title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 25 June 1998 in Joined Cases T-20/97, T-61/97 and T-76/97: Sofivo SAS and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Beef and veal - Intervention mechanisms - Premium for the early marketing of veal calves - Average carcase weight - Criteria for fixing the same - Action for annulment - Inadmissibility)

text:
15.8.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 258/33
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            SAS, established at CondeÂ-sur-Vire, Denkavit France
                       of 15 June 1998                               SARL, established at Montreuil-Bellay (France), Sobeval
                                                                     Viande SA, established at PeÂrigueux (France), Serval SA,
in Case T-149/95 (92): Etablissements J. Richard Ducros v            established at Sainte-Eanne (France), Besnier Industrie
        Commission of the European Communities (1)                   SNC, established at Bourgbarre (France), Sovida SA,
                      (Taxation of costs)                            established at ChaÃteaubriand (France), Ouest EÂlevage
                                                                     SICA, established at Ploudaniel (France), Guinde SA,
                         (98/C 258/56)                               established at Montauban (France), Tarbouriech SA,
                                                                     established at Villeneuve-sur-Lot (France), Mamellor
               (Language of the case: French)                        SARL, established at Charnay-leÁs-MaÃcon (France),
                                                                     Coopagri Bretagne, established at Landerneau (France),
                                                                     Collet et Compagnie SA, established at ChaÃteaubourg
In Case T-149/95 (92): Etablissements J. Richard Ducros,             (France), KermeneÂ SA, established at Saint-Jacut-du-MeneÂ
established in Paris, represented by Philippe Genin, of the          (France), and Vals SA, established at Champagne (France),
Lyons Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at              represented initially by Deborah Kryvian and subsequently
the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue, v                          by Philippe Denesle, of the Rouen Bar, with an address for
Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                      service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc
initially, Jean-Paul Keppenne and, subsequently, Xavier              Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe, v Commission of the European
Lewis), supported by CMF SpA and CMF Sud SpA,                        Communities (Agent: GeÂrard Berscheid) Ð application for
established at Pignatero Maggiore (Italy), represented by            annulment of Article 1(9) and (14) of Commission
Mario Siragusa, of the Rome Bar, and Giuseppe                        Regulation (EC) No 2311/96 of 2 December 1996, of
Scassellati-Sforzolini, of the Bologna Bar, with an address          Commission Regulation (EC) No 18/97 of 8 January 1997
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger,               and of Commission Regulation (EC) No 200/97 of
Hoss & Prussen, 2 Place Winston Churchill Ð application              31 January 1997 amending Regulation (EEC) No 3886/92
for taxation of costs made pursuant to the judgment                  laying down detailed rules for the application of premium
delivered by the Court of First Instance on 5 November               schemes in the beef and veal sector (respectively, OJ L 313
1997 in Case T-149/95 Ducros v Commission [1997]                     of 3.12.1996, p. 9, OJ L 5 of 9.1.1997, p. 17, and OJ L 31
ECR II-2031 Ð the Court of First Instance (First                     of 1.2.1997, p. 62) Ð the Court of First Instance (Fifth
Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of B.                       Chamber), composed of: J. Azizi, President, and R. García-
Vesterdorf, President, and C. W. Bellamy, R. M. Moura                Valdecasas and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
Ramos, J. Pirrung and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung,                  made an order on 25 June 1998, the operative part of
Registrar, made an order on 15 June 1998, the operative              which is as follows:
part of which is as follows:
                                                                     1. The applications are dismissed as inadmissible.
The total amount of the costs to be reimbursed by the
applicant to the interveners in Case T-149/95, including             2. The applicants shall bear their own costs and shall be
those incurred by the parties in the present proceedings,                 jointly and severally liable to pay the costs of the
shall be BFR 600 000.                                                     Commission.
(1) OJ C 248 of 23.9.1995.                                           (1) OJ C 94 of 22.3.1997 and OJ C 166 of 31.5.1997.
                                                                          ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 25 June 1998
                       of 25 June 1998
                                                                     in Case T-24/97: CoopeÂrative des EÂleveurs de la VendeÂe,
in Joined Cases T-20/97, T-61/97 and T-76/97: Sofivo                 de l'Anjou et du Poitou (CEVAP) and CoopeÂrative
SAS and Others v Commission of the European                          Agricole d'EÂleveurs de Veaux du Bocage (CEVB)v Council
                        Communities (1)                                                of the European Union (1)
(Agriculture Ð Common organisation of the markets Ð                  (Agriculture Ð Common organisation of the markets Ð
Beef and veal Ð Intervention mechanisms Ð Premium for                Beef and veal Ð Intervention mechanisms Ð Premium
the early marketing of veal calves Ð Average carcase                 for the early marketing of veal calves Ð Average carcase
weight Ð Criteria for fixing the same Ð Action for                   weight Ð Criteria for fixing the same Ð Action for
                annulment Ð Inadmissibility)                                         annulment Ð Inadmissibility)
                         (98/C 258/57)                                                       (98/C 258/58)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     In Case T-24/97: CoopeÂrative des EÂleveurs de la VendeÂe,
In Joined Cases T-20/97, T-61/97 and T-76/97: Sofivo                 de l'Anjou et du Poitou (CEVAP), established at Saint-
SAS, established at CondeÂ-sur-Vire (France), Sofivo                 Laurent-sur-SeÁvre (France), and CoopeÂrative Agricole
Production SAS, established at BreÂceÂ (France), Sovinor             d'EÂleveurs de Veaux du Bocage (CEVB), established at


title: Case C-423/08: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 June 2010 — European Commission v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Own resources — Procedures for collecting import or export duties — Failure to comply with the time-limits for entry of the own resources — Late payment of own resources relating to those duties)

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/6

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 June 2010 — European Commission v Italian Republic
   (Case C-423/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Own resources - Procedures for collecting import or export duties - Failure to comply with the time-limits for entry of the own resources - Late payment of own resources relating to those duties)
   2010/C 221/08
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Aresu and A. Caeiros, Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: I. Bruni, Agent, G. Albenzio and F. Arena, avvocati dello Stato)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski, Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 2, 6, 9, 10 and 11 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, on the system of the Communities’ own resources (OJ 1989 L 155, p. 1), Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources (OJ 2000 L 130, p.1), and Article 220 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) — Delay in payment of Communities’ own resources in the event of subsequent recovery of import duties

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to comply with the time-limits for entry of the Communities’ own resources in the event of subsequent recovery and by delaying payment of those resources, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 6 and 9 to 11 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources, and the same articles of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources, and under Article 220 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code.

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

               3.

               Orders the Republic of Finland to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 313, 6.12.2008.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 June 2004 in Case T-276/01: Mély Garroni v European Parliament (Officials — Auxiliary staff — Conference Interpreter — Article 74 of the conditions of employment of other staff — Termination of employment)

text:
               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/37

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 10 June 2004
   in Case T-276/01: Mély Garroni v European Parliament (1)

   (Officials - Auxiliary staff - Conference Interpreter - Article 74 of the conditions of employment of other staff - Termination of employment)
   (2004/C 228/81)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-276/01: Mély Garroni, residing at Rome (Italy), represented by G. Vandersanden, lawyer, against the European Parliament (Agents: H. von Hertzen and J. de Wachter, with an address for service in Luxembourg) - application for, first, annulment of the decision to no longer employ Conference Interpreters aged 65 or more and, secondly, damages - the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. García-Valdecasas, President, P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges; for the Registrar: J. Palacio Gonzalez, Principal Administrator, has given a judgment on 10 June 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Annuls the Parliament's decision of 24 January 2001 and the Parliament's decision of 20 July 2001 rejecting the applicant's complaint;

               2.

