title: Case T-117/15: Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2017 — Estonia v Commission (Actions for annulment — Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Measures to be adopted in consequence of the accession of new Member States — Amounts to be charged for quantities of surplus sugar not eliminated — Request for modification of a final decision of the Commission — Refusal of the request — Act not open to challenge — Confirmatory measure — No new substantive particulars — Inadmissibility)

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/34

         Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2017 — Estonia v Commission
   (Case T-117/15) (1)

   ((Actions for annulment - Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Measures to be adopted in consequence of the accession of new Member States - Amounts to be charged for quantities of surplus sugar not eliminated - Request for modification of a final decision of the Commission - Refusal of the request - Act not open to challenge - Confirmatory measure - No new substantive particulars - Inadmissibility))
   (2017/C 144/44)
   Language of the case: Estonian

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Estonia (represented by: K. Kraavi-Käerdi, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by L. Naaber-Kivisoo and M.P. Ondrůšek, acting as Agents, then by P. Ondrůšek, assisted by M. Kärson, lawyer)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Republic of Latvia (represented by I. Kalniņš and D. Pelše, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the decision allegedly contained in the European Commission’s letter of 22 December 2014 declining to amend European Commission Decision 2006/776/EC of 13 November 2006 on the amounts to be charged for the quantities of surplus sugar not eliminated (OJ 2006 L 314, p. 35).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action as inadmissible.

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Estonia to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

               3.

               Orders the Republic of Latvia to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 26.5.2015.


title: Case C-335/08 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 June 2009 — Transports Schiocchet — Excursions SARL v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Action for damages — Regulations (EEC) Nos 517/72 and 684/92 — International carriage of passengers by coach and bus — Conditions for the Community to incur non-contractual liability — Limitation period)

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/21

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 June 2009 — Transports Schiocchet — Excursions SARL v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-335/08 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Action for damages - Regulations (EEC) Nos 517/72 and 684/92 - International carriage of passengers by coach and bus - Conditions for the Community to incur non-contractual liability - Limitation period)
   2009/C 180/35
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Transports Schiocchet — Excursions SARL (represented by: D. Schönberger, avocat)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J.-F. Pasquier and N. Yerrell, agents.)

      Re:

   Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 19 May 2008 in Case T-220/07 Transport Schiocchet v Commission dismissing as inadmissible, on the ground of limitation, the action brought by the appellant seeking a declaration of non-contractual liability and compensation for harm sustained as a result of various illegal acts committed by the Community institutions — Conditions for bringing an action for damages — Concepts of regular service and special regular service within the meaning of Regulation (EEC) No 517/72 of the Council of 28 February 1972 on the introduction of common rules for regular and special regular services by coach and bus between Member States (OJ 1972 L 67, p. 19), repealed and replaced by Council Regulation (EEC) No 684/92 of 16 March 1992 on common rules for the international carriage of passengers by coach and bus (OJ 1992 L 74, p. 1)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               orders Transports Schiocchet — Excursions SARL to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 285, 8.11.2008.


title: Case F-27/08 RENV: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 15 May 2012 — Simões Dos Santos v OHIM

text:
               30.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/28

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 15 May 2012 — Simões Dos Santos v OHIM
   (Case F-27/08 RENV) (1)

   2012/C 194/48
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register, following amicable settlement.

      (1)  OJ C 158, 21.6.2008, p. 25.


title: Case C-298/03: Action brought on 10 July 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

text:
C 213/20               EN                     Official Journal of the European Union                                          6.9.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                       2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                      represented by M. van Beek and G. Valero Jordana, acting as
The appellants plead that the Court erred in finding that the         Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
damage which they alleged arose from the fact of not
managing to import ACP bananas. In truth, the appellants
were complaining that in 1999 and 2000 they had not                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
obtained certificates to import bananas from non-member
countries despite their right to do so under their reference          1.    declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws,
quantity based exclusively on imports of bananas from non-                  regulations and administrative provisions needed in order
member countries. The appellants submit that the Court failed               to comply with Council Directive 1999/22/EC (1) relating
to take account of their arguments in support of their                      to the keeping of wild animals in zoos or, in any event,
application for damages.                                                    by failing to have informed the Commission of any
                                                                            such laws, regulations or administrative provisions, the
                                                                            Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                            that Directive;
                                                                      2.    order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d’État,
Section d’Administration by judgment of that Court of
27 June 2003 in the case of Société Anonyme Glaxo-
                SmithKline against Belgian State
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments
                         (Case C-296/03)
                                                                      The period within which the directive was to be incorporated
                         (2003/C 213/34)
                                                                      into national law expired on 9 April 2002.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                (1 ) OJ L 94 of 9.4.1999, p. 24.
European Communities by judgment of the Conseil d’État,
Section d’Administration (Council of State, Administrative
Section) of 27 June 2003, received at the Court Registry on
8 July 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Société
Anonyme GlaxoSmithKline against Belgian State on the fol-
lowing question:
Must the time-limit of 90 days, which may be extended for a
further 90 days, referred to in the first subparagraph of             Action brought on 14 July 2003 by the Commission of
Article 6(1) of Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December             the European Communities against the Italian Republic
1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the
prices of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion
in the scope of national health insurance systems (1) be                                        (Case C-302/03)
considered to be a strict time-limit precluding, upon expiry,
the adoption of any decision, even where an initial decision
                                                                                (2003/C 213/36)
adopted timeously has been annulled?
( 1) OJ L 40 of 11.02.1989, p. 8.
                                                                      An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
                                                                      Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 July
                                                                      2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                      represented by M. Van Beek and R. Amorosi, acting as Agents.
Action brought on 10 July 2003 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
                         (Case C-298/03)
                                                                      —     find that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                                                            and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                         (2003/C 213/35)                                    Council Directive 1999/22/EC (1) of 29 March 1999
                                                                            relating to the keeping of wild animals in zoos or, in any
                                                                            event, by failing to communicate the same to the
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before                   Commission the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 10 July                 obligations under Article 9 of that directive;


title: Case C-107/06: Order of the President of the Court of 31 August 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/37

         Order of the President of the Court of 31 August 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-107/06) (1)

   (2006/C 294/74)

      Language of the case: Greek

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

      (1)  OJ C 86, 08.04.2006.


title: Case T-415/11: Action brought on 1 August 2011 — Hartmann v OHIM (Nutriskin Protection Complex)

text:
               8.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 298/21

         Action brought on 1 August 2011 — Hartmann v OHIM (Nutriskin Protection Complex)
   (Case T-415/11)
   2011/C 298/38
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Paul Hartmann AG (Heidenheim an der Brenz, Germany) (represented by N. Aicher, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 May 2011 in Case R 1524/2010-1;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs, including the costs of the appeal procedure before OHIM.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Wordmark ‘Nutriskin Protection Complex’ for Goods in Classes 3 and 5 — Application for registration Number 8 995 086.

