8.3.2003               EN                   Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 55/21
        Removal from the register of Case C-347/01 ( 1)                     Removal from the register of Case C-390/01 ( 1)
                         (2003/C 55/52)                                                      (2003/C 55/55)
By order of 28 November 2002 the President of the Court of          By order of 12 December 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal             Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-347/01: Commission of the               from the register of Case C-390/01: Commission of the
European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.                 European Communities v Portuguese Republic.
( 1) OJ C 331 of 24.11.2001.                                        (1 ) OJ C 348 of 8.12.2001.
        Removal from the register of Case C-377/01 ( 1)                     Removal from the register of Case C-21/02 (1)
                         (2003/C 55/53)                                                      (2003/C 55/56)
                                                                    By order of 13 December 2002 the President of the Court of
By order of 11 December 2002 the President of the Court of
                                                                    Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                    from the register of Case C-21/02: Commission of the
from the register of Case C-377/01: Commission of the
                                                                    European Communities v Italian Republic.
European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
                                                                    (1 ) OJ C 68 of 16.03.2002.
( 1) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-88/02 (1)
        Removal from the register of Case C-389/01 ( 1)
                                                                                (2003/C 55/57)
                         (2003/C 55/54)
                                                                    By order of 15 November 2002 the President of the Court of
By order of 12 December 2002 the President of the Court of          Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal             from the register of Case C-88/02 (Reference for a preliminary
from the register of Case C-389/01: Commission of the               ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Dolomite italiana SpA (SDI)
European Communities v Portuguese Republic.                         v Ministero delle Finanze.
( 1) OJ C 348 of 8.12.2001.                                         (1 ) OJ C 131 of 01.06.2002.


title: Case T-205/10: Action brought on 4 May 2010 — Cervecería Modelo v OHIM — Plataforma Continental (LA VICTORIA DE MEXICO)

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/52

         Action brought on 4 May 2010 — Cervecería Modelo v OHIM — Plataforma Continental (LA VICTORIA DE MEXICO)
   (Case T-205/10)
   2010/C 179/89
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Cervecería Modelo, SA de CV (represented by: C. Lema Devesa, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Plataforma Continental, SL (Madrid, Spain)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul partially the decision of 5 March 2010 (Case R/322/2009-2) of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market, solely to the extent that it refuses registration of the mark ‘LA VICTORIA DE MÉXICO’ for goods in Class 32 of the Classification and, consequently declare that its registration can proceed, and

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Cervecería.

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘LA VICTORIA DE MÉXICO’ (application for registration No 4 551 214) for goods and services in Classes 25, 32 and 43.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: PLATAFORMA CONTINENTAL S.L.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘VICTORIA’ (No 2 632 271) for goods in Classes 31, 32 and 33; and Spanish word mark ‘VICTORIA’ (No 1 648 564) for goods in Class 32.

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

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partial annulment of the decision under appeal and partial refusal of the application for registration.

      Pleas in law: Incorrect interpretation and application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 September 2000 in Case C-343/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretore di Pinerolo): Renato Collino, Luisella Chiappero v Telecom Italia SpA (Directive 77/187/EEC — Safeguarding employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings — Transfer of an entity managed by a public body forming part of the State administration to a private company whose capital is publicly owned — Definition of an employee — Taking into account of employees' total length of service by the transferee)

