title: Case T-146/08: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 October 2009 — Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll v OHIM — Redrock Construction (REDROCK) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark REDROCK — Earlier national word mark Rock — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 [now, Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/44

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 October 2009 — Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll v OHIM — Redrock Construction (REDROCK)
   (Case T-146/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark REDROCK - Earlier national word mark Rock - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 [now, Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2009/C 282/84
   Language of the case: Czech

      Parties

      Applicant: Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll GmbH & Co. OHG (Gladbeck, Germany) (represented by: S. Beckmann, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: K. Dvořáková and O. Montalto, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Redrock Construction s.r.o. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: D. Krofta, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 February 2008 (Case R 506/2007-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll GmbH & Co. OHG and Redrock Construction s.r.o.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll GmbH & Co. OHG to bear its own costs and to pay three quarters of the costs incurred by Redrock Construction s.r.o.

               3.

               Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to bear its own costs and to pay one quarter of the costs incurred by Redrock Construction s.r.o.

      (1)  OJ C 158, OF 21.6.2008.


title: Case T-834/16: Action brought on 29 November 2016 — QC v European Council

text:
               6.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/36

         Action brought on 29 November 2016 — QC v European Council
   (Case T-834/16)
   (2017/C 038/49)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: QC (Lesbos, Greece) (represented by: X. Ladis, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Council

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               Annul the ‘EU — Turkey Statement’ of 18 March 2016 which was made public on the same date by means of Press Release 144/16;

               —

               to declare invalid all its conclusions;

               —

               apply the expedited procedure;·

               —

               declare the immediate suspension of the Agreement.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law:

               1.

               The first plea in law is based on the argument that that Agreement constitutes an infringement of essential procedural requirements and substantive law, and also an abuse of power.

               2.

               The second plea in law is based on the official and reliable reports of Amnesty International, which confirm the abovementioned infringement and the humanitarian crisis that the Agreement has brought about.

                           —

                           The implementation of the Agreement, which the applicant considers to be in reality an international treaty, has caused a systematic failure to apply rules relating to refuges and the direct infringement of the Geneva Convention.

               3.

               The third plea in law is based on the information provided by the Members of the European Parliament constituting the Confederal Group of the European United Left.

                           —

                           The Agreement commits and continues to commit a ‘serious and continuing infringement’ of the values of the European Union.

               4.

               The fourth plea in law is based on the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights.

                           —

                           The action relies further on the internationally recognised fact that Turkey is not a ‘safe country’, given the use of torture and mass trials that are in breach of human rights.

               5.

               The fifth plea in law is based on the FEU Treaty.

                           —

                           It is submitted in the action that what is improperly called a Statement is a manifest infringement of Part Five, Title V of the FEU Treaty on ‘International Agreements’.

               6.

               The sixth plea in law is based on the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

                           —

                           The Agreement is also contrary to international human rights law, including the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, having regard to human dignity and the expressly forbidden ‘mass returns’. Specifically, the action draws attention to the unconscious infringement of or conscious failure to implement the directives, expressly mentioned, on the required response of the EU in the face of the ‘mass influx’ of people to its borders, in particular when those people are vulnerable, and of the directives that regulate the procedure for ensuring international protection and the right of asylum.

               7.

               The seventh plea in law is based on documents from professional and other credible bodies.

                           —

                           The action also draws attention to the fact that the EU, by means of the agreement at issue, has caused, both in Greece and in Turkey, the formation of an enormous mass of people, who live in conditions of degradation and are completely without rights, where they have not already suffered mistreatment from the security forces.

                           —

                           Last, the action is based on the claim that that the EU, faced with a human and social catastrophe, has manifestly failed to fulfil its legal, social and international obligations.


title: Case C-534/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 30 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — Mehmet Arslan v Policie ČR, Krajské ředitelství policie Ústeckého kraje, odbor cizinecké policie (Area of freedom, security and justice — Directive 2008/115/EC — Common standards and procedures for returning illegally staying third-country nationals — Applicability to asylum seekers — Possibility of keeping a third-country national in detention after an application for asylum has been made)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/13

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 30 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — Mehmet Arslan v Policie ČR, Krajské ředitelství policie Ústeckého kraje, odbor cizinecké policie
   (Case C-534/11) (1)

   (Area of freedom, security and justice - Directive 2008/115/EC - Common standards and procedures for returning illegally staying third-country nationals - Applicability to asylum seekers - Possibility of keeping a third-country national in detention after an application for asylum has been made)
   2013/C 225/21
   Language of the case: Czech

      Referring court

   Nejvyšší správní soud

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Mehmet Arslan

      Defendant: Policie ČR, Krajské ředitelství policie Ústeckého kraje, odbor cizinecké policie

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) — Interpretation of Art. 2(1) in conjunction with recital 9 in the preamble to Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98) — Scope — Detention of a third-country national staying illegally on the territory of a Member State with a view to his removal where he has made an application for asylum within the meaning of Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status (OJ 2005 L 326, p. 13)

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 2(1) of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, read in conjunction with recital 9 in the preamble, must be interpreted as meaning that that directive does not apply to a third-country national who has applied for international protection within the meaning of Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status during the period from the making of the application to the adoption of the decision at first instance on that application or, as the case may be, until the outcome of any action brought against that decision is known.

               2.

               Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers and Directive 2005/85 do not preclude a third-country national who has applied for international protection within the meaning of Directive 2005/85 after having been detained under Article 15 of Directive 2008/115 from being kept in detention on the basis of a provision of national law, where it appears, after an assessment on a case-by-case basis of all the relevant circumstances, that the application was made solely to delay or jeopardise the enforcement of the return decision and that it is objectively necessary to maintain detention to prevent the person concerned from permanently evading his return.

      (1)  OJ C 65, 3.3.2012.


title: Case C-520/14: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 May 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Gemeente Borsele v Staatssecretaris van Financiën, Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Gemeente Borsele (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 2(1)(c) and 9(1) — Taxable persons — Economic activities — Definition — Transport of schoolchildren)

text:
               4.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/10

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 May 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Gemeente Borsele v Staatssecretaris van Financiën, Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Gemeente Borsele
   (Case C-520/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 2(1)(c) and 9(1) - Taxable persons - Economic activities - Definition - Transport of schoolchildren))
   (2016/C 243/08)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Gemeente Borsele, Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Defendants: Staatssecretaris van Financiën, Gemeente Borsele

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 9(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that a regional or local authority which provides a service for the transport of schoolchildren under conditions such as those described in the main proceedings does not carry out an economic activity and is not therefore a taxable person.