               Dismisses the rest of the application;

               3.

               Orders the Parliament to bear all the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 3 of 5.1.2002.


title: Case T-485/07: Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2011 — Olive Line International v OHIM — Knopf (O-live) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark O-live — Earlier national trade name Olive line — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Right to prohibit use of a subsequent mark — Likelihood of confusion — Article 7 of the Spanish Trade Mark Law and Article 8(1) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(1) of Regulation No 207/2009))

text:
               22.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/35

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2011 — Olive Line International v OHIM — Knopf (O-live)
   (Case T-485/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark O-live - Earlier national trade name Olive line - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Right to prohibit use of a subsequent mark - Likelihood of confusion - Article 7 of the Spanish Trade Mark Law and Article 8(1) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(1) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   2011/C 311/62
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Olive Line International, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: P. Koch Moreno, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Schäffner and B. Schmidt, agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Reinhard Knopf (Malsch, Germany) (represented by: W. Weber, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 September 2007 (Case R 1478/2006-2) in opposition proceedings between Olive Line International, SL, and Mr Reinhard Knopf.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 26 September 2007 (Case R 1478/2006-2);

               2.

               orders OHIM to pay the costs;

               3.

               orders Mr Reinhard Knopf to bear his own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 51, 23.2.2008


title: Case C-89/16: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky — Slovak Republic) — Radosław Szoja v Sociálna poisťovňa (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Application of social security schemes — Migrant workers — Person pursuing an activity as an employed person and an activity as a self-employed person in two different Member States — Determination of the applicable legislation — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Article 13(3) — Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 — Article 14(5b) — Article 16 — Effects of the decisions of the Administrative Commission for the coordination of social security systems — Inadmissibility)

text:
               4.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 293/6

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky — Slovak Republic) — Radosław Szoja v Sociálna poisťovňa
   (Case C-89/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Application of social security schemes - Migrant workers - Person pursuing an activity as an employed person and an activity as a self-employed person in two different Member States - Determination of the applicable legislation - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Article 13(3) - Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 - Article 14(5b) - Article 16 - Effects of the decisions of the Administrative Commission for the coordination of social security systems - Inadmissibility))
   (2017/C 293/07)
   Language of the case: Slovak

      Referring court

   Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Radosław Szoja

      Defendant: Sociálna poisťovňa

      Intervening parties: WEBUNG, ebung s.r.o.

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 465/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012, must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to determine the national legislation applicable under that provision to a person, such as the applicant in the main proceedings, who normally pursues an activity as an employed person and an activity as a self-employed person in different Member States, the requirements laid down in Article 14(5b) and Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation No 883/2004, as amended by Regulation No 465/2012, must be taken into account.

      (1)  OJ C 175, 17.5.2016.


title: Case T-81/03: Action brought on 3 March 2003 by Mast-Jägermeister AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
10.5.2003              EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 112/37
Action brought on 3 March 2003 by Mast-Jägermeister                      Decision of the Oppo-         Registration refused
AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                  sition Division:
              Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                         Decision of the Board of      Rejection of the applicant’s oppo-
                          (Case T-81/03)                                 Appeal:                       sition
                                                                         Pleas in law:                 —     Infringement of Article 73 of
                         (2003/C 112/71)
                                                                                Regulation (EC) No 40/94;
                                                                                —     Misapplication             of
(Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
                                                                                Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation
of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was
                                                                                (EC) No 40/94;
                        submitted: German)
                                                                                —     Incorrect assessment of the
                                                                                similarity of the marks.
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
on 3 March 2003 by Mast-Jägermeister AG, Wolfenbüttel
(Germany), represented by Chr. Drzymalla, lawyer. Licorera
Zacapaneca S.A., Zacapa (Guatemala) was also a party to the
proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Action brought on 3 March 2003 by Mast-Jägermeister
                                                                         AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
—     annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the                           Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
      Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
      Marks and Designs) of 19 December 2002 (Case R 412/
      2002-1);                                                                                (Case T-82/03)
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                                (2003/C 112/72)
                                                                         (Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was
                                                                                submitted: German)
Applicant for Com-             Licorera Zacapaneca S.A.
munity trade mark:
Community trade mark           Figurative mark ‘VENADO’ —
sought:                        Application No 986455 lodged in           An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the
                               respect of goods in Classes 32 and        Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before
                               33 (inter alia mineral and aerated        the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                               waters and other non-alcoholic            on 3 March 2003 by Mast-Jägermeister AG, Wolfenbüttel
                               drinks, rum, rum-based liqueurs,          (Germany), represented by Chr. Drzymalla, lawyer. Licorera
                               brandy)                                   Zacapaneca S.A., Zacapa (Guatemala) was also a party to the
                                                                         proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
Proprietor of mark or          The applicant
sign cited in the oppo-
sition proceedings:
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
Mark or sign cited in          Figurative mark consisting of a
opposition:                    stag’s head with a cross, registered      —     annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the
                               in respect of goods in Classes 18,              Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
                               25, 32 and 33 (inter alia                       Marks and Designs) of 19 December 2002 (Case R 382/
                               umbrellas,      clothing,      non-             2002-1);
                               alcoholic beverages in so far as
                               included in Class 32, wines and
                               spirits) — Trade mark No 337337           —     order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case C-408/11: Order of the President of the Court of 28 June 2012 — (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Münster — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Thomas Karl-Heinz Kerkhoff, intervener: Amtsgericht Münster

text:
               15.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 389/6

         Order of the President of the Court of 28 June 2012 — (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Münster — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Thomas Karl-Heinz Kerkhoff, intervener: Amtsgericht Münster
   (Case C-408/11) (1)

   2012/C 389/10
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 22.10.2011.