text:
25.11.2000                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                                C 335/3
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (Fifth Chamber)                                                            (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 14 September 2000
                        of 14 September 2000
                                                                            in Case C-343/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling
in Case C-238/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                   from the Pretore di Pinerolo): Renato Collino, Luisella
the Tribunal Administratif de Châlons-en-Champagne):                                        Chiappero v Telecom Italia SpA (1)
Hugo Fernando Hocsman v Ministre de l’Emploi et de la
                              Solidarité (1)                                (Directive 77/187/EEC — Safeguarding employees’ rights
                                                                            in the event of transfers of undertakings — Transfer of an
(Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article                 entity managed by a public body forming part of the State
43 EC) — Council Directive 93/16/EEC — Community                            administration to a private company whose capital is publicly
national holding an Argentine diploma recognised by the                     owned — Definition of an employee — Taking into account
authorities of a Member State as equivalent in that State to                    of employees’ total length of service by the transferee)
a university degree in medicine and surgery — Obligations
of another Member State with respect to an application to                                               (2000/C 335/06)
                  practise medicine on its territory)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                            (2000/C 335/05)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                      (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            In Case C-343/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                                                                            the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Pretore di
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      Pinerolo, Italy, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
                     in the European Court Reports)                         pending before that judge between Renato Collino, Luisella
                                                                            Chiappero and Telecom Italia SpA — on the interpretation of
In Case C-238/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of               Council Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on the
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunal                        approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to
Administratif de Châlons-en-Champagne, France, for a prelimi-               the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers
nary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court                    of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses (OJ 1977
between Hugo Fernando Hocsman and Ministre de l’Emploi et                   L 61, p. 26) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
de la Solidarité on the interpretation of Article 52 of the EC              J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, President of the Chamber,
Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) — the Court                    C. Gulmann and J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), Judges; S. Alber,
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur),                   Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the
President of the Chamber, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida,                         Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 September 2000, in
C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet and P. Jann, Judges; F.G. Jacobs,              which it has ruled:
Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 September 2000, in                    1.    Article 1(1) of Council Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February
which it has ruled:                                                               1977 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States
                                                                                relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of
                                                                                transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses must
Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC)                 be interpreted as meaning that that directive may apply to a
is to be interpreted as meaning that where, in a situation not                    situation in which an entity operating telecommunications
regulated by a directive on mutual recognition of diplomas, a                     services for public use and managed by a public body within the
Community national applies for authorisation to practise a profession             State administration is, following decisions of the public
access to which depends, under national law, on the possession of a               authorities, the subject of a transfer for value, in the form of an
diploma or professional qualification, or on periods of practical                 administrative concession, to a private-law company established
experience, the competent authorities of the Member State concerned               by another public body which holds its entire capital. The
must take into consideration all the diplomas, certificates and other             persons concerned by such a transfer must, however, originally
evidence of formal qualifications of the person concerned and his                 have been protected as employees under national employment
relevant experience, by comparing the specialised knowledge and                   law.
abilities certified by those diplomas and that experience with the
knowledge and qualifications required by the national rules.                2.    The first paragraph of Article 3(1) of Directive 77/187 must
                                                                                be interpreted as meaning that, in calculating the rights of a
                                                                                financial nature attached, in the transferee’s business, to
(1) OJ C 258 of 15.8.1998.                                                        employees’ length of service, such as a termination payment or
                                                                                salary increases, the transferee must take into account the entire
                                                                                length of service, in both his employment and that of the
                                                                                transferor, of the employees transferred, in so far as his
 ---pagebreak--- C 335/4                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            25.11.2000
      obligation to do so derives from the employment relationship                accident and whose liability is covered by compulsory motor-
      between those employees and the transferor, and in accordance               vehicle insurance, where those passengers are carried free of
      with the terms agreed in that relationship. Directive 77/187                charge, whether or not there is any fault on the part of the
      does not, however, preclude the transferee from altering the                driver of the vehicle which caused the accident, only if the
      terms of the employment relationship where national law allows              domestic law of the Member State concerned requires such cover
      such an alteration in situations other than the transfer of an              in respect of personal injuries caused in the same conditions to
      undertaking.                                                                other third-party passengers.
(1) OJ C 358 of 21.11.1998.                                                 2.    Articles 1(2) and 5(3) of Directive 84/5, as amended by
                                                                                Annex I, Part IX F, entitled ‘Insurance’, of the Act concerning
                                                                                the conditions of accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the
                                                                                Portuguese Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties,
                                                                                preclude domestic laws laying down maximum amounts of
                                                                                compensation that are lower than the minimum amounts of
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                cover laid down by those provisions where, in the absence of
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                        fault on the part of the driver of the vehicle which caused the
                                                                                accident, only civil liability for materialisation of risk arises.
                      of 14 September 2000
in Case C-348/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                   (1) OJ C 358 of 21.11.1998.
the Tribunal da Comarca de Setúbal): Vitor Manuel
Mendes Ferreira and Maria Clara Delgado Correia Ferreira
    v Companhia de Seguros Mundial Confiança SA (1)
(Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of
motor vehicles — Directives 84/5/EEC and 90/232/EEC —
Minimum amounts of cover — Type of civil liability —
Injury caused to a member of the family of the insured                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           person or driver)
                                                                                (Fourth Chamber)
                           (2000/C 335/07)
                                                                                of 14 September 2000
                  (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                                                                            in Case C-369/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s
                    in the European Court Reports)                          Bench Division (Divisional Court)): The Queen v Minister
In Case C-348/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of               of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte Trevor Robert
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunal da                        Fisher and Penny Fisher, trading as ‘TR & P Fisher’ (1)
Comarca de Setúbal, Portugal, for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings pending before that court between Vitor Manuel                  (Aid schemes — Computerised database — Disclosure of
Mendes Ferreira and Maria Clara Delgado Correia Ferreira and                                              information)
Companhia de Seguros Mundial Confiança SA — on the
interpretation of the Second Council Directive (84/5/EEC) of                                           (2000/C 335/08)
30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the
Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in
respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1984 L 8, p. 17) and                                   (Language of the case: English)
the Third Council Directive (90/232/EEC) of 14 May 1990 on
the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating
to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor         In Case C-369/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
vehicles (OJ 1990 L 129, p. 33) — the Court (Fifth Chamber),                the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the High Court of
composed of: D.A.O. Edward, President of the Chamber,                       Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Div-
L. Sevón (Rapporteur), P.J.G. Kapteyn, P. Jann and H. Ragnem-              isional Court), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
alm, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,              pending before that court between The Queen and Minister of
has given a judgment on 14 September 2000, in which it has                  Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte Trevor Robert Fisher
ruled:                                                                      and Penny Fisher, trading as ‘TR & P Fisher’ — on the
                                                                            interpretation of Articles 3(1) and 9 of Council Regulation
1.    Article 3 of the Second Council Directive (84/5/EEC) of               (EEC) No 3508/92 of 27 November 1992 establishing an
      30 December 1983, on the approximation of the laws of the             integrated administration and control system for certain
      Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in        Community aid schemes (OJ 1992 L 355, p. 1) and of
      respect of the use of motor vehicles, requires compulsory             Article 9 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 of
      insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor      23 December 1992 laying down detailed rules for applying
      vehicles to cover personal injuries to passengers who are             the integrated administration and control system for certain
      members of the family of the insured person, of the driver of the     Community aid schemes (OJ 1992 L 391, p. 36) — the Court
      vehicle or of any other person who incurs civil liability for an      (Fourth Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward, President of