      (1)  OJ C 56, 16.2.2015.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 June 2003 in Case C-410/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesvergabeamt Wien): Fritsch, Chiari & Partner, Ziviltechniker GmbH, and Others v Autobahnen- und Schnellstraßen-Finanzierungs-AG (Asfinag) (Public procurement — Directive 89/665/EEC — Review procedures relating to the award of public supply and public works contracts — Article 1(3) — Persons to whom review procedures are accessible — Definition of "interest in obtaining a public supply contract")

text:
C 184/12                EN                            Official Journal of the European Union                                                 2.8.2003
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       Bundesvergabekontrollkommission established by the Bundesgesetz über
                                                                              die Vergabe von Aufträgen (Bundesvergabegesetz) (Austrian Federal
                                                                              Public Procurement Law) of 1997.
                           (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                              (1) OJ C 31 of 2.2.2002.
                           of 19 June 2003
in Case C-410/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Bundesvergabeamt Wien): Fritsch, Chiari & Partner,
Ziviltechniker GmbH, and Others v Autobahnen- und
         Schnellstraßen-Finanzierungs-AG (Asfinag) (1)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Public procurement — Directive 89/665/EEC — Review
procedures relating to the award of public supply and public                                              (Third Chamber)
works contracts — Article 1(3) — Persons to whom review
procedures are accessible — Definition of ‘interest in
                obtaining a public supply contract’)                                                      of 19 June 2003
                            (2003/C 184/21)                                   in Case C-420/01: Commission of the European Commu-
                                                                                nities v Italian Republic (1)
                    (Language of the case: German)                            (Failure to fulfil obligations — Free movement of goods —
                                                                              Articles 28 EC and 30 EC — Prohibition on the marketing
                                                                              of energy drinks containing caffeine in excess of a certain
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in     limit — Public health — Retention of a national provision
                      the European Court Reports)                                             incompatible with Community law)
                                                                                (2003/C 184/22)
In Case C-410/01: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
from the Bundesvergabeamt Wien (Austria) for a preliminary                                          (Language of the case: Italian)
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Fritsch, Chiari & Partner, Ziviltechniker GmbH, and Others and
Autobahnen- und Schnellstraßen-Finanzierungs-AG (Asfinag) —                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
on the interpretation of Article 1(3) of Council Directive 89/                                       the European Court Reports)
665/EEC of 21 December 1989, on the coordination of the
laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the
application of review procedures to the award of public supply
and public works contracts (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33), as                         In Case C-420/01, Commission of the European Communities
amended by Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992                        (Agent: H. van Lier and R. Amorosi) v Italian Republic (Agent:
relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of                   U. Leanza, assisted by Fiorilli): Application for a declaration
public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1) — the Court                    that, by applying to drinks produced and marketed in other
(Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the              Member States a rule prohibiting the marketing in Italy of
Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), V. Skouris, F. Macken and                 energy drinks containing caffeine in excess of a certain limit,
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General;                    without showing that that limit is necessary and proportionate
M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a              for the protection of public health, the Italian Republic has
judgment on 19 June 2003, the operative part of which is as                   failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 28 EC and 30 EC,
follows:                                                                      the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet,
                                                                              President of the Chamber, F. Macken (Rapporteur) and
                                                                              J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General;
Article 1(3) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989,             R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 June 2003, in
on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provi-        which it:
sions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of
public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Council
Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination              1.    Declares that, by applying to drinks produced and marketed in
of procedures for the award of public service contracts, precludes an               other Member States a rule prohibiting the marketing in Italy
undertaking which has participated in a public procurement procedure                of energy drinks containing caffeine in excess of a certain limit,
from being considered to have lost interest in obtaining that contract              without showing that that limit is necessary and proportionate
on the ground that, prior to making an application for a review                     for the protection of public health, the Italian Republic has
procedure, it has failed to appeal to a conciliation body, such as the              failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 28 EC and 30 EC;


title: Case T-250/04: Action brought on 21 June 2004 by Philippe Combescot against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               28.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/33

         Action brought on 21 June 2004 by Philippe Combescot against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-250/04)
   (2004/C 217/60)
   Language of the case: French
   An action was a brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 21 June 2004 against the Commission of the European Communities by Philippe Combescot, represented by Alberto Maritati and Viola Messa, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that Court of First Instance should:

               —

               declare illegal the decision rejecting his application to take part in the competition for appointment to the post of Head of Delegation in Colombia covered by the vacancy notice of 28 May 2003 (COM/091/03); accordingly, declare the entire competition procedure and the consequent decision making an appointment to the post to which it related void; recognise that Philippe Combescot has suffered damage to his image and professional reputation, and that the illegal decision excluding him from the competition has had serious adverse effects on the balance of his mind; and award him the sum of EUR 100 000.00 as compensation for damage.

         Pleas and main arguments adduced in support
   The applicant takes exception to the defendant's refusal to admit to the competition procedure his application for the vacant post of Head of Delegation for Colombia.
   In support, the applicant alleges:

               —

               infringement of the terms of the vacancy notice, in that the reason for which his application was purportedly refused (the fact that he had not had two years' experience as a Head of Unit) was not provided for in the said vacancy notice;

               —

               breach of the principle of non-discrimination: applications by other officials in circumstances similar to those of the applicant were admitted to the procedure;

               —

               defective statement of reasons and error of assessment, in that it was not considered that the applicant's role and the duties carried out by him, albeit under the formal title of Adviser resident in Guatemala, were B since he undertook tasks relating to the management of the Guatemala Delegation on the basis of full managerial and economic autonomy B equivalent to those of a Head of Unit.


title: Case C-512/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 25 September 2013 — X; other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

text:
               14.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 367/23

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 25 September 2013 — X; other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-512/13)
   2013/C 367/40
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant in cassation: X

      Other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Questions referred

               1.

               Can an indirect distinction on the basis of nationality or an impediment to the free movement of workers — requiring justification — be said to exist if the legislation of a Member State allows the tax-free reimbursement of extraterritorial expenses for incoming workers and a worker who, in the period prior to his employment in that Member State, lived outside that Member State at a distance of more than 150 kilometres from the border of that Member State may, without the provision of further proof, be granted tax-free reimbursement of expenses calculated on a flat-rate basis, even if that amount exceeds the extraterritorial expenses actually incurred, whereas, in the case of a worker who, during that period, lived within a shorter distance of that Member State, the extent of the tax-free reimbursement is limited to the demonstrable actual amount of the extraterritorial expenses?

               2.

               If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative: is the relevant Netherlands rule, as laid down in the 1965 Uitvoeringsbesluit loonbelasting (Implementing Decision concerning wages tax), based on overriding reasons in the public interest?

               3.

