract pursuant to the following procurement procedure: ‘Restricted invitation to tender No ENTR/04/011 — Lot 1 Secured Trans European Services for Telematics between administrations (s-TESTA)’;

                           (ii)

                           the decision of the European Commission dated December 27, 2005 to reject the Offer submitted by Equant/HP in the framework of the Restricted invitation to tender No ENTR/04/011 — Lot 1 ‘Secured Trans European Services for Telematics between administrations (s-TESTA)’ and to tacitly withdraw its decision in favour of Equant/HP dated November 3, 2005; and

                           (iii)

                           the decision of the European Commission communicated to the Applicant by the same letter of December 27, 2005 to select another tenderer for the award of the contract in the framework of the Restricted invitation to tender No. ENTR/04/011 — Lot 1 ‘Secured Trans European Services for Telematics between administrations (s-TESTA)’;

               —

               grant any other relief that the Court considers appropriate in the circumstances; and, in any event;

               —

               order the Commission to pay Equant's legal costs and other fees and expenses incurred in connection with this application.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, in conjunction with another company, submitted an offer to the Commission in the context of a procurement procedure relevant to the Commission's contract notice No. 2004/S 137-116821 ‘Lot 1 — Secured Trans European Services for Telematics between administrations (s-TESTA)’. By letter dated 3 November 2005 the Commission informed the applicant that its joint offer had been selected for the award of the contract. However, by letter dated 6 December 2005 the Commission informed the applicant that it had decided to suspend the signing of the contract, awaiting further examination of the offers. By a further letter, dated 27 December 2005, the Commission informed the applicant that it had decided to reject the applicant's joint offer on the grounds that it did not conform to the tendering specifications and to award the contract to another tenderer.
   In support of its application to annul the above decisions, the applicant first of all disputes in detail the Commission's findings that certain components of its offer, more particularly its waiver of one-off installation charges for an initial two-year period, the inclusion of a five-year discount period in preparing prices and its volume discount on the monthly charges for turnkey access points, were contrary to the specifications. The applicant's position is that in identifying an alleged incompatibility the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment and that the contested decisions are unlawful.
   The applicant further submits that the Commission breached the principle of transparency by relying on an unsupported interpretation of its tendering specifications and that it breached Regulation 2342/2002 as well as the principles of equality, proportionality and good administration by failing to ask for clarifications or apply less restrictive remedies. The applicant finally alleges that the Commission also violated the principle of legitimate expectations as well as the rights of defence and the duty to state reasons for its decisions.


title: Case T-116/03: Action brought on 7 April 2003 by Oreste Montalto against the Council of the European Union