title: Case C-150/01: Action brought on 9 April 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
C 173/28               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      16.6.2001
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal                     2.    Does ‘the total amount to be paid by the traveller’
(England & Wales) (Civil Division), by order of that court                          within Article 26.2 include the additional sum
of 13 March 2001, in the case of Commissioners of                                   referred to in (c) above?
    Customs and Excise against First Choice Holidays plc
                         (Case C-149/01)                                (1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
                                                                            harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
                                                                            turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
                                                                            basis of assessment (OJ L 145, 13.06.77, p. 1).
                         (2001/C 173/47)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Court of Appeal
(England & Wales) (Civil Division) of 13 March 2001, which
was received at the Court Registry on 26 March 2001, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Commissioners of Customs
and Excise against First Choice Holidays, on the following
questions:
                                                                        Action brought on 9 April 2001 by the Commission of
                                                                         the European Communities against the French Republic
Where a tour operator within the meaning of Article 26 of
Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1)
                                                                                (Case C-150/01)
(a)   supplies package holidays to customers through the
      disclosed agency of a travel agent;                                                        (2001/C 173/48)
(b) permits the agent to arrange the supply of package                  An action against the French Republic was brought before the
      holidays at a discount from the price published in the            Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 April
      tour operator’s brochure (the customer being liable to            2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
      pay only the discounted price for the holiday);                   represented by M. Patakia and B. Mongin, acting as Agents,
                                                                        with an address for service in Luxembourg.
(c)   requires the agent who arranges the supply of a package
      holiday at a discount not only to pass on to the tour             The Commission claims that the Court should:
      operator the price actually charged to the customer but
      also to pay to the tour operator an additional sum equal
      to the discount given to the customer (who is unaware of          1.    declare that, by retaining legislation which requires
      the financial arrangements between the tour operator and                intellectual property advisers established in other Member
      the agent), so that the agent accounts to the tour operator             States to appear on the register of French intellectual
      for the full brochure price of the holiday;                             property advisers, and thus to possess the French qualifi-
                                                                              cation and to be ordinarily resident or have a place of
                                                                              business in France, in order to supply services in France,
(d) agrees to pay the agent a commission based on the                         the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
      brochure price of the holiday, which in practice is paid                under Articles 49 to 55 of the EC Treaty and Council
      by set-off against the sums due from the agent as                       Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general
      mentioned in (c) above;                                                 system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas
                                                                              awarded on completion of professional education and
                                                                              training of at least three years’ duration (1);
(e)   does not know whether or not the agent has arranged the
      sale of a particular holiday at a discounted price, or the
      amount of the discount;                                           2.    order the French Republic to pay the costs.
(f)   as between itself and the agent, accounts for the sale of
      the holiday on the basis that it has been paid the full           Pleas in law and main arguments
      brochure price of the holiday;
                                                                        —     By making an ‘intellectual property adviser’ who provides
      1.    Having established the above facts, how should the                services subject to the same obligations as an ‘intellectual
            additional sum (referred to in (c) above) paid by the             property adviser’ established in France, the French legis-
            travel agent to the tour operator be characterised for            lation infringes Article 49 EC. While the pursuit, even as
            the purposes of Article 26.2?                                     a provider of services, of an activity which is not
 ---pagebreak--- 16.6.2001               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 173/29
      harmonised at Community level may be subject to                     The appellant claims that the Court should:
      provisions justified in the general interest such as rules
      concerning organisation of the profession, qualification            —     set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of the
      and professional conduct, the Commission considers that                   European Communities of 30 January 2001;
      the French legislation lays down disproportionate and
      excessively restrictive conditions for the exercise in France       —     order the European Commission to pay all the costs, with
      of the profession in question by intellectual property                    all the legal consequences which that entails.
      advisers lawfully established in another Member State and
      supplying services in France on an isolated occasion.
      Other measures — less restrictive than mandatory entry              Pleas in law and main arguments
      on a register preceded by an examination — could be
      envisaged, for example:                                             —     Error of law: given the structure of the appellant com-
                                                                                pany’s production chain, which is unique in the south-
      1.    a requirement to practice under the home-country                    west, the Court of First Instance should have specifically
            title;                                                              examined whether, as at the date of its adoption, the
                                                                                contested regulation particularly affected the appellant.
      2.    a requirement that the person practising the pro-
            fession produces his qualification;                           —     Distortion of the appellant’s claims.
                                                                          —     Absence of a sufficient statement of reasons for the ruling
      3.    a declaration system (such as that provided for in                  on the plea alleging disregard of the right to seek effective
            Article 22 of Council Directive 85/384/EEC on the                   relief by bringing proceedings: the contested order does
            mutual recognition of architects’ qualifications) (2).              not deal with the appellant’s argument that the Com-
                                                                                mission’s interpretation of Article 7 of Regulation
—     Infringement of Article 49 EC by imposing residence or                    No 2081/92 (1), to the effect that that article restricts the
      a place of business in France as a condition for the supply               right to object to the procedure at Member State level,
      of services there on an isolated occasion.                                disregards the right to seek effective relief by bringing
                                                                                proceedings.
                                                                          —     Misinterpretation of Article 7 of Regulation No 2081/92:
(1) OJ L 19, 24.1.1989, p. 16.                                                  disregard by the Community legal order of the guaranteed
(2) Council Directive 85/384/EEC on the mutual recognition of                   right to seek effective relief by bringing proceedings,
    diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications          which constitutes a general legal principle: the effect of a
    in architecture, including measures to facilitate the effective             failure to act on the part of a Member State must be such
    exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide               as to permit an undertaking which otherwise fulfils the
    services (OJ No L 223, 21.8.1985, p. 15).
                                                                                admissibility requirements laid down by Article 7(4) to
                                                                                raise an objection with the Commission.
                                                                          (1) Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of
                                                                              geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural
                                                                              products and foodstuffs (OJ L 208 of 24.7.1992, p. 1).
Appeal brought on 9 April 2001 by S.C.E.A. La Conqueste
against the order made on 30 January 2001 by the Fifth
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities in Case T-215/00 between S.C.E.A. La Con-
queste and the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Sozialgericht
                                                                          Leipzig by order of that court of 30 March 2001 in the
                         (Case C-151/01 P)                                    case of Karen Mau against Bundesanstalt für Arbeit
                          (2001/C 173/49)                                                           (Case C-160/01)
An appeal against the order made on 30 January 2001 by the                                          (2001/C 173/50)
Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities in Case T-215/00 between S.C.E.A. La Conqueste                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
and the Commission of the European Communities was                        European Communities by order of the Sozialgericht Leipzig
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-              (Social Court, Leipzig) of 30 March 2001, received at the Court
ties on 9 April 2001 by S.C.E.A. La Conqueste, represented by             Registry on 12 April 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case
A. Lyon-Caen, F. Fabiani and F. Thiriez, avocats, with an                 of Karen Mau against the Bundesanstalt für Arbeit (Federal
address for service in Paris.                                             Labour Office) on the following questions:


title: Case C-79/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Ordinario di Firenze (Italy), lodged on 22 February 2011 — Criminal proceedings against Maurizio Giovanardi and Others

text:
               16.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 120/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Ordinario di Firenze (Italy), lodged on 22 February 2011 — Criminal proceedings against Maurizio Giovanardi and Others
   (Case C-79/11)
   2011/C 120/13
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Ordinario di Firenze

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Accused: Maurizio Giovanardi, Andrea Lastini, Vito Pignionica, Massimiliano Pempori, Filippo Ricci, Gezim Lakja, Elettrifer Srl, Rete Ferroviaria Italiana SpA)

      Other parties: Franca Giunti, Laura Marrai, Francesca Marrai, Stefania Marrai, Giovanni Marrai, Alfio Bardelli, Andrea Tomberli

      Question referred

   Are the provisions of Italian law on the administrative liability of legal bodies/persons set out in Legislative Decree No 231/2001, as subsequently amended, compatible with the provisions of Community law on the protection, in criminal proceedings, of victims of crime, in particular with Articles 2, 3 and 8 of Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings (1) and with the provisions of Council Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 relating to compensation to crime victims, (2) insofar as those national provisions do not ‘expressly’ provide that those legal bodies/persons may be held liable, in criminal proceedings, for the damage caused to the victims of crime?

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 82, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2004 L 261, p. 15.


title: Case T-344/14: Action brought on 21 May 2014  — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM (Deluxe)

text:
               21.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/29

         Action brought on 21 May 2014 — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM (Deluxe)
   (Case T-344/14)
   2014/C 235/40
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by M. Kefferpütz and A. Wrage, lawyers)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 March 2014 in Case R 1223/2013-1;

               —

               Declare that the provisions of Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 do not preclude the publication of the mark applied for;

               —

               Refer application No 01 1 4 27  507 back to the defendant so that the registration procedure may be resumed;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs, including the costs in respect of the appeal proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark including the word element ‘Deluxe’ for goods and services in Classes 5, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 4 27  507

      Decision of the Examiner: the application was rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009


               9.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/35

         Removal from the Register of Case T-398/02 (1)

   (2005/C 171/57)

      (Language of the case: Italian)

   By order of 2 May 2005, the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-398/02, Linea GIG S.r.l. in liquidation v Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 44 of 22.2.2003.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 31 March 1998 in Case T-129/96: Preussag Stahl AG v Commission of the European Communities (State aid to the steel industry - Notification of planned aid - Expiry of the validity of the relevant provisions of the ECSC Aid Code - Grant of the planned aid - Decision finding the aid to be incompatible and ordering its repayment - Legitimate expectations)

text:
C 166/14             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   30.5.98
                                                  COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                          BeÂreldange (Luxembourg), represented initially by Alain
                      of 31 March 1998                             Levy, of the Paris Bar, and subsequently by Jean-NoeÈl
                                                                   Louis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
in Case T-129/96: Preussag Stahl AG v Commission of the            Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson, 30 Rue de
                  European Communities (1)                         Cessange, v Court of Justice of the European Communities
(State aid to the steel industry Ð Notification of planned         (Agents: Timothy Millett and Aloyse May) Ð application
aid Ð Expiry of the validity of the relevant provisions of         for annulment of the decision of the Court of Justice of
the ECSC Aid Code Ð Grant of the planned aid Ð                     11 July 1996 suspending the procedure for filling one of
Decision finding the aid to be incompatible and ordering           the three positions declared vacant by vacancy notice
         its repayment Ð Legitimate expectations)                  CJ 91/95, as confirmed by the decision of 10 December
                                                                   1996 expressly rejecting the complaint lodged by the
                        (98/C 166/36)                              applicant against the first decision, for the destruction of
                                                                   an alleged parallel file and for payment of BFR 1 000 000
               (Language of the case: German)                      by way of compensation for the non-material damage
                                                                   suffered Ð the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),
In Case T-129/96: Preussag Stahl AG, established in                composed of P. Lindh, President, and K. Lenaerts and J. D.
Salzgitter (Germany), represented by Jochim Sedemund,              Cooke, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar,
Rechtsanwalt, Berlin, with an address for service in               has given a judgment on 24 April 1998, in which it:
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-
Rue, supported by Federal Republic of Germany (Agents:
Ernst Röder, Bernd Kloke, Holger Wissel and Oliver                 1. Dismisses the action;
Axster), against Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: Dimitris Triantafyllou and Paul
Nemitz) Ð application for the annulment of Commission              2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
Decision 96/544/ECSC of 29 May 1996 concerning State
aid to Walzwerk Ilsenburg GmbH (OJ L 233 of
                                                                   (1) OJ C 181 of 14.6.1997.
14.9.1996, p. 24) Ð the Court of First Instance (Third
Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of: V. Tiili,
President, C. P. BrieÈt, K. Lenaerts, A. Potocki and J. D.
Cooke, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar,
has given a judgment on 31 March 1998, in which it:
1. Dismisses the application;
                                                                        ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
2. Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and those                                  of 24 March 1998
    of the Commission;
                                                                   in Case T-175/94 (92):International Procurement Services
                                                                        SA v Commission of the European Communities (1)
3. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its
    own costs.                                                                           (Taxation of costs)
                                                                                (98/C 166/38)
(1) OJ C 318 of 26.10.1996.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                   In Case T-175/94 (92): International Procurement Services
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                          SA, established in Brussels, represented by Peter de Troyer,
                       of 2 April 1998                             of the Oudenaarde Bar, and Lydie Lorang, of the
                                                                   Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in
in Case T-86/97: ReÂa Apostolidis v Court of Justice of the
                                                                   Luxembourg at the latter's Chambers, 6 Rue Heine, v
                  European Communities (1)
                                                                   Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
(Officials Ð Suspension of promotion procedure Ð                   EÂtienne Lasnet) Ð application for taxation of costs made
                  Disciplinary proceedings)                        pursuant to the judgment delivered by the Court of First
                                                                   Instance on 11 July 1996 in Case T-175/94 International
                        (98/C 166/37)
                                                                   Procurement Services SA v Commission [1996] ECR II-
                                                                   729 Ð the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber),
                (Language of the case: French)                     composed of J. Azizi, President, and R. García-Valdecasas
                                                                   and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order
In Case T-86/97: ReÂa Apostolidis, an official of the Court        on 24 March 1998, the operative part of which is as
of Justice of the European Communities, residing at                follows:


title: Case C-291/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof by order of that Court of 25 July 2002 in the appeal by Rethmann Photo Recycling GmbH

text:
C 261/4               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      26.10.2002
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungs-                  4.    Is the following statement correct:
gerichtshof by order of that Court of 25 July 2002 in the
        appeal by Rethmann Photo Recycling GmbH                               Not all incineration with energy use constitutes recovery
                                                                              for the purposes of operation R1. Operation R1 does not
                                                                              relate just to the use of the heat released through
                        (Case C-291/02)                                       incineration but also requires use as a fuel. A fuel is
                                                                              characterised by the fact that it satisfies certain criteria
                                                                              relating to thermal value, concentration of pollutants and
                                                                              combustion rate and is sufficiently homogeneous with
                        (2002/C 261/06)                                       regard to those characteristics for the process of incin-
                                                                              eration to be able to be controlled. Waste which cannot
                                                                              meet those criteria — that is to say, which possesses
                                                                              insufficient thermal value, whose composition is so
                                                                              variable that incineration (in a conventional incinerator)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        cannot be satisfactorily controlled or whose level of
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgerichts-                     pollutants is such that their incineration gives rise to
hof of 25 July 2002, received at the Court Registry on                        impermissible emissions — per se cannot be recovered in
12 August 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the appeal by                     accordance with R1.
Rethmann Photo Recycling GmbH on the following questions:
                                                                        (1 ) OJ L 030 [1993], p. 1.
1.   Do the provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 (1) on             (2 ) OJ L 194 [1975], p. 39.
     the supervision and control of shipments of waste within,
     into and out of the European Community and Council
     Directive 75/442/EEC ( 2) of 15 July 1975 on waste
     display, with respect to the question whether a planned
     shipment of waste is to be assigned to recovery operation
     R1 in Annex II B or disposal operation D10 in Annex
     II A to Directive 75/442, sufficient clarity and definiteness
     to allow the person concerned (private parties as well as
     Member States) to assess the respective legal conse-
     quences of their conduct, or are those provisions invalid          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht
     because of a lack of certainty and the resulting unen-             Düsseldorf by order of that Court of 6 August 2002 in
     forceability?                                                      the case of Meiland Azewijn B.V. against Hauptzollamt
                                                                                Duisburg
2.   Is the sole criterion, in assigning a waste treatment
     measure to recovery operation R1 (use principally as a                                       (Case C-292/02)
     fuel or other means to generate energy) in Annex II B to
     Directive 75/442, that the waste is used entirely to
                                                                                (2002/C 261/07)
     generate energy (energy use) and the energy generated is
     also in fact used?
3.   Is it permissible for the competent authority of desti-
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     nation to proceed on the basis of the following criteria in
                                                                        European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht Düssel-
     deciding whether a planned waste shipment is to be
                                                                        dorf (Finance Court, Düsseldorf) of 6 August 2002, received at
     assigned to recovery operation R1 or disposal operation
     D10:                                                               the Court Registry on 13 August 2002, for a preliminary
                                                                        ruling in the case of Meiland Azewijn B.V. against Hauptzoll-
                                                                        amt Duisburg (Principal Customs Office, Duisburg) on the
     (a)   Risk reduction                                               following questions:
                                                                        1.    Is Article 8a(1) of Directive 92/81/EEC ( 1) to be construed
     (b) Conservation of natural resources
                                                                              as quite simply exempting mineral oil intended to be used
                                                                              as motor fuel from excise duty in the Member State to
     (c)   Conservation of energy resources                                   which it is brought in a standard tank of a commercial
                                                                              motor vehicle after it has been released for consumption
                                                                              in another Member State?
     (d) Conservation of landfill space
                                                                        2.    If the answer to the first question should be in the
     (e)   Ecological appropriateness of the operation                        affirmative, is Article 8a(1) of Directive 92/81/EEC
                                                                              directly applicable in relation to the claimant having
                                                                              regard to the rule in Paragraph 19(2) of the Mineralöl-
     (f)   Economic appropriateness of the operation?                         steuergesetz (Law on Excise Duty on Mineral Oils)?