               If Question 2 is also to be answered in the affirmative: does the 150-kilometre criterion in that rule go further than is necessary to attain the objective pursued?


title: Case T-214/07: Judgment of the General Court of 31 March 2011 — Greece v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — Expenditure excluded from Community financing — Arable crops — Specific measures for certain agricultural products in favour of the smaller Aegean islands)

text:
               14.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 31 March 2011 — Greece v Commission
   (Case T-214/07) (1)

   (EAGGF - Guarantee Section - Expenditure excluded from Community financing - Arable crops - Specific measures for certain agricultural products in favour of the smaller Aegean islands)
   2011/C 145/36
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: V. Kontolaimos and I. Chalikias, Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Tserepa-Lacombe, Agent and N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2007/243/EC of 18 April 2007 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2007 L 106, p. 55).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 199, 25.8.2007.


title: Case C-208/08 P: Appeal brought on 20 May 2008 by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) against the judgment delivered on 28 February 2008 by the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) in Case T-215/06, American Clothing Associates v OHIM

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/22

         Appeal brought on 20 May 2008 by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) against the judgment delivered on 28 February 2008 by the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) in Case T-215/06, American Clothing Associates v OHIM
   (Case C-208/08 P)
   (2008/C 209/32)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

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

      Other party to the proceedings: American Clothing Associates SA
   Form of order sought

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 28 February 2008 in Case T-215/06 in so far as it held that Article 7(1)(h) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation (1) does not apply to marks designating services;

               —

               order American Clothing Associates SA to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appellant raises a single plea in support of its appeal, alleging infringement of Article 7(1)(h) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation, read in conjunction with Article 6 ter of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property of 20 March 1883, as revised and amended (2). Contrary to what the Court of First Instance held, that Article 6 ter, to which Article 7(1)(h) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation refers, applies without distinction to marks designating goods and marks designating services.
   In this respect, the appellant states, first, that the Court of First Instance erred in law in interpreting Article 6 ter of the Paris Convention literally and out of context, without taking account of the spirit of that provision and of the Convention in general, which, since its review carried out by the Lisbon Act of 31 October 1958, requires extending all the provisions relating to trade marks to service marks, with the exception of certain provisions which are not applicable in the present case.
   The appellant claims, second, that the Community legislature itself contests that it is necessary to draw a distinction between trade marks for goods and trade marks for services since Article 29 of the Community Trade Mark Regulation, which transposes Article 4 A of the Paris Convention, relating to rights of priority, mentions explicitly the services covered by a trade mark application.
   The appellant observes third that, contrary to what the Court of First Instance held in the judgment under appeal, Article 16 of the Trademark Law Treaty, adopted at Geneva on 27 October 1994, must be interpreted as meaning that it clarifies the field of application of the Paris Convention, without however extending its field of application to situations that that convention excludes in its current wording.
   Lastly, the appellant states that, in a recent judgment, the Court of Justice itself admitted, at least implicitly, that the Paris Convention requires equal treatment as between trade marks for goods and trade marks for services.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

      (2)  United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 828, No 11847, p. 108.


C 109/40              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                4.5.2002
       Removal from the register of Case C-234/00 (1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-31/01 (1)
                        (2002/C 109/72)                                                      (2002/C 109/75)
By order of 22 January 2002 the President of the Court of             By order of 15 January 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal               Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-234/00 (Reference for a preliminary       from the register of Case C-31/01: Commission of the
ruling by the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s        European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain
Bench Division (Crown Office)): The Queen v Minister of               and Northern Ireland.
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte: F. Machin & Sons
Ltd.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 79 of 10.3.2001.
(1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-41/01 (1)
      Removal from the register of Case C-239/00 P (1)
                                                                                (2002/C 109/76)
                        (2002/C 109/73)
                                                                      By order of 23 November 2001 the President of the Court of
                                                                      Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
By order of 7 February 2002 the President of the Court of             from the register of Case C-41/01: Commission of the
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal               European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
from the register of Case C-239/00 P: Aldo Kuijer v Council of
the European Union.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 79 of 10.3.2001.
(1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-85/01 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case C-449/00 (1)
                                                                                (2002/C 109/77)
                        (2002/C 109/74)
                                                                      By order of 5 February 2002 the President of the Court of
By order of 7 December 2001 the President of the Court of             Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal               from the register of Case C-85/01: Commission of the
from the register of Case C-449/00: Commission of the                 European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain
European Communities v French Republic.                               and Northern Ireland.
(1) OJ C 45 of 10.2.2001.                                             (1) OJ C 134 of 5.5.2001.


21.10.2000            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 302/23
       Removal from the register of Case C-33/00 (1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-231/99 (1)
                       (2000/C 302/52)                                                       (2000/C 302/56)
By order of 26 June 2000 the President of the Court of Justice      By order of 6 July 2000 the President of the Court of Justice of
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from            the European Communities has ordered the removal from the
the register of Case C-33/00: Commission of the European            register of Case C-231/99: Commission of the European
Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.                                   Communities v Republic of Austria.
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.                                           (1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-34/00 (1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-495/99 (1)
                       (2000/C 302/53)                                                       (2000/C 302/57)
By order of 26 June 2000 the President of the Court of Justice      By order of 6 July 2000 the President of the Court of Justice of
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from            the European Communities has ordered the removal from the
the register of Case C-34/00: Commission of the European            register of Case C-495/99: Commission of the European
Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.                                   Communities v French Republic.
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.                                           (1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-342/99 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-432/97 (1)
                       (2000/C 302/54)                                                       (2000/C 302/58)
By order of 28 June 2000 the President of the Court of Justice      By order of 7 July 2000, the President of the Fifth Chamber of
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from            the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered
the register of Case C-342/99 (reference for a preliminary          the removal from the register of Case C-432/97: Commission
ruling from Landesgericht Korneuburg): New Yorker S.H.K.            of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
Jeans GmbH v SIMPLEX-1000ST.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 55 of 20.2.1998.
(1) OJ C 352 of 4.12.1999.
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case C-271/99 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case   C-504/99 (1)
                                                                                (2000/C 302/59)
                       (2000/C 302/55)
                                                                    By order of 11 July 2000, the President of the Sixth Chamber
By order of 28 June 2000 the President of the Court of Justice      of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from            ordered the removal from the register of Case C-271/99:
the register of Case C-504/99 Commission of the European            Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of
Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.                                   Belgium.
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.                                           (1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.


title: Case C-578/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 6 December 2010 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v L.A.C. van Putten

text:
               5.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 6 December 2010 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v L.A.C. van Putten
   (Case C-578/10)
   2011/C 72/11
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applellant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Other party: L.A.C. van Putten

      Question referred

   In the light of Article 18 EC (now Article 21 TFEU), does Community law govern a situation in which a Member State levies a tax on the first use on the road network in its territory of a vehicle which is registered in another Member State, has been borrowed from a resident of that other Member State and has been driven by a resident of the first Member State in the territory of that Member State?


title: Case C-248/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 2 May 2016 — Austria Asphalt GmbH & Co OG v Bundeskartellanwalt

text:
               18.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/27

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 2 May 2016 — Austria Asphalt GmbH & Co OG v Bundeskartellanwalt
   (Case C-248/16)
   (2016/C 260/34)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Austria Asphalt GmbH & Co OG

      Defendant: Bundeskartellanwalt

      Question referred

   Must Article 3(1)(b) and Article 3(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (‘the Merger Regulation’) be interpreted to mean that a move from sole control to joint control of an existing undertaking, in circumstances where the undertaking previously having sole control becomes an undertaking exercising joint control, constitutes a concentration only where the controlled undertaking has on a lasting basis all the functions of an autonomous entity?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (the EC Merger Regulation) (OJ 2004 L 24, p. 1).