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009, since the Community trade mark application ‘Nutriskin Protection Complex’ in respect of the goods in Classes 3 and 5 is neither descriptive nor lacking in any distinctive character, because first the component ‘Nutriskin’ by reason of the unusual nature of the combination leads to a term, which creates no directly descriptive impression and because secondly the defendant did no more than infer the alleged lack of distinctive character from the descriptive significance of the registered trade mark.


title: Case T-152/17: Action brought on 6 March 2017 — Sumner v Commission

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/53

         Action brought on 6 March 2017 — Sumner v Commission
   (Case T-152/17)
   (2017/C 144/72)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Loreto Sumner (Leixlip, Ireland) (represented by: J. MacGuill, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the refusal of 10 January 2017 by the Secretary-General on behalf of the Commission, notified on 17 January 2017, to grant the applicant access to any submissions filed by any of the parties in ongoing infringement proceedings regarding an alleged violation by Ireland of the Working Time Directive.

      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 failure to conduct a concrete assessment of the request of access to documents under Regulation 1049/2001.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an unlawful reliance on a general presumption, in breach of the principles identified in the case-law cited.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging failure to process a specific and effective examination of the risk for each document concerned, in breach of the case-law cited.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law alleging failure to proceed to a specific and effective examination of potential partial access, in breach of the case-law cited.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law alleging a manifest error of assessment regarding the existence of an overriding public interest, in breach of the principles in the case-law cited.


title: Case F-34/10: Action brought on 26 May 2010 — Arango Jaramillo and Others v EIB

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/58

         Action brought on 26 May 2010 — Arango Jaramillo and Others v EIB
   (Case F-34/10)
   ()
   2010/C 234/107
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Oscar Orlando Arango Jaramillo (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) and Others (represented by: B. Cortese, C. Cortese and F. Spitaleri, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Investment Bank

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the EIB’s decisions to increase the applicants’ contributions to the pension system and compensation for the non-material harm suffered by them.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decisions of the EIB relating to the applicants’ salary slips for February 2010, which increase the applicants’ contributions to the pension system, through the increase of the basis for calculation (the salary subject to deduction) of those contributions on the one hand, and of the coefficient for calculation, expressed as a percentage of that salary subject to deduction, on the other;

               —

               order the Bank to pay a symbolic EUR 1, by way of compensation for the non-material harm suffered by the applicants;

               —

               order the European Investment Bank to pay the costs.


title: Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 205, 20.8.2005

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/65

         (2005/C 217/138)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 205, 20.8.2005

   Past publications

      OJ C 193, 6.8.2005

      OJ C 182, 23.7.2005

      OJ C 171, 9.7.2005

      OJ C 155, 25.6.2005

      OJ C 143, 11.6.2005

      OJ C 132, 28.5.2005

   These texts are available on:

               EUR-Lex:http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex

               CELEX:http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: Case T-199/05: Action brought on 18 May 2005 by Laura Gnemmi against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               6.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/31

         Action brought on 18 May 2005 by Laura Gnemmi against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-199/05)
   (2005/C 193/53)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 18 May 2005 by Laura Gnemmi, residing in Arona (Italy), represented by Gilles Bounéou and Frédéric Frabetti, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               annul the reporting for the year 2003 so far as it concerns the applicant;

               2.

               alternatively, annul her Career Development Report for the period 1.1.2003 — 31.12.2003;

               3.

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant relies on the same pleas as those on which she already relies in Case T-97/04 (1) relating to her Career Development Report for the period 2001–2002.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 30.4.2004, p. 82.


title: Case T-65/02: Action brought on 4 March 2002 by Michelle Boisset-Chetaud against European Parliament

text:
4.5.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 109/67
Action brought on 4 March 2002 by Michelle Boisset-                       However, by referring to a notice determining rights to an
            Chetaud against European Parliament                           invalidity pension issued by the head of division in Directorate
                                                                          General V — Personnel, the appointing authority took as the
                                                                          sole criterion that of residence.
                          (Case T-65/02)
                        (2002/C 109/125)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          Action brought on 25 February 2002 by 1. Idiotiko
                                                                          Institouto Epangelmatikis Katartisis, South Avyerinopou-
An action against the European Parliament was brought before              lou — Anagnorismenes Technikes Idiotikes Epangelma-
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                tikes Skholes; 2. Panellinias Enosis Idiotikon Institouton
4 March 2002 by Michelle Boisset-Chetaud, residing in Nice                Epangelmatikis Katartisis; and 3. Idiotikis Teknikis Epan-
(France), represented by Laurent Mosar, lawyer, with an address           gelmatikis Ekpaideusis kai Katartisis, against the Com-
for service in Luxembourg.                                                            mission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-66/02)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (2002/C 109/126)
—     Annul the decision following from the letter of 27 June
      2001 by which the European Parliament suspended the
      application of the weighting for France from 1 June 2001                                (Language of the case: Greek)
      until the production of documents showing unambigu-
      ously that Michelle Boisset-Chetaud’s centre of interests is
      in Nice;
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
—     Annul the decision of the Secretary General of the                  ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
      European Parliament in a letter of 6 December 2001, in              Communities on 25 February 2002 by 1. Idiotiko Institouto
      response to the applicant’s complaint, that following that          Epangelmatikis Katartisis (Private institute for occupational
      decision the documents produced by Michelle Boisset-                training), South Avyerinopoulou — Anagnorismenes Technik-
      Chetaud did not allow the head of the Social Affairs                es Idiotikes Epangelmatikes Skholes (Accredited private techni-
      Division to consider that she had established her centre            cal training schools); 2. Panellinias Enosis Idiotikon Institouton
      of interests, and hence the place where she is deemed to            Epangelmatikis Katartisis (Panhellenic Association of private
      incur expenditure, in Nice.                                         institutions for occupational training); 3. Idiotikis Teknikis
                                                                          Epangelmatikis Ekpaideusis kai Katartisis (Panhellenic Associ-
                                                                          ation of private technical education and training).
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                          —     uphold the application for a declaration of the failure by
The applicant in this case contests the refusal of the appointing               the Commission of the European Communities to bring
authority to consider that her centre of interests is in Nice and               to an end the unlawful distinction between private and
that the weighting for France should therefore be applied to                    public bodies engaged in occupational training as regards
her retirement pension.                                                         the exclusive funding of the latter under the 3rd commun-
                                                                                ity support network and, in particular, under the oper-
                                                                                ational programme concerning education and initial
In support of her application, she submits that there has been                  occupational training (II).
a breach of Article 82 of the Staff Regulations. The applicant
asserts that the concept of residence mentioned there has been
the subject of judicial interpretation intended to establish that
a person sets up a permanent and habitual centre at the place
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
where he resides. In assessing the criteria for residence, the
defendant must rely on objective elements such as a certificate
of residence. In this respect, the applicant submitted not only           —     Infringement of Article 87 EC: the proposed exclusive
a certificate of residence but also numerous other documents,                   funding of public occupational-training bodies consti-
such as the notarial act concerning the purchase of a flat, a                   tutes State (and Community) aid which does not concern
notice of change of address, and various bills.                                 general measures nor is justified by the actual require-