title: Case C-448/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesvergabeamt (Austria) by order of that tribunal of 13 November 2001 in the case of (1) EVN AG and (2) Wienstrom GmbH v Republic of Austria

text:
C 84/38                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      6.4.2002
3.   If Question 2 is answered affirmatively:                                  an unlawful decision in review proceedings under
                                                                               Article 1 of Directive 89/665/EEC dependent on proof
     Does the Court of Justice have available to it on the                     that the unlawful decision was material to the outcome
     basis of the reference for a preliminary ruling all the                   of the procurement procedure, where that proof has to
     information needed in order to be able itself to assess                   be achieved by the review body examining whether the
     whether the government body as mentioned in the facts                     ranking of the tenders actually submitted would have
     as set out caused specific injury to the defendant or will                been different had they been re-evaluated disregarding
     it leave the reply to that question to the referring Austrian             the unlawful award criterion?
     court?
                                                                         4.    Do the provisions of Community law relating to the
                                                                               award of public contracts, in particular Article 26 of
                                                                               Directive 93/36/EEC, require the contracting authority to
                                                                               cancel the invitation to tender if it transpires in review
                                                                               proceedings under Article 1 of Directive 89/665/EEC that
                                                                               one of the award criteria it laid down is unlawful?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverga-                 (1) OJ 1993 L 199, p. 1.
beamt (Austria) by order of that tribunal of 13 November                 (2) OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33.
2001 in the case of (1) EVN AG and (2) Wienstrom GmbH
                     v Republic of Austria
                         (Case C-448/01)
                          (2002/C 84/65)
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal
                                                                         (England and Wales) (Civil Division) by order of that
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         court dated 11 May 2001, in the case of Abbey Life
European Communities by an order of the Bundesvergabeamt
                                                                              Assurance Company Ltd against Kok Theam Yeap
(Federal Procurement Office) of 13 November 2001, which
was received at the Court Registry on 20 November 2001, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of (1) EVN AG and (2) Wienstrom                                    (Case C-449/01)
GmbH v Republic of Austria on the following questions:
1.   Do the provisions of Community law relating to the                                            (2002/C 84/66)
     award of public contracts, in particular Article 26 of
     Directive 93/36/EEC (1), prohibit a contracting authority
     from laying down an award criterion in relation to the
     supply of electricity which is given a 45 % weighting and
     which requires a tenderer to state, without being bound             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     to a defined supply period, how much electricity he can             European Communities by an order of the Court of Appeal
     supply from renewable sources to a group of consumers               (England and Wales) (Civil Division) dated 11 May 2001,
     not more closely defined, where the maximum number                  which was received at the Court Registry on 21 November
     of points is given to whichever tenderer states the highest         2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Abbey Life
     amount and a supply volume is taken into account only               Assurance Company Ltd and Kok Theam Yeap on the follow-
     to the extent that it exceeds the volume of consumption             ing questions:
     to be expected in the context of the contract to which the
     invitation to tender relates?                                       1)    Can ‘policies for life assurance, annuities, health and
                                                                               pension business, unit trusts, offshore funds business,
2.   Do the provisions of Community law relating to the                        personal equity plans and other contracts offered by
     award of public contracts, in particular Article 2(1)(b) of               Abbey’ or any of them be described as ‘goods’ that fall
     Directive 89/665/EEC (2), prohibit making the setting                     within the provisions of 1993 Regulations and/or in the
     aside of an unlawful decision in review proceedings under                 Directive?
     Article 1 of Directive 89/665/EEC dependent on proof
     that the unlawful decision was material to the outcome              2)    Do ‘policies for life assurance, annuities, health and
     of the procurement procedure?                                             pension business, unit trusts, offshore funds business,
                                                                               personal equity plans and other contracts offered by
                                                                               Abbey’ or any of them have to be:
3.   Do the provisions of Community law relating to the
     award of public contracts, in particular Article 26 of
     Directive 93/36/EEC, prohibit making the setting aside of                 (i)  marketable, and/or


title: Case C-296/14: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 February 2015 — Hellenic Republic v European Commission (Appeal — State aid — Interest-free loans, backed by a State guarantee, granted by the Greek authorities to operators in the cereals sector — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market — Action manifestly inadmissible and manifestly unfounded)

text:
               4.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 146/11

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 February 2015 — Hellenic Republic v European Commission

   (Case C-296/14) (1)

   ((Appeal - State aid - Interest-free loans, backed by a State guarantee, granted by the Greek authorities to operators in the cereals sector - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - Action manifestly inadmissible and manifestly unfounded))
   (2015/C 146/16)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Appellant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: I. Chalkias and A. Vasilopoulou, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A Bouchagiar, D. Triantafyllou and P. Němečková, Agents)

      Operative part of the order

               1)

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2)

               The Hellenic Republic shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 253, 4.8.2014.


title: Case T-548/13: Action brought on 15 October 2013 — Aderans v OHIM — Ofer (VITALHAIR)

text:
               14.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 367/35

         Action brought on 15 October 2013 — Aderans v OHIM — Ofer (VITALHAIR)
   (Case T-548/13)
   2013/C 367/62
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Aderans Company Ltd (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gerhard Ofer (Troisdorf, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 August 2013 in Case R 1467/2012-1;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark ‘VITALHAIR’ for goods in Classes 3, 21 and 26 — Community trade mark application No 7 254 378

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Gerhard Ofer

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the Community word mark ‘Haar-Vital’ and the German figurative mark ‘HAARVITAL’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 26 and 44

      Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 42(2) and (3) and 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009


title: Case C-380/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif (Luxembourg) lodged on 18 July 2011 — DI. VI. Finanziaria S.A.P.A. di Diego della Valle & C. v Administration des contributions directes

text:
               8.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 298/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif (Luxembourg) lodged on 18 July 2011 — DI. VI. Finanziaria S.A.P.A. di Diego della Valle & C. v Administration des contributions directes
   (Case C-380/11)
   2011/C 298/23
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal administratif

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: DI. VI. Finanziaria S.A.P.A. di Diego della Valle & C.