title: Case C-675/15 P: Appeal brought on 15 December 2015 by The Tea Board against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 2 October 2015 in Case T-626/13: The Tea Board v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               21.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/15

         Appeal brought on 15 December 2015 by The Tea Board against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 2 October 2015 in Case T-626/13: The Tea Board v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-675/15 P)
   (2016/C 106/17)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: The Tea Board (represented by: M.C. Maier, A. Nordemann, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Delta Lingerie

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested judgment of the General Court of 2 October 2015 in Case T-626/13 as far as the General Court dismissed the action with respect to the following services covered by the mark applied for in Classes 35 and 38:

                  Business consultancy with regard to the creation and operation of retail outlets and central purchasing agencies for retailing and advertising purposes; Sales promotion (for others), advertising, business management, business administration, on-line advertising on a computer network, distribution of advertising material (leaflets, flyers, free newspapers, samples), arranging newspaper subscriptions for others; Business information or enquiries; organization of events and exhibitions for commercial or advertising purposes, advertising management, rental of advertising space, radio and television advertising, advertising sponsorship. (Class 35)

                  Telecommunications, computer-aided transmission of messages and images, interactive television broadcasting services relating to the presentation of products, communications by computer terminals, communications (transmissions) on the open and closed world wide web. (Class 38)

               —

               if necessary, remit the case back to the General Court,

               —

               order the Defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               The Action seeks the partial annulment of the judgment of the General Court in Case T-626/13 of 2 October 2015 in so far as the General Court dismissed the action with respect to services covered by the contested mark in Classes 35 and 38.

               2.

               The Action is based on two pleas in law: infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR (1) and infringement of Article 8(5) CTMR.

               3.

               The Applicant is of the opinion that the essential function of a Community collective mark according to Article 66(2) CTMR, consisting of an indication which serves to designate the geographical origin of the goods covered, is not to serve as an indication of commercial origin but only to guarantee the collective origin of the goods or services offered and sold under the mark, i.e. that the products come from an undertaking which is located in the geographical region adopted as a Community collective mark and which is entitled to use the Community collective mark.

               4.

               Consequently, in the Applicant's view it must be concluded that, in the framework of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR, the geographical origin must be taken into account as a relevant factor- either when assessing the similarity of the goods and/or services at issue and/or when carrying out a global assessment of likelihood of confusion.

               5.

               Therefore, when comparing goods and/or services of an earlier Community collective mark according to Article 66(2) CTMR, consisting of geographical indication, with those of a Community individual mark, it is not, in the Applicant's opinion, decisive whether the goods and services in question are similar in regard to their nature, purpose, end users and/or distribution channels. Rather, it must be questioned whether the goods and/or services in question may have the same geographical origin.

               6.

               The Applicant's interpretation of Article 66(2) CTMR results from

                           1)

                           the inner logic of Regulation No. 207/2009, in particular the fact that

                                       i.

                                       Article 66(2) CTMR constitutes and exception within Regulation No. 207/2009 as, according to Article 7(1)(c) CTMR, trademarks which consist exclusively of signs or indications which may serve, in trade, to designate the geographical origin of the goods or of rendering of the service shall not be registered,

                                       ii.

                                       according to Article 67(2) CTMR, the regulations governing use of a Community collective trade mark consisting of geographical indication must authorise any person whose goods or services originate in the geographical area concerned to become a member of the association which is the proprietor of the mark, and consequently, a Community collective mark consisting of geographical indication is never capable of distinguishing goods or services of the members of the association which is the proprietor of the mark from those of other undertakings.

                           2)

                           an interpretation of that provision in the light of Regulation No. 1151/2012 (2) and in the light of the TRIPs-Agreement, according to which geographical indications should enjoy a high level of protection, and according to which presentations of a good that indicates or suggests that the good in question originates in a geographical area other than the true place of origin, in a manner which misleads the public as to the geographical origin of the good, should be prohibited.

               7.

               The Applicant is of the opinion that the qualities established by the General Court in connection with DARJEELING can also be transferred to services such as business consultancy or telecommunication services, and are able to strengthen the power of attraction of the contested mark in that regard. Further, the Applicant points out that the General Court did not provide any substantiated grounds in its judgment, as to why the qualities associated with the mark DARJEELING could not be transferred to services in Class 35 and 38, which, in itself is an error in law.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark

      OJ L 78, p. 1

      (2)  Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs

      OJ L 343, p. 1


title: Case T-434/13: Judgment of the General Court of 14 January 2016 — Doux v Commission (Agriculture — Export refund — Poultry meat — Implementing Regulation fixing the refund at EUR 0 — Action for annulment — Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures — Direct concern — Admissibility — Article 3(3) of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 164(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 — Legitimate expectations)

text:
               29.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 January 2016 — Doux v Commission
   (Case T-434/13) (1)

   ((Agriculture - Export refund - Poultry meat - Implementing Regulation fixing the refund at EUR 0 - Action for annulment - Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures - Direct concern - Admissibility - Article 3(3) of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 164(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 - Legitimate expectations))
   (2016/C 078/24)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Doux SA (Châteaulin, France) (represented by: J. Vogel, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi and K. Skelly, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Tilly-Sabco (Guerlesquin, France) (represented by: R. Milchior, F. Le Roquais and S. Charbonnel, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 689/2013 of 18 July 2013 fixing the export refunds on poultry meat (OJ 2013 L 196, p. 13).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders Doux SA to bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission;

               3)

               Orders Tilly-Sabco to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 291, 5.10.2013.


title: Case C-583/14: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Benjámin Dávid Nagy v Vas Megyei Rendőr-főkapitányság (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Principle of non-discrimination — Article 18 TFEU — Citizenship of the Union — Article 20 TFEU — Freedom of movement for persons — Article 63 TFEU — Free movement of capital — Road use — Drivers resident in the Member State concerned — Requirement to provide on the spot proof of lawful use of vehicles registered in another Member State at a police check)

text:
               21.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 429/6

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Benjámin Dávid Nagy v Vas Megyei Rendőr-főkapitányság
   (Case C-583/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Principle of non-discrimination - Article 18 TFEU - Citizenship of the Union - Article 20 TFEU - Freedom of movement for persons - Article 63 TFEU - Free movement of capital - Road use - Drivers resident in the Member State concerned - Requirement to provide on the spot proof of lawful use of vehicles registered in another Member State at a police check))
   (2015/C 429/07)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Benjámin Dávid Nagy

      Defendant: Vas Megyei Rendőr-főkapitányság

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 63(1) TFUE precludes national legislation under which, as a rule, only vehicles that have administrative authorisation and registration plates issued by the Member State in question may be used on the road network in that Member State and under which, if a resident of that Member State seeks to rely on a derogation from that rule, on the grounds that he uses a vehicle made available to him by the keeper of that vehicle established in another Member State, he must be able to prove on the spot, during a police check, that he fulfils the conditions for such a derogation, as laid down by the national legislation in question, on pain of the immediate imposition of a fine equivalent to that applicable in the event of infringement of the registration requirement, without any possibility of an exemption from that fine.