text:
C 135/36               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                         7.6.2003
The other party in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal               Action brought on 7 April 2003 by Oreste Montalto
was Grotto spa.                                                                       against the Council of the European Union
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                         (Case T-116/03)
—     annul the contested decision which forms the subject-
                                                                                (2003/C 135/58)
      matter of these proceedings; in the alternative, declare
      there is no likelihood of confusion between the signs in
      question so far as concerns all the goods requested except
      for jeans, in respect of which there is a likelihood of                                  (Language of the case: French)
      confusion or, at least, so far as concerns all those goods
      which the Court does not consider likely to be confused
      and, accordingly annul the contested decision so far as
      such goods are concerned;
                                                                            An action against the Council of the European Union was
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                                 brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                            Communities on 7 April 2003 by Oreste Montalto, resident
                                                                            in Alicante (Spain), represented by Georges Vandersanden,
                                                                            avocat.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
Applicant for Com-             The applicant
munity trade mark:                                                          —     annul the decision of the Council, taken by its President
                                                                                on 23 May 2002, appointing an additional Chairman of
Community trade mark           Word mark ‘GAS STATION’ —                          a Board of Appeal, also President of the Appeals Depart-
sought:                        application No 712647, regis-                      ment of the OHIM, and thereby rejecting the applicant’s
                               tration sought in respect of goods                 candidature for the same post;
                               in Class 25 (‘Clothing, footwear,
                               headgear’)
                                                                            —     award the applicant compensation for the material and
                                                                                non-material loss suffered, provisionally assessed at
Proprietor of mark or          Grotto S.p.A.                                      EUR 20 000;
sign cited in the oppo-
sition proceedings:
                                                                            —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
Mark or sign cited in          Italian trade mark ‘BLUE JEANS
opposition:                    GAS’ registered in respect of
                               goods in Class 25 (‘trousers, jack-
                               ets, jeans, shirts, skirts, heavy jack-
                               ets, sports jerseys, sweaters, tail-
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
                               ored jackets, stockings, socks,
                               footwear, boots, slippers’)
Decision of the Oppo-          Registration refused                         The applicant is an official of the Office for Harmonisation in
sition Division:                                                            the Internal Market (OHIM). In response to a vacancy notice,
                                                                            he submitted his candidature for the post of Chairman of a
Decision of the Board of       Appeal dismissed                             Board of Appeal of the OHIM. Another candidate was
Appeal:                                                                     appointed to that post by the contested decision and the
                                                                            applicant’s candidature was accordingly rejected. In support of
                                                                            his claims, the applicant makes two pleas in law. The first plea
Pleas in law:                  Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b)            alleges infringement of the selection procedure. In that respect,
                               of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 inas-            the applicant argues that the selection procedure was entrusted
                               much as the trade marks in ques-             to a private company and that both the competent authorities
                               tion are not to be considered                within the OHIM and the defendant had in reality abdicated
                               similar for the purposes of that             their power of supervision by simply ratifying the conclusions
                               provision                                    to which that company came. He also argues that the contested
                                                                            decision should have been taken by the President of the OHIM
                                                                            and not by the defendant. The second plea alleges manifest
                                                                            errors of assessment and an infringement of the principle of
 ---pagebreak--- 7.6.2003               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 135/37
equality of treatment as regards the use of English during the             considerations are mistaken, there would be no serious
selection procedure, in addition to other alleged defects in the           social difficulties if British Energy became insolvent, and the
same procedure. The applicant also argues that insufficient                contested Decision is, therefore, in breach of paragraph 23 (c)
reasons were stated for the contested decision.                            of the Guidelines. The applicant also claims that the aid in
                                                                           question is not restricted to the amount needed to keep British
                                                                           Energy in business, because if British Energy were placed into
                                                                           administration, as provided for by English insolvency law, the
                                                                           cost of keeping it in business might be smaller. For this reason
                                                                           the applicant considers that the contested Decision is also
                                                                           contrary to paragraph 23(e) of the Guidelines. The applicant
                                                                           further claims that the contested Decision violated para-
                                                                           graph 23 (a) of the Guidelines, by failing to take into account
Action brought on 14 April 2003 by AES Drax Power                          that the contested aid takes the form of cash placed on deposit
Limited against the Commission of the European Com-                        by the government. According to the applicant these deposits
                              munities                                     remove the market risk of dealing with British Energy and are
                                                                           therefore not identical to loans or state guarantees of loans
                                                                           provided for in paragraph 23 (a) of the Guidelines. Finally, the
                          (Case T-124/03)                                  applicant contends that the defendant exceeded the limits
                                                                           placed upon the exercise of its discretion by the EC Treaty and
                                                                           the general principles of EC law in failing to take account of
                         (2003/C 135/59)
                                                                           the impact of the contested aid on the competitors of British
                                                                           Energy.
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                           (1 ) OJ 1999 No C 288 p. 2.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 14 April 2003 by AES Drax Power
Limited, Selby, United Kingdom, represented by K. P. E. Lasok
QC and Ms. E. Gibson-Bolton, Solicitor.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           Action brought on 14 April 2003 by Reckitt Benckiser
—     Order any measures of enquiry necessary to resolve the               (España), S.L. against the Office for Harmonisation in the
      issues of fact in this case                                               Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
—     Annul the contested decision of 27 November 2002
      authorising State Aid NN101/02 to British Energy plc.                                         (Case T-126/03)
—     order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs
                                                                                (2003/C 135/60)
                                                                           (Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was
                                                                                submitted: English)
In September 2002 the United Kingdom Government awarded
a package of rescue aid to British Energy plc., one of the main
producers of electricity in the United Kingdom and a nuclear
stations operator. By the contested Decision the defendant                 An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
decided that this state aid was compatible with the EC Treaty.             Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
The applicant, a competitor of British Energy, seeks the                   the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
annulment of that Decision, contending that the defendant                  14 April 2003 by Reckitt Benkiser (España), S.L., Barcelona,
breached its own Guidelines on State Aid for Rescuing and                  Spain represented by Ms Monica Esteve Sanz, lawyer,
Restructuring firms in difficulty ( 1). The applicant disputes the
defendant’s findings that in the absence of the aid in question
British Energy would be insolvent and have to cease operating
and that if it did so there would be serious consequences both             ALADIN Gesellschaft für innovative mikrobiologische Systeme
for nuclear safety and for the security of power supply in                 GmbH was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of
the United Kingdom. According to the applicant all these                   Appeal.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova, Sezione prima civile, by order of that court of 16 November 1995 in the case of Cesare Regnoli & Figlio SRL v. Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato (Case C-376/95)