title: Case T-217/03: Action brought on 19 June 2003 by Fédération Nationale de la Coopération Bétail et Viande (FNCBV) against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 200/30              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         23.8.2003
Decision of the Opposition       Acceptance of the opposition             principle of non-discrimination. The applicant points out that
Division:                        for services falling within              the defendant did not conduct an examination of the compara-
                                 class 42, rejection of the oppo-         tive merits of the applicant with those of the officials of all the
                                 sition for products falling with-        Directorates-General eligible for promotion, but limited itself to
                                 in classes 9 and 35                      the ‘quota’ which had been allocated to the applicant's Direc-
                                                                          torate-General, gave an advantage to officials considered as
                                                                          reserve candidates from the previous year's promotion proce-
                                                                          dure and did not take account of applicant's transfer, during
Decision of the Board of         Action upheld, contested deci-           the reference period, from one Directorate-General to another.
Appeal:                          sion annulled
Pleas in law:                    Infringement of Article 8(5) of
                                 (EC) Regulation No 40/94 and,
                                 in the alternative, infringement
                                 of Article 8(1)(b) of the regula-
                                 tion                                     Action brought on 19 June 2003 by Fédération Nationale
                                                                          de la Coopération Bétail et Viande (FNCBV) against the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-217/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 200/55)
Action brought on 10 June 2003 by Mário Paulo Tenreiro
     against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                         (Case T-216/03)
                         (2003/C 200/54)                                  An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
                                                                          nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                   (Language of the case: French)                         European Communities on 19 June 2003 by the Fédération
                                                                          Nationale de la Coopération Bétail et Viande, (National Coop-
                                                                          erative Association for Livestock and Meat) established in Paris,
                                                                          represented by Robert Collin and Michel Ponsard, lawyers, with
An action against the Commission of the European Commu-                   an address for service in Luxembourg.
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 10 June 2003 by Mário Paulo
Tenreiro, residing in Kraainem (Belgium), represented by                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
Georges Vandersanden, lawyer.
                                                                          —     annul Decision C.38.179/F3 of 2 April 2003 in so far as
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                     it affects the applicant;
—     annul the decision not to promote the applicant in the              —     alternatively quash the fine imposed by that decision;
      2002 promotion procedure, as it appears from the
      absence of the applicant's name in the list of officials
      promoted to grade A4 published in the Administrative                —     in the further alternative reduce it;
      Notice of 14 August 2002 (No 69-2002);
                                                                          —     order the defendant to pay all the costs.
—     declare that the applicant is entitled to the actual promo-
      tion which should have been granted him in the 2002
      promotion procedure, with retrospective effect and full
      restoration of his financial and career rights;
—     order the Commission to pay all the costs.                          Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          By its contested decision, the Commission imposed on the
                                                                          applicant and five other French associations of producers and
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          slaughterers a fine based on alleged infringements of
                                                                          Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty, in respect of an agreement to
In support of his action the applicant pleads infringement of             suspend beef imports to France and to fix a minimum price
Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations and breach of the                  for certain categories of animals.
 ---pagebreak--- 23.8.2003               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 200/31
In support of its action the applicant relies on the following               Action brought on 16 June 2003 by Luigi Maruccio
grounds:                                                                       against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-241/03)
In respect of its claims for the annulment of the contested
decision:
                                                                                (2003/C 200/56)
—      alleged infringements of procedural rules, more particu-
       larly alleged infringement of the rights of the defence, by                              (Language of the case: Italian)
       reason of the alleged failure to provide reasons in the
       statement of objections, and alleged infringement of
       essential procedural requirements owing to the alleged
       insufficiency of the reasoning of the decision on not                 An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
       exceeding the ceiling of 10 % of turnover in determining              nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
       the amount of the fine;                                               European Communities on 16 June 2003 by Luigi Maruccio,
                                                                             represented by Prof. Luciano Garofalo.
—      manifest errors of appraisal and law concerning the
       existence and the characterisation of the agreement                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
       covered by the contested decision and its effect on
       competition;                                                          —     annul the note dated 15 October 2002;
—      alleged infringement of Regulation 26/62 (1) in that the              —     order the defendant to pay the applicant damages in the
       Commission should have granted the derogation provided                      sum of EUR 100 000, without prejudice to any subse-
       for by Article 2 of that regulation;                                        quent applicant for further damages.
—      alleged infringement of Article 15(2) of Regulation 17/
       62 (2) in that the Commission has given no information
       on the turnover used in determining the fines and has                 Pleas in law and main arguments
       not checked whether the amount of the fine was within
       the limit of 10 % of turnover.
                                                                             The applicant was employed at the defendant's delegation in
                                                                             Angola. He challenges the decision contained in a note dated
In respect of its claims for the reduction of the amount of the              15 October 2002 informing him, amongst other things, that
fine imposed, the applicant relies on the following grounds:                 in his absence on sick leave in Italy, where he was awaiting
                                                                             reassignment to another service, it would be necessary for
                                                                             agents of the delegation to enter the lodgings reserved for his
—      alleged infringement of Point 5(b) of the guidelines for              occupation and to permit others to enter thereon in order to
       determining the amount of the fine (3), in relation to the            pack up his personal effects.
       calculation of the amount of the fine;
                                                                             In support of his claim, the applicants argues that, irrespective
—      alleged manifest errors of appraisal and law concerning               of whether or not the note was put into effect, it contains a
       the characterisation of the infringement as ‘very serious’            decision which is unlawful for the following reasons:
       and of the agreement as ‘secret’, the alleged failure to take
       account of extenuating circumstances (lack of effect on               —     Infringement of the law by reason of trespass to the
       the market, cessation of the infringement as soon as the                    home, unlawful appropriation of property and invasion
       Commission intervened, the applicant's exclusively passive                  of privacy;
       role in the making of the agreement), and the determina-
       tion as to the duration of the agreement;                             —     Breach of the principle of ‘neminem laedere’ in that the
                                                                                note in issue was sent against a background of aggressive
—      alleged infringement of Article 15(2) of Regulation 17/62                   behaviour towards and persecution of the applicant;
       concerning the fixing of the amount of the fine;
                                                                             —     Breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of
                                                                                officials;
—      alleged infringement of the principle that penalties should
       not be cumulative.
                                                                             —     Breach of the principle of force majeure and of the prin-
                                                                                ciple of reasonableness in that the defendant failed to take
(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1959-62 (II), p. 20.                               the applicant's state of health into account.
(2) OJ, English Special Edition 1959-1962 (I), p. 87. Amended on the
    last occasion by Regulation (EC) No 1216/1992 (OJ 1999 L 148,
    p. 5).                                                                   Lastly, the applicant argues breach of the duty to state reasons
(3) Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to            and of the principle of the protection of legitimate expecta-
    Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 etc., (OJ 1998 C 9, p. 3).             tions.


title: Case C-653/13: Action brought on 10 December 2013 — European Commission v Italian Republic

text:
               29.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/19

         Action brought on 10 December 2013 — European Commission v Italian Republic
   (Case C-653/13)
   2014/C 93/30
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Recchia and E. Sanfrutos Cano, Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic

      Form of order sought

   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU by failing to adopt all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-297/08 Commission v Italy [2010], in which it was held that, by failing to adopt, for the region of Campania, all the measures necessary to ensure that waste is recovered and disposed of without endangering human health and without harming the environment and, in particular, by failing to establish an integrated and adequate network of disposal installations, the Italian Republic had failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4 and 5 of Directive 2006/12/EC; (1)

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the Commission a daily penalty of EUR 256 819,20 (that is, EUR 85 606,40 per day per installation category), minus any reductions which may follow from the gradual reduction formula proposed, from the day of delivery of the judgment in the present case until the day on which the judgment in Case C-297/08 is complied with;

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the Commission a lump sum, that sum being the product of multiplying a daily sum of EUR 28 089,60 by the number of days of continued infringement from the day on which the judgment in Case C-297/08 was delivered until the day of delivery of the judgment in the present case;

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission claims that Italy has failed to adopt the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court in Case C-297/08. According to the Commission, the proposed penalty (a daily penalty payment plus a lump sum payment) is commensurate with the seriousness and duration of the infringement and takes into account the need to ensure that the penalty is a deterrent against further infringements.

      (1)  Directive 2006/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2006 on waste (OJ 2006 L 11, p. 9).


title: Case T-58/14: Action brought on 27 January 2014  — Stührk Delikatessen Import v Commission

text:
               28.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/25

         Action brought on 27 January 2014 — Stührk Delikatessen Import v Commission
   (Case T-58/14)
   2014/C 129/32
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Stührk Delikatessen Import GmbH & Co. KG (Marne, Germany) (represented by: J. Sparr, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Decision C(2013) 8286 final of 27 November 2013 in Case AT.39633 — Shrimps, notified to the applicant on 29 November 2013, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

               —

               in the alternative, cancel in its entirety the fine imposed on the applicant;

               —

               in the further alternative, reduce the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant and set a fine not exceeding EUR 188 300;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies, inter alia, on the following pleas in law:

               —

               The Commission erred in assuming that the applicant participated in an overall cartel in the Netherlands, Belgium, France and Germany, as the applicant merely took account of the price range provided by two undertakings with significant market power in respect of a customer in Northern Germany and, therefore, merely participated in an anti-competitive agreement which, in geographical and substantive terms, was very limited.