title: Case T-184/03: Action brought on 21 May 2003 by Metrovacesa SA against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
C 184/44              EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                           2.8.2003
—     make the appropriate ruling as to costs and order the                Action brought on 21 May 2003 by Metrovacesa SA
      Parliament to pay those costs.                                       against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                                Market (Trade marks and Designs) (OHIM)
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicants in this case seek the annulment of the Parlia-                                        (Case T-184/03)
ment's decision changing the method of calculating annual
travel expenses to Greece.
The pleas in law and main arguments put forward by the                                               (2003/C 184/98)
applicants in support of their application are similar to those
of the applicants in Cases T-221/02 (1) and T-44/03 (2).
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
(1) OJ C 247, 12.10.02, p. 17.
(2) OJ C 101, 26.04.03, p. 40.
                                                                           An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                           Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
                                                                           the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
Action brought on 26 May 2003 by Applied Molecular                         21 May 2003 by Metrovacesa SA, (Madrid), represented by José
Evolution, Inc. against the Office for Harmonisation in the                Antonio Calderón Chavero, lawyer at the Madrid Bar.
    Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
                          (Case T-183/03)                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
                          (2003/C 184/97)
                   (Language of the case: English)                         —     annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM
                                                                                of 10 March 2003 in Case R-183/2002;
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                           —     dismiss in its entirety opposition procedure no B262.271;
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
26 May 2003 by Applied Molecular Evolution, Inc., San Diego,               —     uphold the claims of the appellant and allow the relevant
USA, represented by Mr A. Deutsch, lawyer.                                       Opposition Division at OHIM to register the trade mark
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                      in question; and
—     Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the
      Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade-              —     order OHIM and the other parties to pay the costs.
      marks and Designs) in the case R 108/2002-2 of
      13 March 2003.
—     Order the defendant to register the mark No 001586510
      ‘APPLIED MOLECULAR EVOLUTION’
—     Order the costs of the proceedings to be borne by the
      defendant                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           Applicant for Community          GESINAR S.L. (Assignee: the ap-
Applicant for Community          Applied    Molecular     Evolution,       trade mark:                      plicant)
trade mark:                      Inc
Community       trade    mark    Word mark ‘APPLIED MOLECU-
sought:                          LAR EVOLUTION’ for certain
                                 services in Class 42 (application         Community       trade    mark    Figurative mark ‘Gesinar’ — Ap-
                                 No 001586510)                             sought:                          plication no 1 202 027 for
                                                                                goods in Classes 35, 36 and
Examiner's decision:             Application refused                                                        41 (business management assis-
                                                                                tance, administration, brokerage,
Decision of the Board of         Appeal dismissed                                                           leasing, evaluation, appraisal
Appeal:                                                                                and development of all kinds
                                                                                of real estate; issue of tokens
Pleas in law:                    Misapplication of Article 7(1)                                             of value, educational and enter-
                                 (b) and (c), of Regulation 40/                                             tainment services)
                                 94 (1).
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
    Community trade mark (OJ 11, p. 1).
                                                                           Proprietor of mark or sign       GESTIONES         ADMINISTRATI-
                                                                           cited in the opposition pro-     VAS Y SERVICIOS INMOBI-
                                                                           ceedings:                        LIARIOS MAR S.L.
 ---pagebreak--- 2.8.2003              EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 184/45
Mark or sign cited in oppo-      Figurative mark ‘GESINMAR’                Pleas in law and main arguments
sition:                          (mark          with         priority
                                                                           Applicant for Community          The Applicant
                                 no 1975912, for goods in
                                                                           trade mark:
                                 Class 36)
                                                                           Community       trade   mark     The trade name ‘ENZO FUSCO’
Decision of the Opposition       Upholding of the opposition for           sought:                          — Application for registration
Division:                        all services in Class 36                                                   No 726735, requested for pro-
                                                                                ducts in Classes 3, 9, 18, 24
                                                                                and 25 (products which are tra-
                                                                                ditionally the subject of trade
                                                                                mark registration by so-called
Decision of the Board of         Dismissal of the appeal                                                    creators of taste and fashion)
Appeal:
                                                                           Proprietor of mark or sign       Antonio Fusco International
                                                                           cited in the opposition pro-     S.A., Luxembourg
Pleas in law:                    Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b)         ceedings:
                                 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94
                                 (likelihood of confusion)
                                                                           Mark or sign cited in op-        Community mark ‘ANTONIO
                                                                           position:                        FUSCO’               (Registration
                                                                                No 654059) for products sub-
                                                                                stantially identical to those
                                                                                claimed by the Applicant
Action brought on 27 May 2003 by Vincenzo Fusco
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
          Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)                          Decision of the Opposition       Opposition upheld and applica-
                                                                           Division:                        tion for registration dismissed
                         (Case T-185/03)
                         (2003/C 184/99)                                   Decision of the Board of         Dismissal of the appeal.
                                                                           Appeal:
                   (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                           Pleas in law:                    Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                                              of Regulation (EC) No 40/94
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before                                                  (Risk of confusion).
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
27 May 2003 by Vincenzo Fusco, represented by B. Saguatti,
lawyers.
The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
was Antonio Fusco International S.A.                                       Action brought on 27 May 2003 by Joëlle Hivonnet
                                                                                against Council of the European Union
The applicant claims:
                                                                                (Case T-188/03)
—     as a principal claim, that the Court should annul the                                        (2003/C 184/100)
      contested decisions of the Board of Appeal holding that
      the marks Antonio Fusco and Enzo Fusco were liable to                                   (Language of the case: French)
      be confused with each other;
—     in the alternative, should the Court hold that the marks             An action against the Council of the European Union was
      Antonio Fusco and Enzo Fusco are liable to confusion,                brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
      that the Court should specify the precise territorial scope          Communities on 27 May 2003 by Joëlle Hivonnet, domiciled
      of the decision;                                                     in New York (United States), represented by Georges Vander-
—     as a principal claim, a declaration that, although the               sanden and Laure Levi, lawyers.
      opposition is based on an earlier Community trade                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
      mark, the transformation procedure is not precluded save
      by reference to the territory in respect of which the                —     annul the decision of the appointing authority of 23 July
      existence of a risk of confusion may be recognised;                        2002 rejecting the applicant's request for the grant of an
                                                                                education allowance for her daughter Eponine for the
—     that the opponent should be ordered to pay the costs, or,                  school years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001, and only
      in the alternative, given the delicacy and complexity of                   granting an education allowance for the school year
      the questions under consideration, that a composition of                   2001-2002 on an exceptional basis on the ground of
      costs should be established.                                               educational continuity;


title: Case T-506/14: Action brought on 27 June 2014  — Grandi Navi Veloci v Commission