text:
20 . 1 . 96               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 16/ 11
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura                             accrued before dismissal where a different benefit
circondariale di Venezia by order of that court of                              ( namely the mobility allowance provided for by
3 November 1995 in the cases of Federica Maso and Others                        Articles 4 and 16 of Italian Law No 223 of 23 July 1991 )
and Graziano Gazzetta and Others v. Istituto nazionale                          covers the needs of workers remaining employed during
                 délia previdenza sociale (INPS )                               the months following dismissal ?
                           ( Case C-3 73/95 )
                                                                         4 . Must the expression 'the last three months of the
                              ( 96/C 16/23 )
                                                                                contract of employment' in Article 4 ( 2 ) be interpreted
                                                                                as the 'last three calendar months ' or 'three months
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Pretura                                    preceding the termination of the employment
circondariale di Venezia ( District Magistrates' Court,                         relationship, even if this occurred on a date occurring
Venice ) of 3 November 1995 , received at the Court Registry                    some time during the month'.
on 29 November 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the cases
of Federica Maso and Others and Graziano Gazzetta and                    ( J ) Joined Cases C-6/90 and C-9/90 Francovich and Others v .
                                                                               Italian State ( 1991 ) ECR 1-5357.
Others v. Istituto Nazionale délia Previdenza Sociale ( INPS
                                                                         (2 ) OJ No L 283 , 20 . 10 . 1980, p . 23 .
— National Social Welfare Institution ) on the following
questions:
1 . can the system of the EC Treaty, as described in the
     judgment in Francovich and Others v. Italian State f 1 ),
     concerning the liability to individuals of a Member State           Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di
     which has breached Community obligations be                         Genova, Sezione prima civile, by order of that court of
     interpreted as being compatible with a domestic rule                16 November 1995 in the case of Cesare Regnoli & Figlio
     ( Article 2 ( 7 ) in conjunction with Article 2 (4 ) of Italian             SRL v . Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato
     Legislative Decree No 80 of 27 January 1992 ), which                                             Case C-3 76/95 )
     reduces ex post facto the amount of the compensation
     for damage which has already occurred ?                                                           ( 96/C 16/24 )
2 . Does the expression 'onset of insolvency' in the first               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     indent of Article 3 (2 ) and the first indent of Article 4 (2 )     European Communities by order of the Tribunale di
     of Directive 80/987 ( 2 ) correspond to the date on which           Genova, Sezione prima civile ( District Court, Genoa, First
     the request was made for insolvency proceedings to be               Civil Section ) of 16 November 1995 , received at the Court
     opened or to the date on which such proceedings opened              Registry on 4 December 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the
     ( both of which are mentioned in Article 2 )?                       case of Cesare Regnoli & Figlio SRL v. Amministrazione
                                                                         delle Finanze dello Stato on questions identical to those in
3 . Can Article 4 ( 3 ) and Article 10 of the Directive be               Joined Cases C-47/95 and others ( M.
     interpreted as meaning that the Member State may
     preclude the payment of employment claims which                      (!) See OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 , p . 5 .
                                                        COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersanden, of the
                        of 23 November 1995                               Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                          the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 1 rue Glesener, v.
in Case T-64/94 : Dimitrios Benecos v. Commission of the
                                                                          Commission of the European Communities ( Agents :
                      European Communities (')                            Gianluigi Valsesia and Denis Waelbroeck and, in the oral
 (Officials — Occupational disease — Partial permanent                    proceedings, Alexandre Vandencasteele ) — application for
invalidity — Principle of sound management and good                       the annulment of the decision of the Commission of
 administration — Duty to provide assistance — Misuse of                   15 March 1993 rejecting the application for recognition of
              powers — Action for compensation)                           an occupational disease suffered by the applicant and for an
                               ( 96/C 16/25 )                             award of damages by way of compensation for the material
                                                                          and non-material damage allegedly suffered by him — the
                                                                          Court of First Instance ( Fourth Chamber ), composed of: K.
                  (Language of the case: French)                          Lenaerts, President, and R. García-Valdecasas and P. Lindh,
                                                                          Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on
                                                                          23 November 1 995 , in which it:
 In Case T-64/94 : Dimitrios Benecos, an official of the
 Commission of the European Communities, residing in                       1 , dismisses the action;


title: Case T-525/14: Judgment of the General Court of 8 December 2015 — Compagnie générale des établissements Michelin v OHIM — Continental Reifen Deutschland (XKING) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark XKING — Earlier national figurative mark X — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/48

         Judgment of the General Court of 8 December 2015 — Compagnie générale des établissements Michelin v OHIM — Continental Reifen Deutschland (XKING)
   (Case T-525/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark XKING - Earlier national figurative mark X - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 027/59)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Compagnie générale des établissements Michelin (Clermont-Ferrand, France) (represented initially by L. Carlini, and subsequently by E. Carrillo, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Continental Reifen Deutschland GmbH (Hanover, Germany) (represented by: S. Gillert, K. Vanden Bossche, B. Köhn-Gerdes and J. Schumacher, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 May 2014 (Case R 1522/2013-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Compagnie générale des établissements Michelin and Continental Reifen Deutschland GmbH.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 5 May 2014 (Case R 1522/2013-4);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Compagnie générale des établissements Michelin;

               3.

               Orders Continental Reifen Deutschland GmbH to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.


title: Case C-337/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 20 June 2013 — Almos Agrárkülkereskedelmi Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Észak-alföldi Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága

text:
               19.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 304/4

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 20 June 2013 — Almos Agrárkülkereskedelmi Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Észak-alföldi Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága
   (Case C-337/13)
   2013/C 304/06
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Kúria

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Almos Agrárkülkereskedelmi Kft.

      Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Észak-alföldi Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Paragraph 77(1) and (2) of the általános forgalmi adóról szóló 2007. évi CXXVII. törvény (Law CXXVII of 2007 on value added tax), in force until 31 December 2010 consistent with the provisions of Article 90(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (‘VAT Directive’); does the national VAT law cover all the cases of possible reduction of the taxable amount provided for in the VAT Directive?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is no, is the taxable person entitled, in the absence of national legislation, to reduce the taxable amount, on the basis of the principles of tax neutrality and proportionality, and in the light of Article 90(1) of the VAT Directive, where it receives no consideration on completion of a transaction?

               3.

               If Article 90(1) has direct effect, under what circumstances can [the taxable person] reduce the taxable amount? Is it sufficient to issue an amending invoice and send it to the purchaser or is it necessary, in addition, to demonstrate that, in fact, property in or possession of the goods has been recovered?

               4.

               If the answer to the third question is no, is it obligatory under Community law to compensate the taxable person for the damage arising from the fact that the Member State did not fulfil its obligations as to harmonisation and, as a result, it was not possible for the taxable person to reduce its taxable amount.

               5.

               May Article 90(2) be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of total or partial non-payment, the Member States have the possibility of not applying a reduction in the taxable amount. If so, is an express prohibition in the Member State’s legislation necessary or does the absence of any rule have the same legal effect.

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case C-189/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Taxation — VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 306 to 310 — Special scheme for travel agents — Discrepancies between language versions — National legislation providing for the application of the special scheme to persons other than travellers — Concepts of ‘traveller’ and ‘customer’ — Exclusion from the special scheme of certain sales to the public — Mention in the invoice of an amount of deductible VAT not related to the input tax due or paid — Overall determination of the taxable amount for a given period — Not compatible)

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/4

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-189/11) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 306 to 310 - Special scheme for travel agents - Discrepancies between language versions - National legislation providing for the application of the special scheme to persons other than travellers - Concepts of ‘traveller’ and ‘customer’ - Exclusion from the special scheme of certain sales to the public - Mention in the invoice of an amount of deductible VAT not related to the input tax due or paid - Overall determination of the taxable amount for a given period - Not compatible)
   2013/C 344/03
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Lozano Palacios and C. Soulay, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Centeno Huerta, Agent)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, T. Müller and J. Očková, Agents), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and J.-S. Pilczer, Agents), Republic of Poland (represented by: A. Kraińska, A. Kramarczyk, M. Szpunar and B. Majczyna, Agents), Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes and R. Laires, Agents), Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski and M. Pere, Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 73, 168, 169, 226 and 306 to 310 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Special scheme for travel agents

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that

                           —

                           by excluding from the special scheme for travel agents sales to the public, by retail agents acting in their own name, of travel services organised by wholesale agents;

                           —

                           by authorising travel agents, in certain circumstances, to charge in the invoice an overall amount of value added tax that is not related to the value added tax actually charged to the customer, and by authorising the customer, where he is a taxable person, to deduct this overall amount from the value added tax payable; and

                           —

                           by authorising travel agencies, in so far as they benefit from the special scheme, to make an overall determination of the taxable amount for each tax period,

                     the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 168, 226 and 306 to 310 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear one quarter of its costs;

               4.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs and to pay three-quarters of the costs of the European Commission;

               5.

               Orders the Czech Republic, the French Republic, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic and the Republic of Finland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 186, 25.6.2011.


title: Case C-423/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 25 July 2013 — UAB ‘Vilniaus energija’ v Lietuvos metrologijos inspekcijos Vilniaus apskrities skyrius

text:
               19.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 304/5

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 25 July 2013 — UAB ‘Vilniaus energija’ v Lietuvos metrologijos inspekcijos Vilniaus apskrities skyrius
   (Case C-423/13)
   2013/C 304/09
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Referring court

   Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Claimant: UAB ‘Vilniaus energija’

      Defendant: Lietuvos metrologijos inspekcijos Vilniaus apskrities skyrius

      Question referred

   Must Article 34 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and/or Directive 2004/22/EC (1) be interpreted as prohibiting a national regulation and practice under which a hot-water meter which satisfies all of the requirements of Directive 2004/22/EC and is connected to a remote (telemetric) data-transmission device is regarded as being a measuring system and by reason of that fact that hot-water meter cannot be used as intended until a metrological verification has been carried out on that meter and that remote (telemetric) data-transmission device as together constituting a measuring system?