      (1)  OJ C 96, 23.3.2015.


title: Case C-433/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 1 October 2008 — Yaesu Europe BV v Bundeszentralamt für Steuern

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/18

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 1 October 2008 — Yaesu Europe BV v Bundeszentralamt für Steuern
   (Case C-433/08)
   (2008/C 313/26)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesfinanzhof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Yaesu Europe BV

      Defendant: Bundeszentralamt für Steuern
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is the term ‘Signature’ in the specimen in Annex A to the Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons (1) not established in the territory of the country, which is to be used to submit an application for a refund of turnover tax pursuant to Article 3(a) of the directive, to be to be given a uniform Community law interpretation?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative:
               Is the term ‘Signature’ to be understood as meaning that the application for a refund must be signed by the taxable person himself or, in regard to a legal person, by its statutory representative, or is the signature of an agent (for example, a representative for tax purposes or an employee of the taxable person) sufficient?

      (1)  OJ L 331, 1979, p. 11.


20150731011616632015/C 270/10582014CJC27020150817EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL201506119911Case C-58/14: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Hauptzollamt Hannover v Amazon EU Sàrl (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 — Customs union and Common Customs Tariff — Combined Nomenclature — Heading 8543 70 — Electrical machines and apparatus, having individual functions, not specified or included elsewhere in Chapter 85 of the Combined Nomenclature — Subheadings 8543 70 10 and 8543 70 90 — Reading devices for electronic books with translation or dictionary functions)
 ---documentbreak--- C2702015EN910120150611EN00109191Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Hauptzollamt Hannover v Amazon EU Sàrl
   (Case C-58/14) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 — Customs union and Common Customs Tariff — Combined Nomenclature — Heading 8543 70 — Electrical machines and apparatus, having individual functions, not specified or included elsewhere in Chapter 85 of the Combined Nomenclature — Subheadings 8543 70 10 and 8543 70 90 — Reading devices for electronic books with translation or dictionary functions)’2015/C 270/10Language of the case: German
      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Hauptzollamt Hannover

      Defendant: Amazon EU Sàrl

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 861/2010 of 5 October 2010, must be interpreted as meaning that a reading device for electronic books which has a translation or dictionary function must, where that function is not its principal function, that being a matter for the national court to ascertain, be classified under subheading 8543 70 90 and not under subheading 8543 70 10.
   (
         1
      )	OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.


title: Case C-113/06: Action brought on  27 February 2006  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               8.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/23

         Action brought on 27 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-113/06)
   (2006/C 86/45)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by J. Hottiaux and F Simonetti, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2004/57/EC of 23 April 2004 on the identification of pyrotechnic articles and certain ammunition for the purposes of Council Directive 93/158/EEC on the harmonisation of the provisions relating to the placing on the market and supervision of explosives for civil uses, (1) the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for transposing Directive 2004/57/EC expired on 31 December 2004.

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 127, p. 73.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 April 2003 in Case T-369/00, Département du Loiret v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — State aid — Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Article 15 — Limitation period — Recovery of aid — Act interrupting the limitation period)

text:
C 135/26                   EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          7.6.2003
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 3 April 2003
                             of 10 April 2003
                                                                              In Joined Cases T-44/01, T-119/01 and T-126/01: Eduardo
                                                                              Vieira, SA and Others v Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities ( 1)
in Case T-369/00, Département du Loiret v Commission
                 of the European Communities ( 1)
                                                                              (Fisheries — Fisheries agreement with Argentina — Com-
                                                                              munity financial aid — Reduction — Actions for annulment
                                                                                — Actions for damages)
(Action for annulment — State aid — Regulation (EC)
No 659/1999 — Article 15 — Limitation period — Recovery
        of aid — Act interrupting the limitation period)                                                 (2003/C 135/40)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
                             (2003/C 135/39)
                                                                              In Joined Cases T-44/01, T-119/01 and T-126/01, Eduardo
                                                                              Vieira, SA, established in Vigo-Pontevedra (Spain), represented
                      (Language of the case: French)                          by J.-R. García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier and D. Domínguez Pérez,
                                                                              lawyers, applicant in Cases T-44/01 and T-126/01, Vieira
                                                                              Argentina, SA, established in Buenos Aires (Argentina), rep-
                                                                              resented by J.-R. García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier and D. Domíng-
                                                                              uez Pérez, laywers, applicant in Case T-44/01, Pescanova,
                                                                              SA, established in Chapela (Spain), represented by A. Creus
In Case T-369/00: Département du Loiret, represented by                       Carreras, B. Uriarte Valiente and S. Rodríguez Artacho, lawyers,
A. Carnelutti, lawyer, supported by Scott SA, established in                  applicant in Case T-119/01, v Commission of the European
Saint-Cloud (France), represented by Sir Jeremy Lever, QC,                    Communities (Agents: S. Pardo Quintillán and J. Guerra
G. Peretz, Barrister, and R. Griffith, Solicitor, with an address             Fernández): Application, in Case T-44/01, for compensation
for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the Euro-                    under Article 235 EC and the second paragraph of Article 288
pean Communities (Agents: G. Rozet and J. Flett) — application                EC for damage arising from the suspension of payment of the
for annulment in part of Commission Decision 2002/14/EC                       balance of the financial aid granted to project ARG/ESP/SM/
of 12 July 2000 on the state aid granted by France to Scott                   26-94 for the creation of a joint enterprise within the
Paper SA Kimberly-Clark (OJ L 12, p. 1), the Court of First                   framework of the Agreement between the Community and the
Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition), composed                      Argentinian Republic on relations in the sea fisheries sector; in
of J.D. Cooke, President, and R. García-Valdecasas, P. Lindh,                 Case T-119/01, for annulment of the Commission decision of
N.J. Forwood and H. Legal, Judges; H. Jung, Principal Adminis-                19 March 2001 reducing the aid granted to project ARG/ESP/
trator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 10 April 2002, in               SM/17-94 for the purpose of creating a joint enterprise within
which it:                                                                     the framework of the Agreement between the Community and
                                                                              the Argentinian Republic on relations in the sea fisheries
                                                                              sector; and, in Case T-126/01, for annulment of the Com-
1.     Dismisses the application for annulment of Article 2 of                mission decision of 19 March 2001 reducing the aid granted
       Commission Decision 2002/14/EC of 12 July 2000 on the                  to project ARG/ESP/SM/26-94 for the purpose of creating a
       state aid granted by France to Scott Paper SA Kimberly-Clark,          joint enterprise within the framework of the Agreement
       in so far as it is founded on infringement by the Commission of        between the Community and the Argentinian Republic on
       Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of                   relations in the sea fisheries sector, the Court of First Instance
       22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application           (Third Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts, President, J. Azizi
       of Article [88] of the EC Treaty;                                      and M. Jaeger, Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Adminis-
                                                                              trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 3 April 2003,
                                                                              in which it:
2.     Orders the remainder of the proceedings to continue;
                                                                              1.     Declares that Cases T-44/01, T-119/01 and T-126/01 are
                                                                                joined for the purposes of the judgment;
3.     Reserves the costs.
                                                                              2.     Dismisses the applications;
                                                                              3.     Orders the applicants to pay the costs.
( 1) OJ C 61 of 24.2.01.
                                                                              (1 ) OJ C 134 of 5.5.2001 and C 245 of 1.9.2001.