text:
               25.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/55

         Action brought on 27 June 2014 — Grandi Navi Veloci v Commission
   (Case T-506/14)
   2014/C 282/74
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Grandi Navi Veloci SpA (Palermo, Italy) (represented by: S. Grassani, S. Ravenna and A. Franchi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul European Commission decision C (2013) 9101 final of 22 January 2014 to the extent that the Commission found that the subsidy granted to Saremar for carrying out promotional activities and the guarantees (banking facilities and comfort letters) provided by the Region of Sardinia do not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present action, the applicant contests European Commission decision C (2013) 9101 final of 22 January 2014 relating to the aid measures implemented by the Autonomous Region of Sardinia in favour of Saremar (Cases SA.32014 (2011/C), SA.32015 (2011/C), SA.32016 (2011/C)). By that decision the Commission found, inter alia, that the subsidy granted to Saremar for carrying out promotional activities and the guarantees (banking facilities and comfort letters) provided by the Region of Sardinia do not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
   In support of its action, the applicant puts forward four pleas in law:

               1.

               By its first plea, alleging infringement and incorrect application of Article 107(1) TFEU, Grandi Navi Veloci submits that the decision is flawed in relation to the finding that Saremer gained no economic advantage in respect of the funds paid by the Region of Sardinia for the supposed promotional activities. According to the applicant, the Commission infringed Article 107(1) TFEU in so far as it found that the price paid by the Region of Sardinia as consideration for the promotional activities entrusted to Saremar, amounting to EUR 3 0 00  000, reflected market value and held that no economic advantage accrued to the recipient.

               2.

               By its second plea, Grandi Navi Veloci submits, first, that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment in finding that the method employed by the expert commissioned by the Tribunale di Genova (District Court, Genoa) was inadequate and, second, that the Commission acted improperly by failing to carry out investigations and acting in breach of the principle of sound administration.

               3.

               By its third plea, Grandi Navi Veloci submits that the decision is contradictory and does not state adequate reasons for the purposes of Article 296 TFEU in relation to the finding that the measure relating to the supposed promotional activities does not constitute State aid.

               4.

               By its fourth plea, Grandi Navi Veloci alleges, first, infringement and incorrect application of Article 107(1) TFEU in relation to the finding that the banking facilities and comfort letters do not constitute State aid and, second, the related breach of the obligation to state reasons for the decision for the purposes of Article 296 TFEU.


title: Case C-93/15 P: Appeal brought on 25 February 2015 by Banco Privado Português, SA, in liquidation, and Massa Insolvente do Banco Privado Português, SA, in liquidation, against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Fourth Chamber) on 12 December 2014 in Case T-487/11 Banco Privado Português and Massa Insolvente do Banco Privado Português v Commission

text:
               20.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 127/13

         Appeal brought on 25 February 2015 by Banco Privado Português, SA, in liquidation, and Massa Insolvente do Banco Privado Português, SA, in liquidation, against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Fourth Chamber) on 12 December 2014 in Case T-487/11 Banco Privado Português and Massa Insolvente do Banco Privado Português v Commission
   (Case C-93/15 P)
   (2015/C 127/19)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Appellants: Banco Privado Português, SA, in liquidation, and Massa Insolvente do Banco Privado Português, SA, in liquidation (represented by: C. Fernández Vicién, F. Pereira Coutinho, M. Esperança Pina, M. Ferreira Santos, R. Leandro Vasconcelos, advogados)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court of Justice should admit the present action and, having declared it well founded, it should:

               —

               set aside the contested judgment, substituting it for a judgment which annuls the Commission’s decision (1) in its entirety;

               —

               in the alternative, set aside the contested judgment substituting it for a judgment which annuls the decision in so far as it declared the State aid involved in the guarantee to be unlawful and incompatible for the period between 5 December 2008 and 5 June 2009;

               —

               in the alternative, set aside the contested judgment substituting it for a judgment which annuls the decision in so far as it ordered the recovery of the (alleged) aid under Articles 2 to 4 thereof;

               —

               in the alternative, set aside the contested judgment substituting it for a judgment which annuls the decision in so far as it ordered the recovery between 5 December 2008 and 5 June 2009; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs both at first instance and on appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               First plea: the General Court attempted to compensate for the lack of reasoning in the Commission’s decision by providing its own reasons, and it erred in law in its examination of the Commission’s reasons in finding that they were sufficient.

               2.

               Second plea: the General Court misinterpreted Article 107 TFEU and incorrectly applied the law to the facts in considering that BPP had been granted an advantage, turning the guarantee into aid incompatible with the internal market.

               3.

               Third plea: the General Court erred in law in finding that the Commission did not commit a manifest error of assessment or an error of law in failing to take into account the exception under Article 107(3)(b) TFEU.

               4.

               Fourth plea: the General Court erred in law in upholding the recovery decision, in that it upheld the decision to order the recovery of (alleged) aid which was not incompatible with the internal market, given that BPP did not obtain any advantage, it did not find that the decision at issue ordered the recovery of aid on procedural grounds, and it erred in finding that the Commission had not departed from the principles laid down in its guidelines at the time the amount of the aid was calculated.

               5.

               Fifth plea: the General Court did not observe the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations in upholding the decision at issue in so far as it ordered the recovery of the (alleged) aid.

               6.

               Sixth plea: the General Court did not take into account the Commission’s infringement of BPP’s right to fair treatment, in so far as the present case was treated differently from similar situations.

      (1)  Commission Decision No 2011/346/EU of 20 July 2010 on State aid C 33/09 (ex NN 57/09, CP 191/09) implemented by Portugal in the form of a State guarantee to Banco Privado Português, SA (OJ 2011, L 159, p. 95).


title: Case C-260/06, Case C-261/06: References for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Montpellier (France) lodged on 15 June 2006 — Daniel Pierre Raymond Escalier and Jean Louis François Bonnarel v Ministère public

text:
               2.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/14

         References for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Montpellier (France) lodged on 15 June 2006 — Daniel Pierre Raymond Escalier and Jean Louis François Bonnarel v Ministère public
   (Case C-260/06 - Case C-261/06)
   (2006/C 212/25)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Cour d'appel de Montpellier
   (3rd Criminal Chamber)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Cross-appellant: Ministère public

      Appellants: Daniel Pierre Raymond Escalier (C-260/06) and Jean Louis François Bonnarel (C-261/06)
   Question referred
   Where a Member State makes the importation of a plant protection product from another Member State in which the product has already been authorised to be placed on the market in accordance with Directive 91/414/EEC (1) subject to a simplified procedure for such authorisation in order to verify that the product imported meets the identity requirements laid down in Case C-100/96 The Queen v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte: British Agrochemicals Association Ltd [1999] ECR I-1499, is that Member State entitled to make an operator subject to that simplified authorisation procedure if:

               —

               the importer is a farmer who is importing the product solely for the needs of his own farm, which are manifold but limited in quantity, and is therefore not placing it on the market in the commercial sense which that concept implies;

               —

               the simplified marketing authorisation procedure constituting import authorisation is personal to each operator/distributor, who is required to give the product imported its own brand name and is subject to a charge of EUR 800?