      (1)  Directive 2004/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on measuring instruments (OJ L 135, p. 1).


title: Case T-352/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 January 2009 — Commission v Rednap (Arbitration clause — Contracts concluded in the context of the fourth framework programme of activities in the fields of research and technological development and demonstration — Rise and Healthline projects — Non-compliance of part of the declared expenditure with the contractual provisions — Repayment of part of the advances paid — Default proceedings)

text:
               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/24

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 January 2009 — Commission v Rednap
   (Case T-352/07) (1)

   (Arbitration clause - Contracts concluded in the context of the fourth framework programme of activities in the fields of research and technological development and demonstration - Rise and Healthline projects - Non-compliance of part of the declared expenditure with the contractual provisions - Repayment of part of the advances paid - Default proceedings)
   (2009/C 55/43)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and J. Enegren, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Rednap AB (Malmö, Sweden)
   Re:
   Action brought by the Commission under Article 238 EC seeking repayment of part of the advances paid by the Community under the contracts DE 3010 (DE) Rise and HC 4007 (HC) Healthline, and payment of default interest
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               orders Rednap AB to repay to the Commission the sum of EUR 334 375,49;

               2.

               orders Rednap to pay to the Commission default interest on the sum of EUR 219 125,22 from 1 June 2002 at the statutory rate under Greek law until the debt is totally discharged, which rate may not, however, as from 1 August 2007, exceed 11,75 % per annum;

               3.

               orders Rednap to pay to the Commission default interest on the sum of EUR 115 250,27 from 31 May 2002 at the statutory rate under Greek law until the debt is totally discharged, which rate may not, however, as from 1 August 2007, exceed 11,75 % per annum;

               4.

               orders Rednap to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.


No C 180/26              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     22 . 6 . 96
Appeal brought on 7 May 1996 by C. Williams against the                 1 . Are Articles 59 and 60 of the Treaty establishing the
judgment delivered on 7 March 1996 by the Fifth Chamber                     EEC to be interpreted as precluding rules under which
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                  reimbursement of the cost of benefits is subject to
in Case T-146/94 between C. Williams and the Court of                       authorization from the insured person's social security
                                Auditors                                    institution if the benefits are provided in a Member State
                          Case C- 1 5 6/96 P                                other than the State in which that person resides ?
                            ( 96/C 180/59 )
                                                                        2 . Is the answer to the first question any different if the aim
                                                                            of the rules is to maintain a balanced medical and
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 7 March 1996
                                                                            hospital service accessible to everybody in a given
by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                            region ?
European Communities in Case T-146/94 between C.
Williams and the Court of Auditors was brought before the
 Court of Justice of the European Communities on 7 May
 1996 by C. Williams, represented by Eric Boigelot, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis
Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim .
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-3 27/93 ( )
The appellant claims that the Court should :                                                      ( 96/C 180/61 )
 1 , declare the appeal admissible and well founded;                    By order of 29 March 1996 , the President of the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
2 , consequently :                                                      from the register of Case C-327/93 ( reference for a
     ( a ) annul in its entirety the judgment delivered;                preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice, Queen's
                                                                        Bench Division ): The Queen v . Secretary of State for the
     ( b ) itself determine the case and, adjudicating on his           National Heritage, ex parte: ( 1 ) Continental Television
           initial application , annul the decision of 24 January       BVio, ( 2 ) Continental Television pic and ( 3 ) Mark Roy
                                                                        Garner .
           1994 , notified by bailiff service on the same day,
           and, in so far as may be necessary, annul the
           decision of 23 January 1994 implicitly rejecting the         (') OJ No C 211 , 5 . 8 . 1993 .
           complaint submitted by the appellant on
           23 September 1993 under Article 90 ( 2 ) of the Staff
           Regulations;
     ( c ) order the Court of Auditors to pay the costs of the
           appeal and of the proceedings at first instance .                  Removal from the register of Case C-120/94 ( 1 )
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                   ( 96/C 180/62 )
Infringement of Community law. The appellant maintains                  By order of 19 March 1996 , the President of the Court of
the pleas and claims advanced by him in the proceedings                 Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
before the Court of First Instance ( M.                                 from the register of Case C-120/94 : Commission of the
                                                                        European Communities v. Hellenic Republic .
0 ) OJ No C 146 , 28 . 5 . 1994 , p . 12 .
                                                                        (') OJ No C 174 , 25 . 6 . 1994 .
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de
Cassation of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg by judgment
of that court of 25 April 1996 in the case of Raymond Kohll                   Removal from the register of Case C-145/94 ( 1 )
                 v . Union des Caisses de Maladie                                                 ( 96/C 180/63 )
                          ( Case C-158/96 )
                            ( 96/C 180/60 )                             By order of 13 March 1996 , the President of the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                        from the register of Case C-145/94 ( reference for a
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Penal No 2 de
European Communities by a judgment of the Cour de
                                                                        Lleida ): criminal proceedings against José Antonio Alonso
Cassation ( Court of Cassation ) of the Grand Duchy of                  Rubio .
Luxembourg of 25 April 1996 , which was received at the
Court Registry on 9 May 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in
the case of Raymond Kohll v. Union des Caisses de Maladie               (') OJ No C 202 , 23 . 7. 1994 .
( Union of Health Insurance Funds ) on the following
questions :


title: Case C-164/06: Order of the President of the Court of 29 November 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Roma — Italie) — Nissan Italia Srl v Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Roma 3

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/25

         Order of the President of the Court of 29 November 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Roma — Italie) — Nissan Italia Srl v Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Roma 3
   (Case C-164/06) (1)

   (2006/C 331/53)

      Language of the case: Italian

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

      (1)   OJ C 154, 1.7.2006.