               —

               The applicant submits that it neither supported nor was aware of the other participants’ price and volume agreements or customer allocation agreements identified by the Commission in respect of the markets in the Netherlands, Belgium and France.

               —

               The applicant submits that the Commission failed in part to have regard to correctly established facts and erred in part in its assessment of those facts, contrary to the dates and substance of those facts. In that regard the applicant also complains of a failure to take into account numerous mitigating circumstances in the context of the determination of the amount of the fine.

               —

               The applicant further maintains that the Commission’s 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines and their application are unlawful and contrary to the principle of precision and the framework established by the legislature for the setting of fines.

               —

               In the alternative, the applicant relies on the fact that, in the proceedings at issue, the Commission departed materially from the methodology of the Guidelines on fines. It thus failed to have regard to the fact that it was bound by its own guidelines and thereby exceeded the bounds of its discretion. Furthermore, in this particular case, the Commission arbitrarily set the fines imposed on the participants, and granted the main participants and instigators of the overall cartel identified by the Commission greater reductions than it granted the applicant, contrary to its own findings regarding the respective gravity of the infringements.


title: Case T-463/15: Order of the General Court of 14 September 2016 — Almashreq Investment Fund v Council

text:
               7.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 410/33

         Order of the General Court of 14 September 2016 — Almashreq Investment Fund v Council
   (Case T-463/15) (1)

   (2016/C 410/49)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.


title: Case C-560/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 30 October 2015 — Europa Way Srl, Persidera SpA v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni and Others

text:
               1.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/23

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 30 October 2015 — Europa Way Srl, Persidera SpA v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni and Others
   (Case C-560/15)
   (2016/C 038/34)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Europa Way Srl, Persidera SpA

      Respondents: Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero dell’Economia and delle Finanze

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do the contested legislation and the consequential implementing measures infringe the rules according to which the functions of regulating the television market are vested in an independent administrative authority (Articles 3 and 8 of Directive 2002/21/EC, (1)‘the Framework Directive’, as amended by Directive 2009/140/EC (2));

               2.

               Do the contested legislation and the consequential implementing measures infringe the provisions (Article 7 of Directive 2002/20/EC, (3)‘the Authorisation Directive’, and Article 6 of Directive 2002/21/EC, the Framework Directive) which provide for prior public consultation by the national independent authority regulating the sector;

               3.

               Does EU law, and in particular Article 56 TFEU, Article 9 of Directive 2002/21/EC, the Framework Directive, Articles 3, 5 and 7 of Directive 2002/20/EC, the Authorisation Directive, and Articles 2 and 4 of Directive 2002/77/EC, (4)‘the Competition Directive’, and the principles of non-discrimination, transparency, freedom of competition, proportionality, effectiveness and pluralism of information, preclude annulment of the beauty contest procedure — which was commenced in order to remedy, within the system for the allocation of digital television frequencies, the unlawful exclusion of operators from the market and to allow access for small operators — and substitution for it of another payment-based tendering procedure, which provides for the imposition on participants of requirements and obligations not previously required of incumbents, rendering engagement in competitive bidding onerous and uneconomic;

               4.

               Does EU law, in particular Article 56 TFEU, Article 9 of Directive 2002/21/EC, the Framework Directive, Articles 3, 5 and 7 of Directive 2002/20/EC, the Authorisation Directive, Articles 2 and 4 of Directive 2002/77/EC, the Competition Directive, and Article 258 TFEU, and the principles of non-discrimination, transparency, freedom of competition, proportionality, effectiveness and pluralism of information, preclude the re-configuration of the Plan for the allocation of frequencies, reducing national networks from 25 to 22 (and retention of the same availability of multiplexes for the incumbents), the reduction of lots in the competition to 3 multiplexes, the allocation of frequencies in the VHF-III band involving the risk of severe interference;

               5.

               Is the upholding of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, as expounded by the Court of Justice, compatible with the annulment of the beauty contest procedure which has not allowed the appellants, already admitted to the free procedure, to be sure of being awarded some of the lots put out to tender;

               6.

               Is the enactment of a provision, such as that contained in Article 3 quinquies of Legislative Decree No 16 of 2012, which is out of harmony with the characteristics of the radio and television market, compatible with EU legislation on the allocation of user rights for frequencies (Articles 8 and 9 of Directive 2002/21/EC, the Framework Directive, Articles 5 and 7 of Directive 2002/20/EC, the Authorisation Directive, Articles 2 and 4 of Directive 2002/77/EC, the Competition Directive).

      (1)  Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33).

      (2)  Directive 2009/140/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 amending Directives 2002/21/EC on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services, 2002/19/EC on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities, and 2002/20/EC on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (OJ 2009 L 337, p. 37).

      (3)  Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21).

      (4)  Commission Directive 2002/77/EC of 16 September 2002 on competition in the markets for electronic communications networks and services (OJ 2002 L 249, p. 21).


title: Case T-277/99: Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 October 2006 — Self Service Station Weghorst v Commission

text:
               16.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 310/28

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 October 2006 — Self Service Station Weghorst v Commission
   (Case T-277/99) (1)

   (2006/C 310/55)

      Language of the case: Dutch

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

      (1)  OJ C 47, 19.2.2000.


title: ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT of 26 February 1996 in Case C-181/95: Biogen Inc. v. Smithkline Beecham Biologicals SA (Articles 20 and 37 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Communities - Participation in proceedings under Article 177 of the EC Treaty)