         If the reply to the first question is negative, can the judgment in Case C-212/03 Commission v France [2005] ECR I-4213 relating to personal imports of medicinal products by individuals be applied to the case of plant protection products imported by farmers solely for the needs of their own farms?

      (1)  Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1).


title: Case T-318/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 February 2007 — Boucek v Commission (Officials — Open competition — Non-admission to written test — Tardy submission of application)

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/33

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 February 2007 — Boucek v Commission
   (Case T-318/04) (1)

   (Officials - Open competition - Non-admission to written test - Tardy submission of application)
   (2007/C 82/73)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Vladimir Boucek (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: L. Krafttová, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Berscheid and H. Krämer)
   Re:
   Action for annulment of the decision of the selection board in open competition EPSO/A/2/03 refusing the applicant admittance to the written test of the competition on the ground that he had not submitted his complete application within the time-limit prescribed.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 273, 6.11.2004.


title: Case T-595/17: Action brought on 4 September 2017 — Demp v EUIPO (Representation of the colours grey and yellow)

text:
               23.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 357/26

         Action brought on 4 September 2017 — Demp v EUIPO (Representation of the colours grey and yellow)
   (Case T-595/17)
   (2017/C 357/35)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Demp BV (Vianen, Netherlands) (represented by: C. Gehweiler, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: Colour mark (Representation of the colours grey and yellow) — Application for registration No 15 439 987

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 July 2017 in Case R 1624/2016-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and Article 4 of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case F-21/08: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 December 2008 — Gippini Fournier v Commission

text:
               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/54

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 December 2008 — Gippini Fournier v Commission
   (Case F-21/08) (1)

   (2009/C 55/99)

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 116, 9.5.2008, p. 33.


title: Case T-92/08: Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 June 2008 — Cyprus v Commission

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/59

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 June 2008 — Cyprus v Commission
   (Case T-92/08) (1)

   (2008/C 223/108)

      Language of the case: Greek

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

      (1)  OJ C 142, 7.6.2008.


title: Case C-615/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 28 November 2016 — Giovanna Judith Kerr v Fazenda Pública

text:
               15.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/14

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 28 November 2016 — Giovanna Judith Kerr v Fazenda Pública
   (Case C-615/16)
   (2017/C 151/19)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Giovanna Judith Kerr

      Defendant: Fazenda Pública

      Question referred

   [Must] the provision in Articles 135(1)(f) and 15(2) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) … be interpreted as referring only to parties to contracts for the marketing of rights to use properties, or [may] it also be interpreted as referring equally to the activity carried on by the applicant, consisting in attracting clients and promoting services, so as to ensure that the business marketing those services completes the relevant sale, in accordance with instructions laid down in advance and limits on discounts and promotional gifts?

      (1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case T-31/16: Action brought on 25 January 2016 — adp Gauselmann v OHIM (Juwel)

text:
               21.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/41

         Action brought on 25 January 2016 — adp Gauselmann v OHIM (Juwel)
   (Case T-31/16)
   (2016/C 106/48)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: adp Gauselmann GmbH (Espelkamp, Germany) (represented by: P. Koch Moreno, lawyer)

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

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Juwel’ — Application for registration No 12 426 888

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 November 2015 in Case R 2571/2014-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Neither Article 7(1)(b) nor Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 is applicable.


title: Action brought on 8 September 1995 by Agustin Quijano against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-169/95)

text:
11 . 11 . 95          EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 299/ 17
( EEC ) No 193/82 and which together hold about 92% of                The applicant claims that the Court should :
the production quotas assigned to Italy as a whole, challenge
the new rules for the sugar sector in as much as they provide         — annul the Commission 's decision to regard the
for the total elimination of the aids to the Italian industry             applicant's absence from work between 8 and 23 August
which had been permitted until the 1994/95 marketing year                  1994 as unauthorized and to impute 10 days against his
while at the same time maintaining in force the system                    annual holiday entitlement,
whereby in deficit areas ( being those in which production is
lower than consumption ( sugar manufacturers pay a higher             — order the Commission to pay the costs .
minimum price for beet than that paid by manufacturers in
non-deficit areas . That difference, like the corresponding           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
difference between the intervention price and the derived
intervention price for sugar, is referred to as regionalization ,     The applicant challenges the Commission 's determination
and its original purpose was to allow producers in countries          that his absence from work during the second and third
with a surplus to supply deficit countries , covering the             weeks of August 1994 was unauthorized .
higher transport costs necessary .
                                                                      He states that it was not until he became aware of the
Given that Italy is not a deficit country, the fact that              contested decision of 21 September 1994 that he was told
regionalized prices are applied indicates, in the applicants'         that the Commission 's medical officer had concluded that
submission , that the arrangement has lost its original               the cessation of work prescribed by his attending doctor was
function and become a gratuitous and undue benefit for beet           unjustified , and that he should have resumed work
growers, entirely at the cost and to the enormous and                 immediately .
unwarranted detriment of Italian sugar manufacturers, who
are no longer compensated by the receipt of aids . In order to        The applicant considers that the institution 's medical
maintain the coherence of the system, abolition of the aids           officer, being merely a general practitioner engaged at given
and abolition of the regionalized prices should have gone             times to perform specific functions , had no jurisdiction in
hand in hand under the new system .                                   the matter beyond submitting a report to the appointing
                                                                      authority as to the validity of the medical certificate; only the
In the applicants' submission, the new Community rules :              institution had the authority to form the opinion that sick
                                                                      leave prescribed by an attending doctor was not binding
— infringe Article 40 of the EEC Treaty, which excludes               upon it and to order an official to resume work immediately .
     any discrimination between producers within the                  Moreover, pursuant to Article 25 of the Staff Regulations,
     Community and provides that any common price policy              such a decision must be communicated to the official
     is to be based on common criteria and uniform methods            concerned immediately in writing, which was not done in
     of calculation ,                                                 this case .
— are contrary to Articles 30 and 34 of the EEC Treaty,               The applicant also claims that he sent the Commission a
     since the mechanism in question places unjustified               medical certificate from his doctor prescribing cessation of
     obstacles to applying free market principles to Italian          work from 25 July to 19 August 1994 , and that under
     producers,                                                       Article 59 of the Staff Regulations he was therefore
                                                                      automatically entitled to sick leave . Although Article 59
— introduces a ' masked' aid to Italian growers , exclusively         permits the institution to require the applicant to undergo a
     at the expense of Italian sugar producers .                      medical examination, it does not authorize it, in the event of
                                                                      the medical officer disputing the validity of the medical
                                                                      certificate produced, to disregard that certificate and order
                                                                      the official concerned to resume work .
 Action brought on 8 September 1995 by Agustin Qui) ano
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                        ( Case T-l 69/95 )                            Action brought on 15 September 1995 by Paolo Carrer
                          ( 95/C 299/29 )                              against the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                                Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-170/95 )
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                ( 95/C 299/30 )
 An action against the Commission of the European
 Communities was brought before the Court of First                                    (Language of the case: Italian)
 Instance of the European Communities on 8 September
  1995 by Agustin Quijano, resident in Luxembourg,                     An action against the Court of Justice of the European
 represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and                 Communities was brought before the Court of First
 Ariane Tornel , all of the Brussels Bar, with an address for          Instance of the European Communities on 15 September
 service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson              1995 by Paolo Carrer, an official of the Court of Justice ,
 Sari , 1 Rue Glesener.                                                residing at Kehlen, Luxembourg, represented by Roberta