title: Joined Cases T-98/13 and T-99/13: Judgment of the General Court of 9 July 2015 — CMT v OHIM — Camomilla (Camomilla) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community figurative mark Camomilla — Earlier national figurative mark CAMOMILLA — Absolute ground for refusal — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — No bad faith on the part of the proprietor of the Community trade mark — Relative ground for refusal — No similarity between the goods — No damage to reputation — Article 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               24.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/32

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 July 2015 — CMT v OHIM — Camomilla (Camomilla)
   (Joined Cases T-98/13 and T-99/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community figurative mark Camomilla - Earlier national figurative mark CAMOMILLA - Absolute ground for refusal - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - No bad faith on the part of the proprietor of the Community trade mark - Relative ground for refusal - No similarity between the goods - No damage to reputation - Article 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 279/39)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: CMT Compagnia manifatture tessili Srl (CMT Srl) (Naples, Italy) (represented by: G. Floridia, R. Floridia, M. Franzoni and G. Rubino, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Camomilla SpA (Buccinasco, Italy) (represented by: A. Tornato and M. Mussi, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 November 2012 (cases R 1615/2011-1 and R 1617/2011-1), concerning invalidity proceedings between CMT — Compagnia manifatture tessili Srl (CMT Srl) and Camomilla SpA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Compagnia manifatture tessili Srl (CMT Srl) to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 141, 18.5.2013.


title: Case C-260/04: Action brought on 17 June 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
               28.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/14

         Action brought on 17 June 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
   (Case C-260/04)
   (2004/C 217/27)
   An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 June 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by K. Wiedner, C. Cattabriga and L. Visaggio, acting as Agents.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, the Ministry of Finance having renewed 329 licences for the taking of bets on horse races without a prior competitive tendering procedure, the Italian Republic has infringed the general principle of transparency and the obligation to advertise which follow from the provisions of the EC Treaty on the freedom of establishment in Article 43 et seq. and the freedom to provide services in Article 49 et seq.;

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   Although licences for the services of collection and acceptance of bets on horse races do not come within the scope of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (1), it is however clear from Case C-324/98 Telaustria (2) that the national authorities which award such licences are, none the less, bound to comply with the fundamental rules of the Treaty and, in particular, the principle of non-discrimination on the ground of nationality implied in the provisions of the EC Treaty concerning the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services (Article 43 et seq. and Article 49 et seq. respectively).
   The same principles apply both to the award of licences and to their extension and renewal. In Community law extension or renewal of a licence is equivalent to the award of a new licence, which must therefore comply with that law.
   The Court made it clear in Case C-275/98 Unitron Scandinavia and 3-S (3) that the principle of non-discrimination on the ground of nationality ‘implies, in particular, an obligation of transparency in order to enable the contracting authority to satisfy itself that it has been complied with.’
   That obligation of transparency which is imposed on the contracting authority consists in ensuring, for the benefit of any potential tenderer, a degree of advertising sufficient to enable the services market to be opened to competition and the impartiality of procurement procedures to be reviewed.
   In the Commission's opinion, it is wholly clear that the principle of transparency referred to above was not observed by the Italian authorities at the time of renewal of the aforementioned 329 licences for the collection and acceptance of bets on horse races to 1 January 2006 in favour of the incumbent holders outside a competitive tendering procedure.