text:
No C 145/2              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       18 . 5 . 96
    specific damages, such as the exemplary damages                      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Consiglio di Stato
    provided for by English law, pursuant to claims or                   by order of that court of 6 December 1995 in the cases of 1 .
    actions founded on Community law, if such damages                    Maria Antonella Garofalo, 2 . Giovanni Pagano, 3 . Rosa
    may be awarded pursuant to similar claims or actions                 Bruna Vitale, 4 . Francesca Nuccio, 5 . Giacomo Cangialosi,
    founded on domestic law.                                             6. Giacoma D'Amico, 7. Giulia Lombardo, 8 . Emanuela
                                                                         Giovenco, 9. Caterina Lo Gaglio, 10. Daniela Guerrera, 11 .
                                                                         Cesare Di Marco v. Ministero della Sanità and Locai Health
5 . The obligation for Member States to make good loss                                       Authority No 58 , Palermo
    or damage caused to individuals by breaches of
                                                                                ( Cases C-69/96 to C-79/96 )
     Community law attributable to the State cannot be
    limited to damage sustained after the delivery of a                                             ( 96/C 145/03 )
    judgment of the Court finding the infringement in
    question.
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
(') OJ No C 92 , 2 . 4 . 1993 .                                          European Communities by orders of the Consiglio di Stato
    OJ No C 94, 3 . 4 . 1993 .                                           of 6 December 1995 , which were received at the Court
                                                                         Registry on March 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                         cases of 1 . Maria Antonella Garofalo, 2 . Giovanni Pagano,
                                                                         3 . Rosa Bruna Vitale, 4 . Francesca Nuccio, 5 . Giacomo
                                                                         Cangialosi , 6 . Giacoma D'Amico, 7. Giulia Lombardo, 8 .
                                                                         Emanuela Giovenco, 9 . Caterina Lo Gaglio, 10 . Daniela
                                                                         Guerrera , 11 . Cesare Di Marco v. Ministero délia Sanità
                                                                         ( Ministry of Health ) and Local Health Authority No 58 ,
    ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT                                  Palermo, on the following questions :
                     of 26 February 1996
in Case C- 1 8 1/95 : Biogen Inc. v. Smithkline Beecham
                         Biologicals SA ( 1 )                            ( a ) Must the term 'court or tribunal' in Article 177 of the
                                                                               Treaty be interpreted extensively so as to include not
(Articles 20 and 37 of the Statute of the Court ofJustice of                   only judicial proceedings specifically defined as such in
the European Communities — Participation in proceedings                        national    law    but    also  contentious-administrative
            under Article 1 77 of the EC Treaty)                               proceedings characterized not only by impartiality, the
                          ( 96/ C 145/02 )                                     guarantee of full disclosure between parties, and so
                                                                               forth, but also by the fact that the decision cannot be
                                                                               revoked or amended by any other administrative of
                (Language of the case: French)                                 judicial authority ?
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
         published in the European Court Reports)                        ( b ) Does the expression 'all those doctors who on
                                                                               31 December 1994 possess such a right' in Article 7 ( 2 )
                                                                               of Directive 86/457/EEC ( 1 ) refer to those who had
In Case C-181 /95 : reference to the Court under Article 177                   theoretically obtained entitlement to enter into a
of the EC Treaty from the Tribunal de Commerce                                 service relationship ( as employees, under contractual
( Commercial Court), Nivelles, Belgium, for a preliminary                      arrangements, as members of temporary staff, etc .)
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                    with the national health service, or only those who had
Biogen Inc . and Smithkline Beecham Biologicals SA — on                        already in fact entered into such a relationship ?
the interpretation of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1768/92
of 1 8 June 1 992 concerning the creation of a supplementary
protection certificate for medicinal products ( OJ 1992                   'c ) If the answer to the second question upholds the second
L 182 , p . 1 ) — the President of the Court, after hearing                    possibility, is the Directive to be interpreted as meaning
the Advocate-General, N. Fennelly, made an order on                            that the national authority is in any event entitled to
26 February 1996 , the operative part of which is as                           extend the term 'acquired rights' so as to include all
follows :                                                                      those who, on the date indicated, had acquired an
                                                                               ordinary certificate of entitlement to practise medicine,
                                                                               or as meaning that an 'acquired right' must be taken to
1 . The application to intervene by Research Corporation                       refer to a higher level of qualification than an ordinary
     Technologies Inc. is dismissed as inadmissible.                           certificate of entitlement to practise medicine ?
2.   There is no need to rule on costs.
                                                                         (') OJ No L 267, 19 . 9 . 1986 , p . 26 .
(!) OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .


title: Case F-119/07: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 17 February 2011 — Strack v European Commission (Civil service — Officials — Mediation procedure — Act adversely affecting an official — Article 73 of the Staff Regulations — Consolidation — Provisional allowance)

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/48

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 17 February 2011 — Strack v European Commission
   (Case F-119/07) (1)

   (Civil service - Officials - Mediation procedure - Act adversely affecting an official - Article 73 of the Staff Regulations - Consolidation - Provisional allowance)
   2011/C 252/101
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Guido Strack (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and B. Eggers, Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of several decisions of the Commission rejecting the applicant’s requests for the conduct of a mediation procedure, for immediate intervention, for the adoption of dispute resolution measures and for payment of an allowance pursuant to Article 19(4) of the Common Rules on insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease. Application for damages.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 26 February 2007 refusing to pay Mr Strack a provisional allowance pursuant to Article 19(4) of the Common Rules.

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action.

               3.

               Orders the Commission to pay half of the costs incurred by Mr Strack in addition to its own costs.

               4.

               Orders Mr Strack to pay half of his own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 183, 19.07.2008, p. 32.


26 . 4 . 97             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 131 / 11
Communities on 7 March 1997 by the Commission of the                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
European Communities, represented by Gerard Berscheid,
of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for              The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la               those in Case C-56/97 ( 3 ); the time-limits expired on
Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                         1 March 1995 and 1 January 1995 respectively.
                                                                        (') OJ No L 104, 23 . 4 . 1994, p . 32 .
The Commission of the European Communities claims                       ( 2 ) OJ No L 201 , 4 . 8 . 1994 , p . 26 .
that the Court should :                                                 ( 3 ) OJ No C 108 , 5 . 4 . 1997, p . 12 .
— declare that, by failing to bring into force within the
     time-limits laid down the laws, regulations and
     administrative provisions necessary in order to comply
     with Commission Directive 94/1 6/EC of 22 April 1994                        Removal from the register of Case C-29/96 ( 1 )
     amending Council Directive 74/63/EEC on undesirable                                              ( 97/C 131 /27 )
     substances and products in animal nutrition              and
     Council Directive 94/42/EC of 27 July amending
     Directive 64/432/EEC on health problems affecting                  By order of 19 February 1997 the President of the Fifth
     intra-Community trade in bovine animals and                        Chamber of the Court of Justice of . the European
     swine ( 2 ), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed              Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
     to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of Directive 96/         Case C-29/96 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from the
     16/EC and Article 2 of Directive 94/42/EC,
                                                                        High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland, Queen's Bench
                                                                        Division ( United Kingdom)): Norbrook Laboratories Ltd
                                                                        v. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
— order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the
     costs .                                                            (') OJ No C 95 , 30 . 3 . 1996 .
                                                       COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               Glesener, against Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities ( Agent: Gerard Berscheid ) — application for
                        of 30 January 1997                              annulment of Article 1 ( 4 ) of Regulation ( EC ) No 455/95
                                                                        of 28 February 1995 amending Regulations ( EEC )
in    Case    T-117/95 :     Corman    v.   Commission    of   the
                                                                        No 1547/87 and ( EEC ) No 1589/87 as regards the
                     European Communities (')                           buying-in of butter by the intervention agencies and
                                                                        Regulations ( EEC ) No 2191 /81 and ( EEC ) No 570/88 as
 (Action for annulment — Regulations (EEC) No 570/88
and (EC) No 455/95 — Aid for butter for use in the
                                                                        regards the grant of aid for the purchase and sale of butter
                                                                        at a reduced price to certain categories of consumers and
manufacture of certain categories of products —
Definition of butter — Definition of intermediate product
                                                                        industries ( OJ No L 46, 1 . 3 . 1995 , p. 31 ), the Court of
                                                                        First Instance ( Fifth Chamber), composed of: R. Garcfa
— Legal interest in bringing proceedings —
                                                                        Valdecasas, President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; J.
                          Inadmissibility)
                                                                        Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
                           ( 97/C 131 /28 )                             given a judgment on 30 January 1997 in which it:
                                                                         1 . dismisses the application as inadmissible;
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs.
In Case T-117/95 N. Corman SA, established in Goe                       C ) OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
Limbourg ( Belgium ), represented by Lucette Defalque, of
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the office of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 1 Rue


title: Case C-66/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Republic of Lithuania) lodged on 16 February 2009 — Kirin Amgen, Inc. v Lietuvos Respublikos valstybinis patentų biuras

text:
               18.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/17

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Republic of Lithuania) lodged on 16 February 2009 — Kirin Amgen, Inc. v Lietuvos Respublikos valstybinis patentų biuras
   (Case C-66/09)
   2009/C 90/27
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Referring court

   Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Claimant: Kirin Amgen, Inc.

      Defendant: Lietuvos Respublikos valstybinis patentų biuras

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the date, referred to in Article 19(2) of Regulation No 1768/92, (1) upon which that regulation enters into force to be understood for Lithuania as the date of its accession to the European Union?