title: Case T-342/07: Action brought on 10 September 2007 — Ryanair v Commission

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/59

         Action brought on 10 September 2007 — Ryanair v Commission
   (Case T-342/07)
   (2007/C 269/106)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Ryanair Holdings Plc (County Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: J. Swift, QC, V. Power, Solicitor, A. McCarthy, Solicitor, G. Berrish, lawyer, D. Hull, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision;

               —

               order the Commission to bear the costs of these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By means of this application, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 3104, of 27 June 2007, declaring a concentration to be incompatible with the common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.4439 — Ryanair/Aer Lingus).
   The applicant's main contention is that the Commission allegedly erred in finding, and failed to demonstrate to the requisite legal standard, that the merger would lead to a significant impediment to effective competition in the common market. In the alternative, the applicant submits that the Commission erred in finding, and failed to show to the requisite legal standard, that the merger as modified by the various commitments offered by the applicant during the investigation would lead to a significant impediment to effective competition.
   In support of its claims, the applicant pleads that the Commission made manifest errors of assessment with regards to (a) the competitive relationship between the two carriers; (b) the barriers to entry/expansion; (c) its route-by-route analysis, as well as fundamental and manifest errors in its appreciation of the efficiencies which would flow from the merger and the treatment of the commitments offered by the applicant.


title: Case T-322/01: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 September 2006 — Roquette Frères v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Sodium gluconate — Article 81 EC — Fine — Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 — Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Leniency notice — Equal treatment Principle ne bis in idem)

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/40

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 September 2006 — Roquette Frères v Commission
   (Case T-322/01) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Sodium gluconate - Article 81 EC - Fine - Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 - Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Leniency notice - Equal treatment Principle ne bis in idem)
   (2006/C 294/84)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Roquette Frères, SA (Lestrem, France) (represented by: O. Prost, D. Voillemot and A. Choffel, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: initially, A. Bouquet, W. Wils and A. Whelan, and subsequently A. Bouquet, W. Wils and A. Whelan, Agents, assisted by A. Condomines and J. Liygonie, lawyers)
   Re:
   First, an application for annulment of Articles 1 and 3 of Decision C(2002) 2931 final of 2 October 2001 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (COMP/E-1/36.756 — Sodium gluconate), in that it sets the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant; second, an application for a reduction in the amount of the find; and, third, an application for repayment to the applicant of the amounts unlawfully received.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Roquette Frères SA at EUR 8 105 000;

               2.

               Varies Decision C(2002) 2931 final of 2 October 2001 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (COMP/E-1/36.756 — Sodium gluconate) in so far as it is inconsistent with paragraph 1 above;

               3.

               Dismisses the remainder of the application;

               4.

               Orders Roquette Frères SA to pay all of the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 68, 16.3.02.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 December 1999 in Case C-47/99: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 94/33/EC — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
4.3.2000                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 63/7
2. Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(1) OJ C 86 of 27.3.1999.                                                                              (First Chamber)
                                                                                of 16 December 1999
                                                                           in Case C-137/99: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Hellenic Republic (1)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                           (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure
                                                                                to transpose Directive 96/43/EC)
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                       of 16 December 1999                                                              (2000/C 63/13)
in Case C-47/99: Commission of the European Communi-
             ties v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Directive 94/33/EC — Failure to transpose within the                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                          prescribed period)                                                    in the European Court Reports)
                            (2000/C 63/12)                                 In Case C-137/99: Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           (Agent: M. Condou-Durande) v Hellenic Republic (Agents:
                                                                           V. Kontolaimos and D. Tsagkaraki), application for a declar-
                     (Language of the case: French)                        ation that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
                                                                           administrative provisions necessary in order to comply with
                                                                           Council Directive 96/43/EC of 26 June 1996 amending and
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     consolidating Directive 85/73/EEC in order to ensure financing
                    in the European Court Reports)                         of veterinary inspections and controls on live animals and
                                                                           certain animal products and amending Directives 90/675/EEC
In Case C-47/99: Commission of the European Communities                    and 91/496/EEC (OJ 1996 L 162, p. 1), the Hellenic Republic
(Agent: D. Gouloussis) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent:                 has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and
P. Steinmetz) — application for a declaration that, by failing             under that directive — the Court (First Chamber), composed
to adopt, or by failing to communicate to the Commission,                  of: L. Sevón, President of the Chamber, P. Jann (Rapporteur)
within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and adminis-            and M. Wathelet, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate General;
trative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive              R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 December
94/33/EC of 22 June 1994 on the protection of young people                 1999, in which it:
at work (OJ 1994 L 216, p. 12), the Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC               1. Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the
Treaty and under the said directive — the Court (Fifth                         laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward, President of the                         comply with the provisions referred to in the first subparagraph
Chamber, L. Sevón, P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), P. Jann and                   of Article 4(1) of Council Directive 96/43/EC of 26 June 1996
H. Ragnemalm, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate General; R. Grass,                   amending and consolidating Directive 85/73/EEC in order to
Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 December 1999, in                        ensure financing of veterinary inspections and controls on live
which it:                                                                      animals and certain animal products and amending Directives
                                                                               90/675/EEC and 91/496/EEC, the Hellenic Republic has failed
1. Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period all         to fulfil its obligations under that article;
     the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
     comply with Council Directive 94/33/EC of 22 June 1994 on
     the protection of young people at work, the Grand Duchy of            2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;
     Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
     directive;                                                            3. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
2. Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.
(1) OJ C 100 of 10.4.1999.


title: Case C-505/08: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 December 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2005/36/EC — Recognition of professional qualifications — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               27.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/11

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 December 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-505/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2005/36/EC - Recognition of professional qualifications - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   2010/C 51/16
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: H. Støvlbæk and M. Adam, Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and N. Graf Vitzthum, Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the specified time-limit, the necessary provisions to comply with Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22)

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               By failing to adopt and communicate to the European Commission all the laws, regulations or administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive.

               2.