2.6.2001              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 161/27
      Removal from the Register of Case T-351/00 (1)                           Removal from the Register of Case T-362/00 (1)
                        (2001/C 161/57)                                                          (2001/C 161/58)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
By order of 6 March 2001, the President of the First Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities               By order of 15 February 2001, the President of the Second
has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-351/00,              Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Hubert Huygens v Commission of the European Communities.                 Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of
                                                                         Case T-362/00, Adolfo Kind v Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities.
(1) OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 45 of 10.2.2001.


title: Case C-519/03: Action brought on 12 December 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
7.2.2004                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                             C 35/5
Pleas in law and main arguments                                             Communities, represented by D. Martin, acting as Agent, with
                                                                            an address for service in Luxembourg.
The Commission considers that the fact that the contract at
issue in this case falls within the scope of Council Directive              The Commission of the European Communities claims that
92/50/EEC (1) as amended by European Parliament and Council                 the Court should:
Directive 97/52/EC (2) does not preclude the application of
the principle enunciated in Telaustria (3) deriving from the                1.    declare that, by adopting Article 7(2) and the fifth
fundamental freedoms laid down in the Treaty and the                              subparagraph of Article 19 of the Law of 12 February
application of general principles which are given specific                        1999 setting up parental leave and leave for family
expression in those fundamental freedoms. The obligation on                       reasons, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to
Member States to comply with general principles is confirmed,                     fulfil its obligations under Clause 2(1) of Part II of the
within the Directive itself by Article 3(2) (see above), a                        Annex to Council Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 on
general obligation on contracting authorities to avoid all                        the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by
discrimination between service providers. That obligation is                      UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC (1), as regards:
incumbent on the Irish authorities in respect of Annex 1B
services just as much as in respect of Annex 1A services.                         —     the substitution of maternity leave for parental leave,
                                                                                and
It is submitted that the Commission’s analysis is the only one
which can be regarded as consistent with the internal market                      —     the date from which individual rights to parental
logic of the Treaty. The Court’s case-law clearly holds that the                        leave are granted;
Treaty provisions on the freedoms of establishment and service              2.    order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
provision impose obligations on Member States in respect of
the award of public contracts outside the scope of the
directives. This applies to types of contracts (such as service
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
concessions) that are not specifically covered and also to
contracts of types which are covered but where the value falls
below the thresholds set in the various directives.                         1. Maternity leave has a completely different purpose from
                                                                            that of parental leave. Moreover, Clause 2(1) of the framework
That being so, the Commission submits that it would run                     agreement expressly provides that parental leave is an individ-
directly counter to the logic of the internal market if, whereas            ual right to leave of at least three months’ duration. The
Community law requires an appropriate level of advertising in               obligatory termination of parental leave when maternity leave
such situations even if the contract falls outside the scope of             begins is therefore not compatible with that provision of the
the directives because of its structure or value, it were                   Annex to Directive 96/34. The woman whose maternity leave
nevertheless open to Member States not to advertise in any                  begins during her parental leave must, in the light of the
way contracts (whose value is above the financial thresholds)               individual right to parental leave of at least three months
solely on the grounds that the services to which they relate fall           conferred on her by Clause 2(1) of the framework agreement,
within the scope of Annex 1B of the Directive.                              be able to defer the portion of her parental leave which she
                                                                            has not been able to take because of her maternity leave.
                                                                            2. By limiting its application to children born or adopted
(1) Directive of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of               after 31 December 1998, the Luxembourg authorities have
    procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ L 209,         added a condition which is not authorised by the Directive.
    24.07.1992, p. 1).
(2) Directive of 13 October 1997 amending Directives 92/50/
    EEC, 93/36/EEC and 93/37/EEC concerning the coordination of             (1) OJ L 145 of 19.06.1996, p. 4.
    procedures for the award of public service contracts, public supply
    contracts and public works contracts respectively (OJ L 328,
    28.11.1997, p. 1).
(3) Case C-324/98, Telaustria Verlags GmbH v Telekom Austria AG,
    ECR[2000], p.I-10745.
                                                                            Action brought on 28 January 2004 by the Commission
                                                                            of the European Communities against the Council of the
                                                                                European Union
Action brought on 12 December 2003 by the Commission                                                  (Case C-27/04)
of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy
                         of Luxembourg                                                                (2004/C 35/09)
                         (Case C-519/03)
                          (2004/C 35/08)                                    An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                            brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                            ties on 28 January 2004 by the Commission of the European
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was                         Communities, represented by M. Petite, A. van Solinge and
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-                P. Aalto, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
ties on 12 December 2003 by the Commission of the European                  Luxembourg.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 February 2001 in Case T-2/00: N v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Social security — Accident insurance — Article 73 of the Staff Regulations — Definition of "accident" — HIV infection)