      (1)  OJ L 209 of 24.7.1992, p. 1

      (2)  [2000] ECR I-10745

      (3)  [1999] ECR I-8291, paragraph 31


title: Case C-103/02: Action brought on 20 March 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
C 118/20                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        18.5.2002
Action brought on 19 March 2002 by the Commission of                     The Commission therefore concludes that the Italian Govern-
  the European Communities against the Italian Republic                  ment has failed to implement Directive 92/51 in respect of
                                                                         access to those professions.
                          (Case C-101/02)
                                                                         (1) OJ L 209 of 24.7.1992, p. 25.
                                                                         (2) OJ L 19 of 24.1.1989, p. 16.
                          (2002/C 118/32)
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 March
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Maria Patakia and Antonio Aresu, acting as                Action brought on 20 March 2002 by the Commission of
Agents.                                                                    the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                                                                                (Case C-103/02)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (2002/C 118/33)
—     declare that, by not having implemented the provisions
      of Council Directive 92/51/EEC (1) of 18 June 1992 on a
      second general system for the recognition of professional
      education and training to supplement Directive 89/48/
      EEC (2) in relation to the professional activities of athletes,    An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
      coaches, technical and sporting directors and athletics            Court of Justice of the European Communities on 20 March
      trainers, the Italian Republic has failed to comply with its       2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
      obligations under that directive.                                  represented by Richard Wainwright and Roberto Amorosi,
                                                                         acting as Agents.
—     order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         —     declare that, by adopting the decree of 5 February 1998
                                                                               on the identification of non-hazardous waste covered by
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                               the simplified recovery procedures under Articles 31 and
                                                                               33 of Legislative Decree No 55 of 5 February 1997
                                                                               which,
It is apparent from an examination of the provisions of Law
No 91/81 that the activities of athlete, coach, technical and                  a.    contrary to the first and second indents of the first
sporting director and athletics trainer are regulated professions                    paragraph of Article 11 and Article 10 of Directive
in Italy within the meaning of Directive 92/51. Consequently,                        75/442/EEC (1), as amended, exempts establishments
when the competent Italian authorities receive an application                        and undertakings which recover non-hazardous
for recognition of professional education and training in                            waste from seeking authorisation, without such
respect of those activities they are required to examine that                        exemption being subject to the following require-
application in accordance with the rules laid down by that                           ments: (1) prior setting of a maximum quantity of
directive.                                                                           waste; (2) compliance with the conditions laid down
                                                                                in Article 4 of Directive 75/442/EEC, as amended,
                                                                                regarding the quantity of waste processed by the
Article 13 of Decree-Law No 319/94 lists the authorities                             establishments exempt from authorisation,
responsible for the recognition of professional education and
training, providing in particular at subparagraph (a) that the                 b.    contrary to the first indent of Article 11(1) of
minister responsible for supervising the professions referred to                     Directive 75/442/EEC, as amended, does not define
in Article 2(a) is competent to rule on applications for                             precisely the kinds of waste covered by the exemp-
recognition in accordance with annex C of that decree. The                           tion from authorisation and thus, also contrary to
relevant annex lists a number of professions and the ministers                       Article 3 of Directive 91/689/EEC (2), in certain
competent to examine applications for recognition of qualifi-                        cases, as a result of the lack of clarity and precision,
cations concerning those professions. However the only sport-                        allows establishments or undertakings which
ing professions listed are those of ski instructor, sailing                          recover certain kinds of hazardous waste to be
instructor, mountain guide and potholing guide with no                               exempted from seeking authorisation on the basis
reference to athlete, coach, technical and sporting director and                     of the less stringent requirements provided for in
athletics trainer.                                                                   respect of non-hazardous waste,
 ---pagebreak--- 18.5.2002                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 118/21
      c.    contrary to Articles 9 and 11, which refer to                   B.    Failure to indicate or erroneous indi-
            Article 1(e) to (f) of Directive 75/442/EEC, as                       cation of the types of waste covered by
            amended, and to Annex IIA and IIB, as amended by                      the authorisation exemption
            Decision 96/350/EC (3), defines some of the disposal
            operations as ‘environmental recovery’ operations               So far as concerns the types of waste in respect of which no
            and thus allows establishments and undertakings                 authorisation for the purposes of the first indent of
            which deal with disposal other than disposal of                 Article 11(1) is required, some parts of the technical provisions
            waste on the site where it is produced to be exempt             contained in Annexes 1 and 2 to the Italian decree define the
            from the obligation to seek authorisation, as if they           types of waste so vaguely that some hazardous types of waste
            were carrying out recovery operations, the Italian              could be classified with non-hazardous waste, thus allowing
            Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under             establishments and undertakings processing it to be exempt
            Articles 1, 9, 10 and 11 of Directive 75/442/EEC, as            from seeking authorisation by relying on the less stringent
            amended by Directive 91/156/EEC (4), and Article 3              criteria laid down for non-hazardous waste.
            of Directive 91/689/EEC; and
                                                                            In other cases, the codes of the European Waste Catalogue
—     Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                          (EWC), adopted by way of Commission Decision 94/3/EC (5),
                                                                            are not cited (for example 5.9) or, where they are cited, they
                                                                            do not correspond to the definition set out in the technical
Pleas in law and main arguments                                             provisions.
A. S p e c i f i c a t i o n o f t h e q u a n t i t i e s                  C.    Environmental recovery operations
The Commission’s contention is that Article 7 of the decree,                The Commission therefore takes the view that the environmen-
in laying down the maximum quantities of waste applicable to                tal recovery operations described in Article 5 of the decree are
recovery operations which may be exempted from the obli-                    in fact disposal operations.
gation to seek authorisation under Articles 9 and 10 of the
directive, does not mention an absolute maximum quantity,                   This means that undertakings and establishments which carry
by reference to the type of establishment or undertaking, but               out, pursuant to Article 5 of the Italian decree, environmental
a relative maximum quantity which varies according to the                   recovery operations which are in fact waste disposal operations
annual output of the plant at which the operation is carried                may be exempted from seeking the authorisation provided for
out.                                                                        at Article 9 of the directive beyond the limits laid down
                                                                            for undertakings and establishments which carry out waste
The failure to specify beforehand the maximum quantity of                   disposal operations, which may be exempted only on condition
waste below which disposal or recovery operations may be                    that they dispose of their own waste on the site where it is
exempt from seeking authorisation gives rise to the result                  produced.
that any undertaking or establishment, even if it processes
enormous quantities of waste, may seek such exemption which                 ( 1) OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39.
not only empties the ordinary procedure of any practical                    ( 2) OJ 1991 L 377, p. 20.
usefulness but also makes it impossible to check whether the                ( 3) OJ 1996 L 135, p. 32.
conditions laid down in the second indent of Article 11(1), in              ( 4) OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32.
conjunction with Article 4 thereof, have been complied with.                ( 5) OJ 1994 L 5, p. 15.


title: Case C-320/04: Action brought on 27 July 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/33

         Action brought on 27 July 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-320/04)
   (2004/C 228/69)
   An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 July 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by D. Martin, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (1), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The time-limit for transposition of the directive expired on 19 July 2003.

      (1)  OJ L 180, 19.7.2000, p. 22.


title: Case C-551/09: Order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of 17 October 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/45

      Order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of 17 October 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Austria
      (Case C-551/09) (1)

      (2012/C 25/84)
      Language of the case: German
      The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 63, 13.3.2010.


title: Case C-528/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common Customs Tariff — Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009 — Article 3 — Relief from import duties — Personal property — Transfer of residence from a third country to a Member State — Definition of ‘normal place of residence’ — Impossible to have at the same time a normal place of residence in a Member State and in a third country — Criteria for determining the normal place of residence)

text:
               4.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/10

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-528/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common Customs Tariff - Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009 - Article 3 - Relief from import duties - Personal property - Transfer of residence from a third country to a Member State - Definition of ‘normal place of residence’ - Impossible to have at the same time a normal place of residence in a Member State and in a third country - Criteria for determining the normal place of residence))
   (2016/C 243/09)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: X

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009 of 16 November 2009 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty is to be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of the application of that provision, a natural person may not have at the same time a normal place of residence in both a Member State and in a third country.

               2.

               In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, where the person concerned has both personal and occupational ties in a third country and personal ties in a Member State, it is necessary, for the purpose of determining whether the normal place of residence of that person within the meaning of Article 3 of Regulation No 1186/2009 is in the third country, to attach particular importance to the length of that person’s stay in the third country when carrying out an overall assessment of the relevant facts.

      (1)  OJ C 56, 16.2.2015.


title: Case T-96/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 September 2008 — Tsakiris-Mallas AE v OHIM — Late Editions (exē) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark exē — Earlier national word mark EXE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of goods and signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/20

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 September 2008 — Tsakiris-Mallas AE v OHIM — Late Editions (exē)
   (Case T-96/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark exē - Earlier national word mark EXE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of goods and signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2008/C 272/36)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Tsakiris-Mallas AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: C.Samaras, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Late Editions Ltd (Leighton Buzzard, Bedfordshire, United Kingdom)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 January 2006 (Case R 1127/2004-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Late Editions Ltd and Tsakiris-Mallas EPE (now Tsakiris-Mallas AE).
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders Tsakiris-Mallas AE to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ 2006 C 108.


title: Case T-289/13: Action brought on 24 May 2013 — Ledra Advertising v Commission and ECB

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/13

         Action brought on 24 May 2013 — Ledra Advertising v Commission and ECB
   (Case T-289/13)
   (2013/C 226/21)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Ledra Advertising Ltd (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: C. Paschalides, Solicitor, and A. Paschalides, lawyer)

      Defendants: European Central Bank and European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Order compensation in the sum of EUR 958 920,00 on the basis that the conditions required under the Memorandum of Understanding of 26 April 2013 between Cyprus and the Defendants at paragraphs 1.23 to 1.27 were pregnant with requirements in flagrant violation of a superior law for the protection of the individual, namely: article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and article 1 of Protocol 11 of the European Convention of Human Rights;