               The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 19, 24.01.2009.


title: Case C-88/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 November 2011 — LG Electronics, Inc v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Word sign ‘KOMPRESSOR PLUS’ — Refusal to register — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 7(1)(c) — Descriptive character — Consideration of new evidence by the General Court — Distortion of the facts and evidence)

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/19

      Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 November 2011 — LG Electronics, Inc v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
      (Case C-88/11 P) (1)

      (Appeal - Community trade mark - Word sign ‘KOMPRESSOR PLUS’ - Refusal to register - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 7(1)(c) - Descriptive character - Consideration of new evidence by the General Court - Distortion of the facts and evidence)
      (2012/C 25/32)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Appellant: LG Electronics, Inc. (represented by: J. Blanchard, avocat)

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

         Re:

      Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 16 December 2010 in Case T-497/09 LG Electronics v OHIM dismissing the appellant’s action against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 September 2009 (Case R 397/2009-1) concerning an application for registration of the word sign KOMPRESSOR PLUS as a Community trade mark — Descriptive nature of the mark — Article 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1) — Consideration of new facts by the General Court — Distortion of the evidence

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the appeal;

                  2.

                  Orders LG Electronics Inc. to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 120, 16.4.2011.


title: Case C-449/14 P: Appeal brought on 25 September 2014 by DTS Distribuidora de Televisión Digital, S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 11 July 2014 in Case T-533/10 DTS Distribuidora de Televisión Digital v Commission

text:
               10.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 395/27

      Appeal brought on 25 September 2014 by DTS Distribuidora de Televisión Digital, S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 11 July 2014 in Case T-533/10 DTS Distribuidora de Televisión Digital v Commission

      (Case C-449/14 P)
      (2014/C 395/33)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Appellant: DTS Distribuidora de Televisión Digital, S.A. (represented by: H. Brokelmann and M. Ganino, abogados)

         Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Telefónica de España, S.A., Telefónica Móviles España, S.A., Kingdom of Spain and Corporación de Radio y Televisión Española, S.A. (RTVE)

         Form of order sought

      The appellant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  set aside the judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2014 in Case T-533/10 DTS Distribuidora de Televisión Digital, S.A. v European Commission and, consequently, pursuant to Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice

                              —

                              on the basis of the information at its disposal, uphold the form of order sought in the application initiating proceedings at first instance and annul Commission Decision 2011/1/EU (1) of 20 July 2010 on the State aid scheme C38/09 (ex NN 58/09) which Spain is planning to implement for Corporación de Radio y Televisión Española (RTVE), or

                              —

                              in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for judgment in the light of the judgment of the Court of Justice,

                  —

                  order the Commission and the parties intervening in support of the Commission to pay the costs of both the appeal proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

                  1.

                     First ground of appeal, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU on account of an incorrect interpretation of the concept of aid.
                  The judgment under appeal infringes Article 107(1) TFEU in that it interprets incorrectly the concept of aid and, specifically, the conditions which, according to the judgment in Laboratoires Boiron, (2) must be satisfied in order for a tax to be regarded as an integral part of an aid measure.

                  2.

                     Second ground of appeal, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU in that the judgment under appeal does not carry out a comprehensive review as to the existence of aid and distorts Spanish law.
                  The judgment under appeal infringes Article 107(1) TFEU in that it does not carry out a comprehensive review as to whether the conditions laid down in the judgment in Régie Networks (1) in order for the tax imposed on DTS to be regarded as an integral part of the aid to RTVE are satisfied and in that it distorts Spanish law.

                  3.

                     Third ground of appeal, alleging an error of law in the application of Article 106(2) TFEU.
                  The judgment under appeal is vitiated by an error of law in the application of Article 106(2) TFEU. It distorts DTS’ arguments — directed at showing that the method by which the aid to RTVE is financed distorts competition disproportionately — interpreting them as though they concerned the effects of the aid itself and not the effects of the tax by which it is financed. As a consequence, the judgment under appeal rules ultra petita on matters that were not raised by DTS in the application, nor analysed by the Commission in its Decision, thereby modifying the subject-matter of the dispute and exceeding the limits of the General Court’s judicial review jurisdiction.

         (1)  OJ 2011, L 1, p. 9.

         (2)  C-526/04, EU:C:2006:528.

         (1)  C-333/07, EU:C:2008:764.


title: Case C-481/13: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Bamberg — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Mohammad Ferooz Qurbani (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951 relating to the Status of Refugees — Article 31 — Third country national who has entered the territory of a Member State after passing through another Member State — Use of the services of human traffickers — Unauthorised entry and stay — Presentation of a forged passport — Criminal penalties — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/24

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Bamberg — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Mohammad Ferooz Qurbani
   (Case C-481/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951 relating to the Status of Refugees - Article 31 - Third country national who has entered the territory of a Member State after passing through another Member State - Use of the services of human traffickers - Unauthorised entry and stay - Presentation of a forged passport - Criminal penalties - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court))
   2014/C 315/36
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Bamberg

      Party in the criminal proceedings before the referring court

   Mohammad Ferooz Qurbani

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court of Justice of the European Union does not have jurisdiction to reply to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesgericht Bamberg (Germany), by decision of 29 August 2013 in Case C-481/13.

      (1)  OJ C 352, 30.11.2013.


title: Case C-480/14: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Società Sogno di Tolosa Ltd and Others v Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli di Stato (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure — Identical questions referred — Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Games of chance — National legislation — Reorganisation of the licencing system through an alignment of licence expiry dates — New call for tenders — Licences with a shorter period than that of licences awarded in the past — Restriction — Overriding reasons of general interest — Proportionality)

text:
               20.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 127/5

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Società Sogno di Tolosa Ltd and Others v Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli di Stato
   (Case C-480/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure - Identical questions referred - Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Freedom to provide services - Games of chance - National legislation - Reorganisation of the licencing system through an alignment of licence expiry dates - New call for tenders - Licences with a shorter period than that of licences awarded in the past - Restriction - Overriding reasons of general interest - Proportionality))
   (2015/C 127/07)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Società Sogno di Tolosa Limited, Ds di Dimarco Enzo & C. Sas, Centro Servizi di Barillà Marco, Assok di Rambaldi Stefano e Casbarra Luca Snc, Dg Comunicazioni di Di Giorno Giancarlo, Tamara Maraboli, Andrea Cappiello, Depa di Delberba C. Sas, Luca Campioni, Danio Milazzo, Andrea Menna, Emilio Schiavone, Sandro Casalboni, Lorena Bertora, Andromeda di Novellis Alessandro e Stellini Roberto Snc

      Defendants: Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli di Stato

      In the presence of: Carmelo Sisino, Gianni Viano, Vincenzo Brancati, Marco Decortes, Filippo Sangineto, Luca Piccolo, Salvatore Rosolia, Giada Aricò, Giuseppe Parrelli, Wett-Pads Vermittlungs, Galassio Game Srl

      Operative part of the order

   Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU and the principles of equal treatment and effectiveness must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that in issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the organisation of a new call for tenders relating to licences with a period of validity shorter than that of licences awarded in the past due to a reorganisation of the licencing system through an alignment of licence expiry dates.