               2.

               Should the answer to the first question be in the affirmative, what is the relationship between Article 19 and Article 7 of Regulation No 1768/92 when calculating the six-month period and which of those articles is it necessary to apply in a case?

               3.

               Did an authorisation to place a product on the market in the European Community enter into force unconditionally in the Republic of Lithuania from the date of its accession to the European Union?

               4.

               Should the answer to the third question be in the affirmative, can the entry into force of the authorisation to place the product on the market be equated to its grant for the purposes of Article 3(b) of Regulation No 1768/92?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 of 18 June 1992 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (OJ 1992 L 182, p. 1).


title: Action brought on 2 October 1998 by NV Firma Léon Van Parys and NV Pacific Fruit Company against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-160/98)

text:
5.12.98               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 378/21
Lastly, the appointing authority committed a manifest               before the end of the test, the invigilators distributed
error of assessment by failing to recognise the                     among the candidates concerned a photocopy of the page
appropriateness, having regard to the delicate nature of            missing from the questionnaire and informed them that
the applicant's situation, of promoting her at the earliest         they would be given additional time to answer. That
possible juncture in the interests of the service.                  information, however, was contradicted because, at the
                                                                    end of the test, as the instructions to candidates provided,
                                                                    the person responsible for conducting the test requested
                                                                    the candidates concerned to stop writing, and their scripts
                                                                    were collected.
Action brought on 2 October 1998 by Yvan Torre                      According to the applicants, these irregularities in the
and Others against the Commission of the European                   manner in which test (a) was conducted distort the results
                          Communities                               of the test and render the selection board's decision
                        (Case T-159/98)                             invalid. They further claim that there was a breach of the
                                                                    instructions to candidates, as well as infringement of the
                         (98/C 378/38)                              principles of equal treatment and sound administration.
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                    Finally, the applicants submit that, contrary to the
                                                                    obligation to state reasons, the contested decisions do not
An action against the Commission of the European                    contain any reasoning other than the marks obtained by
Communities was brought before the Court of First                   the applicants in tests (a) to (d), along with a reference to
Instance of the European Communities on 2 October 1998              Point VII.A.1 of the notice of competition, which specified
by Yvan Torre, Donatella Ineichen and Alessandro                    that candidates had to obtain the minimum mark required
Cavallaro, residing in Brussels, represented by Marc-               for test (a) in order for tests (e) and (f) to be corrected.
Albert Lucas, of the LieÁge Bar, with an address for service
in Luxembourg at the Offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL,
30 Rue de Cessange.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                    Action brought on 2 October 1998 by NV Firma LeÂon
Ð annul the decisions of the selection board for                    Van Parys and NV Pacific Fruit Company against the
    Competition       EUR/A/123      awarding      them    an                Commission of the European Communities
    insufficient mark for test (a) of the competition in                                   (Case T-160/98)
    question and, consequently, refusing to admit them to
    tests (e) and (f), decisions which were notified to them                                 (98/C 378/39)
    by letters of 2 July 1998 from Mrs Anne D'Haen-
    Bertier, on behalf of the chairman of the selection                             (Language of the case: Dutch)
    board;
                                                                    An action against the Commission of the European
Ð annul the decisions of the selection board for
                                                                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
    Competition EUR/A/123 affected by the illegality of
                                                                    Instance of the European Communities on 2 October 1998
    the decisions challenged;
                                                                    by NV Firma LeÂon Van Parys and NV Pacific Fruit
                                                                    Company, both established in Antwerp (Belgium),
Ð in the alternative to the latter point, suspend the               represented by P. Vlaemminck, L. Van Den Hende and J.
    procedure for filling the posts concerned by                    Holmens, of the Ghent Bar, with an address for service in
    Competition EUR/A/123 until such time as it has been            Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch and Wolter, 11
    possible to re-organise test (a) and for it to be held          Rue Goethe.
    under proper conditions for all Italian-language
    candidates admitted to the competition, and for the
    Commission to draw all proper consequences from the             The applicant claims that the Court should:
    results of that test.
                                                                    Ð annul the decision taken by the Commission between
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     12 March and 5 August 1998, by which it decided to
                                                                        reduce the quantities of imported bananas declared by
                                                                        the applicant for the 1996 reference year for the
The applicants, whose native language is Italian, applied               purposes of determining the quantity of bananas
to sit Competition EUR/A/123 and chose the area of                      which the applicants are authorised to import from
financial management. During the test, one of the                       third countries under the tariff quota set by the EC for
candidates, who was sitting it in Italian, indicated to the             1998;
invigilation staff of the Recruitment' unit that a page was
missing from the questionnaire for test (a), namely that
relating to questions 24 to 28 inclusive. Two minutes               Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 378/22              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   5.12.98
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicants, who import bananas from third countries,             Ð annul the decision of 18 January 1988 downgrading
contest the Commission's decision to disregard, for the                  him from grade A 3 to grade A 7;
purposes of calculating the quantity of bananas which the
applicants may import in 1998, part of the quantity of
imported bananas declared by the applicants for the 1996             Ð order the European Parliament to pay the costs of the
reference year.                                                          present proceedings and of all proceedings concerning
                                                                         that decision;
They seek annulment of that decision on the following
grounds:                                                             Ð order the European Paliament:
Ð infringement of the second paragraph of Article 6 of                   Ð to pay over the guarantee fund relating to the
     Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1442/93: the                             person concerned;
     Commission did not inform the applicants prior to
     1 November 1997 of the quantity of bananas allocated                Ð to pay the applicant the difference in emoluments
     to them;                                                                between grade A 3 and grade A 7, together with
                                                                             the difference in pension;
Ð infringement of Article 190 of the EC Treaty: the
     contested decision is not supported by a statement of               Ð to pay compensation for the non-material loss
     reasons;                                                                suffered by him.
Ð breach of the applicants' procedural rights:                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     Ð breach of the rights of the defence, the right to a
         fair hearing and the right of access to the                 The applicant states that, in the course of proceedings
         documents in the file: the applicants were not              brought by the Parliament against the Royale Belge
         given access to the documents; the Commission               insurance company before the Tribunal d'Arrondissement,
         wrongly imposed on the applicants the burden of             Luxembourg, in which it sought indemnification in respect
         proof concerning the type of certificate used by            of an alleged loss of funds, the Parliament's representative
         their consignees in order to secure customs                 stated that the applicant was not responsible for the loss
         clearance of the bananas; and the Commission                of supporting documents Ð that being the main complaint
         disregarded the evidential weight attaching to the          on the basis of which the disciplinary measure was taken
         contractual obligations to which the applicants'            against him on 18 January 1988 Ð but for the loss of
         consignees were subject;                                    cash sums.
     Ð infringement of Article 2 of Regulation No 1
                                                                     The applicant maintains that that statement amounts to
         regulating the use of languages in the European
                                                                     a withdrawal of the main accusation which resulted
         Economic Community;
                                                                     in the imposition of the disciplinary measure by the
                                                                     administrative authority which made that accusation. He
Ð breach of the principle of sound management and of                 considers, therefore, that that measure should be annulled.
     the principle prohibiting arbitrary acts.
                                                                     Action brought on 12 October 1998 by Giuseppe Carraro
Action brought on 5 October 1998 by Henri de Compte                    against the Commission of the European Communities
               against the European Parliament
                                                                                (Case T-164/98)
                       (Case T-161/98)
                                                                                (98/C 378/41)
                         (98/C 378/40)
                (Language of the case: French)                                      (Language of the case: Italian)
An action against the European Parliament was brought                An Action against the Commission of the European
before the Court of First Instance of the European                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
Communities on 5 October 1998 by Henri de Compte,                    Instance of the European Communities on 12 October
residing at Gravelotte (France), represented by Henri                1998 by Giuseppe Carraro, represented by Giuseppe
Ferretti, of the Thionville Bar, with an address for service         Marchesini, of the Vicenza Bar, with an address for service
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of AndreÂ Lutgen, 1 Rue                in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, Rue
J.-P. Brasseur.                                                      Mathias Hardt.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 17 September 1996 in Joined Cases C-246/94, C-247/94, C-248/94 and C-249/94 (references for preliminary rulings from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione): Cooperativa Agricola Zootecnica S. Antonio and Others v. Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato (Commission Regulations (EEC) No 612/77 and (EEC) No 1384/77 - Special import arrangements in respect of certain young male bovine animals for fattening - Council Directive 79/623/EEC)