      Defendant: Administration des contributions directes

      Question referred

   Is Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to be interpreted as precluding a measure, such as that governed by Paragraph 8a of the Law on capital tax of 16 October 1934, as amended, subparagraph 1 of which makes the grant of a reduction in capital tax conditional upon remaining liable to Luxembourg capital tax for the next five tax years?


title: Case C-348/13: Order of the Court of 21 October 2014 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof) — BestWater International GmbH v Michael Mebes, Stefan Potsch (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Copyright and related rights — Directive 2001/29/EC — Information society — Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights — Article 3(1) — Communication to the public — Definition — Internet links giving access to protected works — Use of the ‘framing’ technique)

text:
               19.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/10

      Order of the Court of 21 October 2014 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof) — BestWater International GmbH v Michael Mebes, Stefan Potsch
      (Case C-348/13) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Copyright and related rights - Directive 2001/29/EC - Information society - Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights - Article 3(1) - Communication to the public - Definition - Internet links giving access to protected works - Use of the ‘framing’ technique)
      (2015/C 016/14)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Bundesgerichtshof

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: BestWater International GmbH

         Defendant: Michael Mebes, Stefan Potsch

         Operative part of the order

      The mere fact that a protected work, freely available on an internet site, is inserted into another internet site by means of a link using the ‘framing’ technique, such as that used in the case in the main proceedings, cannot classified as ‘communication to the public’ within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society since the work at issue is not transmitted to a new public or communicated a specific technical method different from that of the original communication.

         (1)  OJ C 325, 9.11.2013.


title: Action brought on 29 October 1997 by Thierry Bigard against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-284/97)

text:
C 7/24                EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 10. 1. 98
Action brought on 29 October 1997 by Thierry Bigard                Ð order the Commission in any event to pay the costs
   against the Commission of the European Communities                  incurred by the applicant in the present proceedings.
                       (Case T-284/97)
                          (98/C 7/66)                              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                   The applicant, a transport company based in Finland,
An action against the Commission of the European                   seeks the annulment of the Commission's decision that
Communities was brought before the Court of First                  may be contained in a letter of 10 October 1997, in so far
Instance of the European Communities on 29 October                 as, by that letter, the Commission took a formal position
1997 by Thierry Bigard, residing at Bridel (Luxembourg),           in response to a formal request to the Commission to
represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis, Ariane Tornel and                 adopt a decision pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC)
FrancËoise Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an address        No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of
for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire             concentrations between undertakings (1) (the Merger
Myson SARL, 30, rue de Cessange.                                   Regulation), in relation to a concentration or series of
                                                                   concentrations in 1995 between two Finnish banking
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        groups namely Union Bank of Finland (UBF) and
                                                                   Kansallis-Osake-Pankki (KOP), creating a new merged
Ð annul the decisions expressly rejecting his request for          banking entity under the name of Merita Oy. The
    reimbursement of the sums wrongly deducted in                  concentration was not notified to the Commission in
    respect of household grants,                                   accordance with the procedure laid down in the
                                                                   abovementioned Regulation.
Ð order the defendant to reimburse to him all sums
    wrongly deducted and to pay interest thereon at the            The contested decision is essentially based on the
    rate of 8 % per annum from the date when each                  considerations that the concentration should not have a
    deduction was made until the date of reimbursement,            Community dimension and that, in any case, the two-
                                                                   thirds rule laid down in the first subparagraph of
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.                            Article 1 (2) of the Merger Regulation should be
                                                                   applicable. Moreover, the period of two years which
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                elapsed between the announcement of the merger and the
                                                                   submission of the complaint constituted unreasonable
The pleas in law and arguments advanced by the applicant           delay.
in support of his claims are the same as those in Case
T-181/97 Meyer and Others v. Court of Justice (1).
                                                                   In support of its claims, the applicant submits that the
(1) OJ C 252, 16. 8. 1997, p. 35.                                  contested decision:
                                                                   Ð infringes essential procedural requirements, in so far
                                                                       as, on one hand, the letter of 10 October 1997 fails to
                                                                       indicate whether the act has been adopted by the
                                                                       college of Commissioners as such or by the Director
Action brought on 3 November 1997 by Kuljetusliike                     who signed it and, on the other hand, before formally
Pynnönen Oy against the Commission of the European                     rejecting the complaint, the Commission has neither
                         Communities                                   indicated its provisional views nor assured appropriate
                       (Case T-285/97)                                 access to the file,
                          (98/C 7/67)
                                                                   Ð has infringed the Treaty and rules relating to its
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                       application, in so far as the Commission erred in law
                                                                       in stating that in the absence of a complaints
An action against the Commission of the European                       procedure it can take no decision. According to the
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      applicant, the Commission has jurisdiction to reject a
Instance of the European Communities on 3 November                     complaint that an unnotified concentration has a
1997 by Kuljetusliike Pynnönen Oy, represented by                      Community dimension, just as, in the field of State
Nicholas Forwood QC and Professor Zacharias                            aid, it has the power to adopt a decision rejecting a
Sundström, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                State aid complaint on the ground that the measures
the Chambers of Arendt & Medernach, L-2010                             complained of do not constitute State aid.
Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        As to the substance of the applicant's contention with
                                                                   regard to Article 8 (3) of the Merger Regulation, it is
Ð annul the letter of 10 October 1997, in so far as it             submitted that the agreed bid announced in February
    contains or communicates any decision or act of the            1995 constituted one or more concentrations with a
    Commission in response to the applicant's request              Community dimension, both UBF and KOP having
    pursuant to Article 175 of the EC Treaty,                      worldwide and EC turnover in excess of the limits set by


title: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 9 November 2004 in Case C-46/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vantaan käräjäoikeus): Fixtures Marketing Ltd v Oy Veikkaus Ab (Directive 96/9/EC — Legal protection of databases — Sui generis right — Definition of investment in the obtaining, verification or presentation of the contents of a database — Football fixture lists — Betting)

text:
               8.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/2

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Grand Chamber)
   of 9 November 2004
   in Case C-46/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vantaan käräjäoikeus): Fixtures Marketing Ltd v Oy Veikkaus Ab (1)