      (1)  OJ C 7, 12.1.2015.


title: Case T-188/13: Action brought on 4 April 2013 — Murnauer Markenvertrieb v OHIM — Healing Herbs (NOTFALL)

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/49

         Action brought on 4 April 2013 — Murnauer Markenvertrieb v OHIM — Healing Herbs (NOTFALL)
   (Case T-188/13)
   2013/C 156/90
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Murnauer Markenvertrieb GmbH (Trebur, Germany) (represented by: F. Traub and H. Daniel, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Healing Herbs Ltd (Walkerstone, United Kingdom)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 4 February 2013 in Case R 132/2012-4;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the word mark ‘NOTFALL’ for goods in Classes 3, 5 and 30 — Community trade mark No 9 089 681

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Healing Herbs Ltd

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: the application was upheld in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

      Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of Article 83 of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with the general principle of equal treatment

               —

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

               —

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


title: Case T-308/08: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 September 2009 — Parfums Christian Dior v OHIM — Consolidated Artists (MANGO adorably) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark MANGO adorably — Earlier national and international word marks J’ADORE and ADIORABLE — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Risk of unfair advantage being taken of the repute of the earlier marks — Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               24.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/26

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 September 2009 — Parfums Christian Dior v OHIM — Consolidated Artists (MANGO adorably)
   (Case T-308/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark MANGO adorably - Earlier national and international word marks J’ADORE and ADIORABLE - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Risk of unfair advantage being taken of the repute of the earlier marks - Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2009/C 256/47
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Parfums Christian Dior (Paris, France) (represented by: F. de Visscher, E. Cornu and D. Moreau, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Consolidated Artists BV (Rotterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: S. Bénoliel-Claux, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 May 2008 (Case R 1162/2007-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Parfums Christian Dior and Consolidated Artists BV

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Parfums Christian Dior to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 11.10.2008.


title: Joined Cases C-341/06 P and C-342/06 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 1 July 2008 — Chronopost SA (C-341/06 P), La Poste (C-342/06 P) v Union française de l'express (UFEX), DHL Express (France) SAS, Federal express international (France) SNC, CRIE SA, Commission of the European Communities, French Republic (Appeal — Proper conduct of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance — Judgment of the Court of First Instance — Quashed — Referral back to the Court of First Instance — Second judgment of the Court of First Instance — Composition of the Chamber hearing the case — State aid — Postal sector — Public undertaking entrusted with a service of general economic interest — Logistical and commercial assistance to a subsidiary — Subsidiary not operating in a reserved sector — Transfer of the express delivery business to that subsidiary — Concept of State aid — Commission decision — Assistance and transfer not constituting State aid — Statement of reasons)

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/7

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 1 July 2008 — Chronopost SA (C-341/06 P), La Poste (C-342/06 P) v Union française de l'express (UFEX), DHL Express (France) SAS, Federal express international (France) SNC, CRIE SA, Commission of the European Communities, French Republic
   (Joined Cases C-341/06 P and C-342/06 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Proper conduct of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance - Judgment of the Court of First Instance - Quashed - Referral back to the Court of First Instance - Second judgment of the Court of First Instance - Composition of the Chamber hearing the case - State aid - Postal sector - Public undertaking entrusted with a service of general economic interest - Logistical and commercial assistance to a subsidiary - Subsidiary not operating in a reserved sector - Transfer of the express delivery business to that subsidiary - Concept of ‘State aid’ - Commission decision - Assistance and transfer not constituting State aid - Statement of reasons)
   (2008/C 209/09)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellants: Chronopost SA (represented by: D. Berlin, avocat) (C-341/06 P), La Poste (represented by H. Lehman, avocat) (C-342/06 P)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Union française de l'express (UFEX), DHL Express (France) SAS, Federal express international (France) SNC, CRIE SA (represented by E. Morgan de Rivery and J. Derenne, avocats), Commission of the European Communities (represented by C. Giolito, Agent), French Republic (represented by G. de Bergues and F. Million, Agents)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) of 7 June 2006 in Case T-613/97 Ufex and Others v Commission, by which the latter annulled Commission Decision 98/365/EC of 1 October 1997 concerning alleged State aid granted by France to SFMI-Chronopost, in that it finds that neither the logistical and commercial assistance provided by La Poste to its subsidiary, SFMI-Chronopost, nor the transfer of Postadex constitute State aid to SFMI-Chronopost — Infringement of the right to a fair hearing due to lack of impartiality of the Court (Chamber partially identical to that which adopted a previous judgment, quashed by the Court) — Misuse of powers and infringement of Articles 230 EC and 253 EC — Failure to apply the concept of State aid and, therefore, infringement of Article 87 EC
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1)

               Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 7 June 2006 in Case T-613/97 Ufex and Others v Commission in so far as it (i) annuls Commission Decision 98/365/EC of 1 October 1997 concerning alleged State aid granted by France to SFMI-Chronopost inasmuch as that decision finds that neither the logistical and commercial assistance provided by La Poste to its subsidiary, SFMI-Chronopost, nor the transfer of Postadex constitute State aid to SFMI-Chronopost and (ii) allocates the burden of costs accordingly;

               2)

               Dismisses the action brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-613/97;

               3)

               Orders each of the parties and the French Republic to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 249, 14.10.2006.


title: Case T-659/11: Action brought on 21 December 2011 — Commission/OHMI — European Alliance for Solutions and Innovations (EASI European Alliance Solutions Innovations)

text:
               25.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 58/14

         Action brought on 21 December 2011 — Commission/OHMI — European Alliance for Solutions and Innovations (EASI European Alliance Solutions Innovations)
   (Case T-659/11)
   2012/C 58/27
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Berenboom, A. Joachimowicz, and M. Isgour, lawyers, J. Samnadda, and F. Wilman, Agents)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: European Alliance for Solutions and Innovations Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

      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 11 October 2011 in case R 1991/2010-4;

               —

               Declare therefore invalid the Community trademark No 6112403 registered on 17 October 2008 by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal in classes 36, 37, 44 and 45; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The figurative mark ‘EASI European Alliance Solutions Innovations’ in the colours ‘yellow, light blue, blue’, for services in classes 36, 37, 44 and 45 — Community trade mark registration No 6112403

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

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The party requesting the declaration of invalidity grounded its request on absolute grounds laid down in Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(c) and (h) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the request for declaration of invalidity

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: The contested decision infringes Article 7(1)(h) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Article 6 ter (1) of the Paris Convention in so far as the Community trade mark (‘CTM’) has been registered, although its registration falls within the scope of prohibition laid down in those provisions. The contested decision also violates Article 7(1)(g) in so far as such a registration would deceive the public by making them believe that the products and services for which the CTM is registered are approved or endorsed by the European Union or one of its institutions.