text:
C 150/24               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    19.5.2001
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              G. Marenco and L. Guérin and, subsequently, Mr Marenco and
                                                                         F. Siredey-Garnier) — application for annulment of the
                      of 14 February 2001                                Commission decision of 8 March 1999 rejecting a complaint
                                                                         by the applicant based on Article 85 of the EC Treaty
                                                                         (now Article 81 EC) and on Commission Regulation (EC)
in Case T-62/99: Société de distribution de mécaniques et
                                                                         No 1475/95 of 28 June 1995 on the application of
d’automobiles (Sodima) v Commission of the European
                                                                         Article 85(3) of the Treaty to certain categories of motor
                         Communities (1)                                 vehicle distribution and servicing agreements (OJ 1995 L 145,
                                                                         p. 25) — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),
(Competition — Distribution of motor vehicles — Rejection                composed of J. Pirrung, President, and A. Potocki and
           of a complaint — Action for annulment)                        A.W.H. Meij, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for
                                                                         the Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 February 2001, in
                         (2001/C 150/45)                                 which it:
                                                                         1.    Dismisses the application.
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
In Case T-62/99, Société de distribution de mécaniques et
d’automobiles (Sodima), a company in judicial liquidation,
established in Istres (France), represented by J.-C. Fourgoux,           (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
avocat, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: initially
G. Marenco and L. Guérin and, subsequently, Mr Marenco and
F. Siredey-Garnier) — application for annulment of the
Commission decision of 5 January 1999 rejecting a complaint
by the applicant based on Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now
Article 81 EC) — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),
composed of J. Pirrung, President, and A. Potocki and
A.W.H. Meij, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 February 2001, in                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
which it:
                                                                                of 13 February 2001
1.    Dismisses the application.
2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.                             in Case T-2/00: N v Commission of the European Com-
                                                                                munities (1)
(1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.
                                                                         (Officials — Social security — Accident insurance —
                                                                         Article 73 of the Staff Regulations — Definition of ‘accident’
                                                                                — HIV infection)
                                                                                (2001/C 150/47)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                      of 14 February 2001
in Case T-115/99: Système européen promotion (SEP)                       In Case T-2/00: N, an official of the Commission of the
   SARL v Commission of the European Communities (1)                     European Communities, residing in Brussels, represented by
                                                                         J.-L. Dupont and M.-A. Lucas, avocats, with an address for
                                                                         service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European
(Competition — Distribution of motor vehicles — Rejection
                                                                         Communities (Agents: G. Valsesia and J. Currall) — application
           of a complaint — Action for annulment)
                                                                         for annulment of the refusal of the Commission to recognise
                                                                         as an accident, within the meaning of Article 73 of the Staff
                         (2001/C 150/46)                                 Regulations of the officials of the European Communities and
                                                                         Article 2 of the Rules on protection against the risk of
                                                                         occupational disease and of accident, infection of the applicant
                   (Language of the case: French)                        by the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and a claim for
                                                                         damages — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber),
In Case T-115/99, Système européen promotion (SEP) SARL,                 composed of P. Lindh, President, R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas and
established in Saint- Vit (France), represented by J.-C. Fourgoux,       J.D. Cooke, Judges; Blanca Pastor, Principal Administrator,
avocat, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against               for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 13 February 2001, in
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: initially                which it:
 ---pagebreak--- 19.5.2001               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 150/25
1.    dismisses the application;                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
2.    orders each of the parties to bear its own costs.                                              of 13 March 2001
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.00.                                                     in Case T-116/00: Benthe Hørbye-Möller v Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities (1)
                                                                            (Officials — Promotion — Examine of comparative merits
                                                                                — Action for annulment)
                                                                                (2001/C 150/49)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                        of 31 January 2001
                                                                            In Case T-116/00: Benthe Hørbye-Möller, an official of the
in Case T-24/00: The Sunrider Corporation v Office for                      Commission of the European Communities, residing in Igel
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and                       (Germany), represented by Louis Tinti, avocat, with an address
                        Designs) (OHIM) (1)                                 for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the Euro-
                                                                            pean Communities (Agent: C. Berardis-Kayser) — application
(Community trade mark — Term VITALITE — Absolute                            for annulment of the appointing authority’s decision not to
ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No                  promote the applicant to Grade B2 in the 1999 promotions
                                40/94)                                      procedure — the Court of First Instance (Single Judge:
                                                                            J.D. Cooke); D. Christensen, for the Registrar, gave a judgment
                          (2001/C 150/48)                                   on 13 March 2001, in which it:
                                                                            1.    dismisses the application;
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                            2.    orders each of the parties to bear its own costs.
In Case T-24/00: The Sunrider Corporation, having its regis-
tered office in Torrance, California, United States of America,             (1) OJ C 192 of 8.7.00.
represented by A. Kockläuner, Rechtsanwalt, Munich, with
an address for service in Luxembourg, against Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: C. Rusconi and G. Humphreys) —
application brought against the decision of the Second Board
of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 26 November 1999
(Case R 137/1999-2) concerning the registration of the term                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
VITALITE as a Community trade mark — the Court of First
Instance (Second Chamber), composed of: J. Pirrung, President,                                     of 22 February 2001
A. Potocki and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; J. Palacio González,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
31 January 2001, in which it:                                               in Case T-144/00: Daniela Tirelli v European Parliament (1)
1.    Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office       (Officials — Upgrading — Secretarial allowances —
      for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and             Article 46 of the Staff Regulations — Transfer between
      Designs) of 26 November 1999 (Case R 137/1999-2) in                                    institutions — Inadmissibility)
      respect of the following goods: ‘food for babies’ and ‘mineral
      and aerated waters’;                                                                            (2001/C 150/50)
2.    Dismisses the application as to the remainder;
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
3.    Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay one half
      of the defendant’s costs; orders the defendant to bear the other
      half of its own costs.                                                In Case T-144/00: Daniela Tirelli, official of the European
                                                                            Parliament, residing in Dahlem (Luxembourg), represented by
                                                                            G. Vogel and F. Burg, avocats, with an address for service in
(1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.00.                                                    Luxembourg, against European Parliament (Agents: H. von
                                                                            Hertzen and Y. Pantalis) — application, first, for the annulment
                                                                            of the decision of the Parliament refusing to grant the
                                                                            secretarial allowance to the applicant and, secondly, seeking