text:
23 . 11 . 96           I EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 354/5
15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers                      Council Directive 91 / 1 56/EEC of 18 March 1991 amending
within the Community ( Official Journal, English Special                Directive 75/442/EEC on waste ( OJ No L 78 , 1991 , p. 32 )
Edition 1968 ( II ), p. 475 ), — the Court ( Fifth Chamber )            — the Court ( First Chamber ), composed of: D. A. O.
composed of: D.A. O. Edward, President of the Chamber,                  Edward, President of the Chamber, L. Sevon ( Rapporteur )
J. -P. Puissochet, C. Gulmann, P. Jann ( Rapporteur ) and L.            and M. Wathelet, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate-General ;
Sevon, Judges ; Advocate-General : D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,              R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 September 1996 ,
Registrar: H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a               the operative part of which is as follows :
judgment on 12 September 1996 , in which it:
                                                                        Article 5 and the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC
 1 . declares that, by requiring that dependent children of             Treaty must be interpreted as not precluding a Member
      migrant workers of the Community residing in Belgium              State from imposing criminal penalties to ensure compliance
      have completed their secondary education in an                    with the obligations laid down by Council Directive
      establishment subsidized or approved by the Belgian               91 / 1 56/EEC of 18 March 1991 amending Directive
      State or by one of its communities in order to be eligible        75/442/EEC on waste, provided that th.ose penalties are
     for tideover allowances, the Kingdom of Belgium has                analogous to those applicable to infringements of national
      failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 48 of the EC       law ofa similar nature and importance and are, in any event,
      Treaty and Article 7 ofRegulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of             effective, proportionate and dissuasive.
      the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of
      movement for workers within the Community;                        (') OJ   No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 ,
                                                                            OJ   No C 137,  3 . 6 . 1995 ,
2 . dismisses the remainder of the application;                             OJ   No C 159,  24 . 6 . 1995 ,
                                                                            OJ   No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
3 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.
(') OJ No C 351 , 1994 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Sixth Chamber )
                                                                                of 17 September 1996
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                   in Joined Cases C-246/94 , C-247/94 , C-248/94 and
                            (First Chamber)                             C-249/94 ( references for preliminary rulings from the Corte
                                                                        Suprema di Cassazione ): Cooperativa Agricola Zootecnica
                        of 12 September 1996                            S. Antonio and Others v . Amministrazione delle Finanze
in Joined Cases C-58/95 , C-75/95 , C-l 12/95 , C-l 19/95 ,                                           dello Stato ( 1 )
C-123/95 , C-135 /95 , C-140/95 , C-141 /95 , C-154/95 and               (Commission Regulations (EEC) No 612/77 and (EEC)
C-157/95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from the                  No 1384/77 — Special import arrangements in respect of
Pretura Circondariale di Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli              certain young male bovine animals for fattening — Council
 and Sezione Distaccata di Castelnuovo di Porto ): Criminal                                  Directive 79/623/EEC)
      proceedings against Sandro Gallotti and Others ( 1 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 354/09 )
 (Approximation of laws — Waste — Directive
                              91/156/EEC)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                             ( 96/C 354/08 )
                                                                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                  (Language of the case: Italian)                                 published in the European Court Reports)
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be            In Joined Cases C-246/94 , C-247/94 , C-248/94 and
           published in the European Court Reports)                      C-249/94 : references to the Court under Article 177 of the
                                                                         EC Treaty from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione [ Court of
 In Joined Cases C-58/95 , C-75/95 , C-l 12/95 , C-l 19/95 ,             Cassation ] for preliminary rulings in the proceedings
 C-123/95 , C-135/95 , C-140/95 , C-141 /95 , C-154/95 and               pending before that court between Cooperativa Agricola
 C-157/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177 of the              Zootecnica S. Antonio and Others and Amministrazione
 EC Treaty from the Pretura Circondariale di Roma , Sezione              delle Finanze dello Stato — on the interpretation of Council
 Distaccata di Tivoli and Sezione Distaccata di Castelnuovo              Directive 79/623/EEC of 25 June 1979 on the har
 di Porto [District Magistrate's Court, Rome , Tivoli Division           monization of provisions laid down by law , regulation or
 and Castelnuovo di Porto Divisioni for a preliminary ruling             administrative action relating to customs debt ( OJ No
 in the criminal proceedings pending before that court                   L 179 , 1979 , p. 31 ) and Commission Regulation ( EEC )
 against Sandro Gallotti, Roberto Censi , Giuseppe Salmaggi ,            No 612/77 of 24 March 1977 laying down rules for the
 Salvatore Pasquire , Massimo Zappone, Francesco Segna                   application of the special import arrangements in respect of
 and Others, Cesare Cervetti, Mario Gasbarri , Isidoro                   certain young male bovine animals for fattening ( OJ No
 Narducci and Fulvio Smaldone on the interpretation of                   L 77, 1977, p. 18 ), as amended by Commission Regulation
 ---pagebreak--- No C 354/6             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                            23 . 11 . 96
 ( EEC ) No 1384/77 of 27 June 1977 ( OJ No L 157, 1977,              relating to turnover taxes — common system of value added
 p. 16 ), and on the validity of Commission Regulation ( EEC )        tax : uniform basis of assessment ( OJ No L 145 , 1977, p. 1 )
 No 1121 /87 of 23 April 1987 amending Regulations ( EEC )            and of Article 3 ( b ) and the first paragraph of Article 5 of the
 No 612/77 and ( EEC ) No 1 1 36/79 as regards the release of         eighth Council Directive 79/ 1072/EEC of 6 December 1979
 the security for certain special import arrangements in the          on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States
 beef and veal sector ( OJ No L 109 , 1987, p. 12 ) — the Court       relating to turnover taxes — arrangements for the refund of
 ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: C. N. Kakouris                       value added tax to taxable persons not established in the
 ( Rapporteur ), President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch and              territory of the country ( OJ No L 331 , 1979 , p. 11 ), the
 G. F. Mancini, Judges ; P. Leger, Advocate-General; H. von           Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: C. N. Kakouris ,
 Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a           President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch ( Rapporteur ) and
 judgment on 17 September 1996 , in which it rules :                  P. J. G. Kapteyn, Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate-General ;
                                                                      H. A. Riihl , Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
 1 . Article 2 (d) of Council Directive 79/623/EEC of                 given a judgment on 26 September 1996 in which it
                                                                      rules :
      25 June 1979 on the harmonization of provisions laid
      down by law, regulation or administrative action
      relating to customs debt has direct effect and confers on       Article 3 (b) of the eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC,
      individuals rights which they may assert against a              of 6 December 1979, on the harmonization of the laws of
      Member State which has failed to transpose the directive        the Member States relating to turnover taxes —
      into national law, and which the national courts must           arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable
      safeguard.                                                      persons not established in the territory of the country, is to
                                                                      be interpreted as meaning that the fact that a lawyer
2 . Article 2 (d) of Directive 79/623/EEC is also applicable          benefits, pursuant to Article 28 (3) (b) of the sixth Council
      where Commission Regulation (EEC) No 612/77 of                  Directive 77/388/EEC, of 17 May 1977, on the
      24 March 1 977 laying down rules for the application of         harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
      the special import arrangements in respect of certain           turnover taxes — common system of value added tax:
      young male bovine animals for fattening, as amended by          uniform basis of assessment, and Annex F thereto, from an
      Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1384/77 of 27 June               exemption in the Member State in which he is established
      1977, is infringed.                                             does not entitle him to request the competent authorities of
                                                                      that Member State to issue the certificate mentioned therein
                                                                      and he is not, accordingly, entitled to a refund of the VAT
C ) OJ No C 331 , 26 . 11 . 1994 .
     OJ No C 316 , 12 . 11 . 1994 .
                                                                      charged on services supplied to him in a Member State in
                                                                      which he is not established and in which services supplied by
                                                                      lawyers are not exempted.
                                                                      (') OJ No C 178 , 30 . 6 . 1993 .
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        ( Sixth Chamber )
                     of 26 September 1996                                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
in Case C-302/93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from                                    ( Fourth Chamber )
the Gerechtshof, The Hague ): Etienne Debouche v.                                          of 26 September 1996
         Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en Accijnzen (')
                                                                     in Case C-230/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
(Value added tax — Interpretation ofArticle 1 7 (2) and (3)          the      Bundesfinanzhof):      Renate      Enkler     v.     Finanzamt
(a) ofDirective 77/388/EEC and ofArticle 3 (b) and the first                                      Homburg ( 1 )
paragraph ofArticle 5 ofDirective 79/1 072/EEC — Refund
of value added tax to taxable persons not established in the          (Sixth VAT Directive — Definition of economic activity —
                                                                                Taxable amount)
                    territory of the country)
                                                                                96/C 354/ 11 )
                          ( 96/C 354/ 10 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                 (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                   published in the European Court Reports)
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                     In Case C-230/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
In Case C-302/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177          of the EC Treaty from the Bundesfinanzhof [Federal Finance
of the EEC Treaty from the Gerechtshof [ Regional Court of           Court, Germany] for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
Appeal], The Hague ( Netherlands ) for a preliminary ruling          pending before that court between Renate Enkler and
in the proceedings pending before that court between                 Finanzamt ( Tax Office ) Homburg on the interpretation of
Etienne Debouche and Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en                 Articles 4(1 ) and ( 2 ), 6 ( 2 ) ( a ) and 11 A ( 1 ) ( c ) of the sixth
Accijnzen on the interpretation of Articles 17 ( 2 ) and ( 3 ) ( a ) Council Directive ( 77/388/EEC ) of 17 May 1977 on the
of the sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977             harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States                turnover taxes — common system of value added tax:


title: Case T-368/13: Action brought on 16 July 2013 — Boehringer Ingelheim International/OHIM — Lehning entreprise (ANGIPAX)

text:
               7.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/48

         Action brought on 16 July 2013 — Boehringer Ingelheim International/OHIM — Lehning entreprise (ANGIPAX)
   (Case T-368/13)
   2013/C 260/85
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH (Ingelheim am Rhein, Germany) (represented by: V. von Bomhard and D. Slopek, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lehning entreprise SARL (Sainte Barbe, France)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul OHIM’s Fifth Board of Appeal’s decision of 29 April 2013 in Case R 571/2012-5 insofar as it allowed registration of the mark ANGIPAX in respect of pharmaceutical and veterinarian products and preparations for health and medical care; fungicides; dietetic substances adapted for medical use; disinfectants; surgical dressings and materials for dressing, materials for stopping teeth, preparations for destroying vermin; food for babies; and

               —

               Order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant, or — in the event that the other party before the Boards of Appeal intervenes on the side of the defendant — that they be borne jointly by the defendant and the intervener.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ANGIPAX’ for goods in class 5 — Community trade mark application No 8 952 401

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word mark ‘ANTISTAX’ — Community trade mark registration No 2 498 343 for goods in classes 3, 5, 28 and 30

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

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

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


title: Case C-393/12 P: Appeal brought on 24 August 2012 by Organismos Kypriakis Galaktokomikis Viomichanias against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 13 June 2012 in Case T-534/10 Organismos Kypriakis Galaktokomikis Viomichanias v OHIM

text:
               10.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/8

         Appeal brought on 24 August 2012 by Organismos Kypriakis Galaktokomikis Viomichanias against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 13 June 2012 in Case T-534/10 Organismos Kypriakis Galaktokomikis Viomichanias v OHIM
   (Case C-393/12 P)
   2012/C 343/09
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Organismos Kypriakis Galaktokomikis Viomichanias (represented by: C. Milbradt and A. Schwarz, Rechtsanwältinnen)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the decision of the Eighth Chamber of the General Court of the European Union of 13 June 2012 (T-534/10);

               —

               order the respondent to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred during the appeal procedure.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appeal is brought against the judgment of the Eighth Chamber of the General Court of 13 June 2012, by which the General Court dismissed the appellant’s action against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 20 September 2010 relating to opposition proceedings between Organismos Kypriakis Galaktokomikis Viomichanias and Garmo AG concerning registration of the Community trade mark ‘Hellim’.
   The appellant relies on the following grounds of appeal.
   First, the General Court misapplied Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (‘the CTM Regulation’), (1) by erroneously ruling out any visual or phonetic similarity between the signs ‘hellim’ and ‘halloumi’. The General Court correctly confirmed that the marks share the same first letter, the combination of the letters ‘ll’ and the last letters ‘i’ and ‘m’ (albeit in reverse order). However, it proceeded on the basis that, overall, any visual similarity had to be ruled out. That conclusion is contradictory. Given that the General Court confirms that there are certain similarities between the signs at issue, it cannot be concluded from this that there is no visual similarity at all.
   Secondly, the General Court failed to examine in detail the distinctive character of the mark, even though a determination of the distinctive character would have been required and would have played a decisive role in the assessment of the likelihood of confusion. The General Court was guided in that regard by the decision of the Board of Appeal and, without further examination, proceeded on the assumption that the mark is descriptive of a cheese of a particular region of Cyprus. Yet that issue is crucial. Since the particular features of a collective mark are precisely such that, to a certain extent, exceptions may be made to the rule prohibiting the registration of descriptive elements of a mark, the General Court’s reasoning leads indirectly to the conclusion that a collective mark automatically has only weak distinctive character. That assumption is incompatible with Article 66 of the CTM Regulation. Even though ‘Halloumi’ is a collective mark, that in itself reveals nothing about the distinctive character of the mark, which should have been examined separately and in depth. Halloumi is the name of a cheese produced specifically by that collective and is not generally descriptive information in respect of cheese, soft cheese or similar. Halloumi cannot therefore be compared to ‘Mozzarella’, for example.
   Last, the General Court’s conclusion that any visual or phonetic similarities had to be ruled out, notwithstanding its confirmation of shared features, and its reasoning by which the distinctive character of the mark was, without any detailed assessment, regarded as weak has resulted in an assessment and denial of the likelihood of confusion that is wrong in law.

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