               —

               Declare the relevant conditions void and order an urgent review of the financial assistance instruments under article 14 to 18 of the Treaty establishing the European Stability Mechanism (‘ESM Treaty’) pursuant to Article 19 in light of the court’s judgment with a view to changes in order to comply with the judgment of the court; and

               —

               To the extent that compensation under the first head of claim does not cater for the fact that the relevant conditions would stand annulled, an order for compensation for breach of article 263 TFEU.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the relevant conditions in the Memorandum of Understanding were pregnant with requirements that were ‘in flagrant violation of a superior rule of law for the protection of the individual’ (1) because:

                           —

                           The said rule of law is superior because it is a law contained the Charter and the ECHR;

                           —

                           By Article 51(1) of the Charter and 6.2 TEU the defendants are obliged to respect and uphold fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter and the ECHR; and

                           —

                           Bank deposits are property within the meaning of the said article 17 of the Charter and article 1 of Protocol 11 of the ECHR.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the violations below taken together were so extensive as to amount to a flagrant violation of a superior law, as follows:

                           —

                           At the time the applicant was deprived of its bank deposits there were no ‘conditions provided for by law’ in place in the acquis dealing with deprivation of bank deposits contrary to the Charter and Protocol;

                           —

                           The applicant was deprived of its deposits without ‘fair compensation being paid in good time’ contrary to article 17 of the Charter and article 1 of the Protocol;

                           —

                           Deprivation of deposits is prima facie unlawful unless ‘subject to the principle of proportionality… it is necessary and genuinely meets objectives of general interest recognised by the EU or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others.’ (2);

                           —

                           The competing public interest in preventing panic and a run on the banking system, short and medium term, was not considered in evaluating the public interest under Article 17 of the Charter and Article 1 of the Protocol;

                           —

                           The aim was not to damage or penalise Cyprus but to benefit it and the euro area by providing stability support and thereby alleviating not destabilising its financial institutions and economic viability; and

                           —

                           There was no relationship of proportionality of the interference to a legitimate aim since by Article 3 of the ESM Treaty 2012 the genuine objective was ‘to mobilise funding and provide stability support under strict conditionality… to the benefit of ESM Members which are experiencing or are threatened by severe financial problems, if indispensable to safeguard the euro area as a whole and of its member state’ without paralysing its economy.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that deprivation of the applicant’s deposits was not necessary or proportionate.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that in the result the defendants caused the applicant to be deprived of its bank deposits because, but for the flagrant infringement, the applicant’s bank deposits would have been protected by their rights under the Charter and Protocol with the result that the applicant’s loss was sufficiently direct and foreseeable.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that if the above submissions are well founded the relevant conditions fall to be declared void notwithstanding the relevant conditions were addressed to Cyprus, since they are of direct and individual concern to the applicant on the grounds that the relevant conditions and the manner of their implementation infringe the Treaty and/or a rule of law relating to its application and/or, to the extent that it is held that depriving the applicant’s bank deposit undermined the rule of law contrary to Article 6.1 of the TEU, were a misuse of powers.

      (1)  See the judgment of 2 December 1971 in Case 5/71 Zuckerfabrik Schoeppenstedt v Council (1971) ECR 975

      (2)  Article 52(1) of the Charter


title: Case T-486/07: Action brought on 21 December 2007 — Ford Motor v OHIM — Alkar Automotive (CA)

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/58

         Action brought on 21 December 2007 — Ford Motor v OHIM — Alkar Automotive (CA)
   (Case T-486/07)
   (2008/C 51/105)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Ford Motor Co. (Dearborn, United States) (represented by: R. Ingerl, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Alkar Automotive SA (Derio, Spain)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 October 2007 (Case R 85/2006-4);

               —

               annul the decision of the Opposition Division of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 November 2005 (Opposition No B 684052);

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: Alkar Automotive SA

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘CA’ for, inter alia, goods in classes 9, 11 and 12 — application No 3 186 764

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

      Mark or sign cited: The Community word and figurative marks ‘KA’ for goods and services in classes 9, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 27, 32 and 37

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

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94, as there is a likelihood of confusion between the conflicting trade marks due to the phonetic and visual similarity between ‘KA’ and ‘CA’, the identity of the goods and the enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier marks.


title: Case F-104/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 30 November 2015 — O’Riain v Commission (Civil service — Competitions — Competition notice EPSO/AD/241/12 — Decision not to include the applicant on the reserve list — Principle of equal treatment of candidates — Impartiality of the selection board — Action manifestly unfounded)

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/77

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 30 November 2015 — O’Riain v Commission
   (Case F-104/14) (1)

   ((Civil service - Competitions - Competition notice EPSO/AD/241/12 - Decision not to include the applicant on the reserve list - Principle of equal treatment of candidates - Impartiality of the selection board - Action manifestly unfounded))
   (2016/C 027/98)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Donncha O’Riain (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Salerno, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Ehrbar and G. Gattinara, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision not to include the applicant on the reserve list for Competition EPSO/AD/241/12-GA.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded.

               2.

               Mr O’Riain shall bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 7 of 12/1/2015, p. 52.


title: Case C-56/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Turnhout (Belgium) lodged on 5 February 2014 — Openbaar Ministerie v Marc Emiel Melanie De Beuckeleer and Others

text:
               5.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 135/21

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Turnhout (Belgium) lodged on 5 February 2014 — Openbaar Ministerie v Marc Emiel Melanie De Beuckeleer and Others
   (Case C-56/14)
   2014/C 135/24
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Turnhout

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Openbaar Ministerie

      Defendants: Marc Emiel Melanie De Beuckeleer, Michiel Martinus Zeeuws, Staalbeton NV/SA

      Question referred

   Is the prior declaration requirement for employees imposed under the LIMOSA system, as provided for in Articles 137 to 152 of the Belgian Programme Law of 27 December 2006, incompatible with the freedom to provide services guaranteed by Article 49 EC and Article 56 TFEU?


title: Case T-237/08: Judgment of the General Court of 11 May 2010 — Abadía Retuerta v OHIM (CUVÉE PALOMAR) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark CUVÉE PALOMAR — Absolute ground for refusal — Trade marks for wines containing geographical indications — TRIPS Agreement — Article 7(1)(j) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(j) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/35

         Judgment of the General Court of 11 May 2010 — Abadía Retuerta v OHIM (CUVÉE PALOMAR)
   (Case T-237/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark CUVÉE PALOMAR - Absolute ground for refusal - Trade marks for wines containing geographical indications - TRIPS Agreement - Article 7(1)(j) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(j) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2010/C 179/59
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Abadía Retuerta, SA (Sardón de Duero, Spain) (represented by: X. Fàbrega Sabaté and M-l. Curell Aguilà, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 April 2008 (Case R 1185/2007-1), concerning registration of the word sign CUVÉE PALOMAR as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Abadía Retuerta, SA, to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 272, 25.10.2008.