title: Case T-306/15: Action brought on 9 June 2015 — KV v EACEA

text:
               24.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/39

         Action brought on 9 June 2015 — KV v EACEA
   (Case T-306/15)
   (2015/C 279/49)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: KV (Athens, Greece) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul decision EACEA/MH/mvh/OKRAPF15D006233 of the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA), dated 10 April 2014, on the financing of the agreement 518072-LLP-1-2011-1-DE-COMENIUS-CNW/2011-3848 with regard to the NEST — ‘Network for Staff and Teachers in Childcare Services’ Project;

               —

               order the defendant to bear its own costs and the costs incurred by the applicants in the current proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a first manifest error of assessment.

                           —

                           The contested decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment when distinguishing between ‘usual’ and ‘additional’ service provided by the applicants’ partners/shareholders during the project in question, as the Agency manifestly disregarded the nature of the services provided by the partners, the clear will of the applicant’s general assembly to address and regulate such services as it considered them to constitute a distinct category that was not falling under the provisions of the Statutes, and the fact that the services provided by the partners in the project in question met all the requirements of the aforementioned decision of the general assembly.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a second manifest error of assessment

                           —

                           The contested decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment as regards the reasoning of the decision relating to the link of subordination between the partners/shareholders and the applicant, the existence of which was clearly established in the evidence submitted to the Agency.


title: Case T-366/14: Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2015 — August Storck v OHIM — (2good) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark 2good — Mark consisting of an advertising slogan — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               23.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 389/49

         Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2015 — August Storck v OHIM — (2good)
   (Case T-366/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark 2good - Mark consisting of an advertising slogan - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 389/54)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: August Storck KG (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: I. Rohr, A. C. Richter, P. Goldenbaum and T. Melchert, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 February 2014 (Case R 996/2013-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign 2good as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders August Storck KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 253, 4.8.2014.


title: Case C-27/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos apeliacinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 19 January 2017 — AB ‘flyLAL-Lithuanian Airlines’, in liquidation, v Starptautiskā lidosta ‘Rīga’ VAS, ‘Air Baltic Corporation A/S’

text:
               3.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/35

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos apeliacinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 19 January 2017 — AB ‘flyLAL-Lithuanian Airlines’, in liquidation, v Starptautiskā lidosta ‘Rīga’ VAS, ‘Air Baltic Corporation A/S’
   (Case C-27/17)
   (2017/C 104/50)
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Referring court

   Lietuvos apeliacinis teismas

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: AB ‘flyLAL-Lithuanian Airlines’, in liquidation

      Defendants: Starptautiskā lidosta ‘Rīga’ VAS, ‘Air Baltic Corporation A/S’

      Questions referred

               1.

               In the circumstances of the present case, is the notion ‘place where the harmful event occurred’ in Article 5(3) of the Brussels I Regulation (1) to be understood as meaning the place of conclusion of the defendants’ unlawful agreement infringing Article 82(c) of the Treaty establishing the European Community (Article 102(c) TFEU), or the place of commission of acts by which the financial benefit obtained from that agreement was exploited, by means of predatory pricing (cross-subsidisation) when competing with the applicant in the same relevant markets?

               2.

               In the present case, can the damage (loss of income) suffered by the applicant on account of the specified unlawful acts of the defendants be regarded as damage for the purpose of Article 5(3) of the Brussels I Regulation?

               3.

               Are the operations of the branch of Air Baltic Corporation in the Republic of Lithuania, in the circumstances of the present case, to be regarded as operations of a branch within the meaning of Article 5(5) of the Brussels I Regulation?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).