   (Directive 96/9/EC - Legal protection of databases - Sui generis right - Definition of investment in the obtaining, verification or presentation of the contents of a database - Football fixture lists - Betting)
   (2005/C 6/02)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   In Case C-46/02: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Vantaan käräjäoikeus (Finland), by decision of 1 February 2002, received at the Court on 18 February 2002, in the proceedings between Fixtures Marketing Ltd and Oy Veikkaus Ab — the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas and K. Lenaerts (Rapporteur), Presidents of Chambers, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, N. Colneric and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi and M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrators, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 November 2004, in which it has ruled:
   The expression ‘investment in … the obtaining … of the contents’ of a database in Article 7(1) of Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases must be understood to refer to the resources used to seek out existing independent materials and collect them in the database. It does not cover the resources used for the creation of materials which make up the contents of a database. In the context of drawing up a fixture list for the purpose of organising football league fixtures, therefore, it does not cover the resources used to establish the dates, times and the team pairings for the various matches in the league.

      (1)  OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.


title: Case C-468/07 P: Appeal brought on 22 October 2007 by Coats Holdings Ltd, J&P Coats Ltd against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 12 September 2007 in Case T-36/05: Coats Holdings Ltd and J&P Coats Ltd v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               8.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/31

         Appeal brought on 22 October 2007 by Coats Holdings Ltd, J&P Coats Ltd against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 12 September 2007 in Case T-36/05: Coats Holdings Ltd and J&P Coats Ltd v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-468/07 P)
   (2007/C 297/50)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellants: Coats Holdings Ltd, J&P Coats Ltd (represented by: W. Sibree and C. Jeffs, Solicitors)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               reduce the fine in relation to Coats such that (i) it recognises the principle of equal treatment; and (ii) takes account of the substantial parts of the Commission's findings which were annulled by the Court of First Instance, which go to reducing the gravity of the infringement and strengthening the attenuating circumstances.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appellant submits that having quashed all the Commission's factual findings relating to infringements of Article 81 except one narrow finding — and in particular having annulled the Commission's central finding that Coats was an equally active member of a tripartite agreement — the Court of First Instance failed to apply the principal of equal treatment by adjusting the basic amount of Coats' fine downwards by 20 percent only.
   In the alternative the appellant submits that the Court of First Instance failed to take account of all the elements of the decision which it annulled in making a reduction of the fine on the grounds of attenuating circumstances.


title: Case T-77/17: Order of the General Court of 6 April 2017 — TeamLava v EUIPO — King.com (Icônes animées)

text:
               6.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/35

         Order of the General Court of 6 April 2017 — TeamLava v EUIPO — King.com (Icônes animées)
   (Case T-77/17)
   (2017/C 178/57)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


title: Case T-284/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 September 2008 — Gualtieri v Commission (Seconded National Expert — Subsistence allowances — Place of residence at the time of secondment — Objection of illegality of Article 20(3)(b) of the decision on Seconded National Experts — Principle of equal treatment)

text:
               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/22

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 September 2008 — Gualtieri v Commission
   (Case T-284/06) (1)

   (Seconded National Expert - Subsistence allowances - Place of residence at the time of secondment - Objection of illegality of Article 20(3)(b) of the decision on Seconded National Experts - Principle of equal treatment)
   (2008/C 272/41)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Claudia Gualtieri (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. Gualtieri and M. Gualtieri, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall, acting as Agent, and G. Faedo, lawyer)
   Re:
   Annulment of the decision of the Commission of 30 January 2006 dismissing the applicant's claim for adjustment, following her divorce, of the amount of the allowances payable under Article 17 of Commission Decision C(2002) 1559 of 30 April 2002 laying down the rules applicable to National Experts, as amended
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Ms Claudia Gualtieri to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 154, 1.7.2006 (formerly Case F-53/06).


title: Case C-418/04: Action brought on 29 September 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland

text:
               8.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/22

         Action brought on 29 September 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland
   (Case C-418/04)
   (2005/C 6/44)
   Language of procedure: English
   An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 September 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Barry Doherty and Michel van Beek, acting as agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission requests the Court to:

               1.

               declare that Ireland, by failing

                           a)

                           to classify, since 1981, in accordance with Article 4(1) and (2) of Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds, (1) all the most suitable territories in number and size for the species of Annex I of Directive 79/409/EEC as well as regularly occurring migratory species;

                           b)

                           to establish, since 1981, in accordance with Article 4(1) and (2) of Directive 79/409/EEC, the necessary legal protection regime for these territories;

                           c)

                           to ensure that, since 1981, the provisions of Article 4(4), first sentence are applied to areas requiring classification as special protection areas under Directive 79/409/EEC;

                           d)

                           to fully and correctly transpose and apply the requirements of the second sentence of Article 4(4) of Directive 79/409/EEC;

                           e)

                           in respect of classified special protection areas under Directive 79/409/EEC, to take all the measures necessary to comply with the provisions of Article 6(2), (3) and (4) of Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna (2), and, in respect of recreational use of all sites intended to be subject to Article 6(2) of Directive 92/43/EEC, to take all the necessary measures to comply with the provisions of the said Article 6(2);

                           f)

                           to take all the measures necessary to comply with Article 10 of Directive 79/409/EEC,

                     has failed to comply with its obligations under those Articles of the said Directives; and

               2)

               order Ireland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   This case concerns the failure by Ireland to comply with certain obligations laid down in directive 79/409/EEC and directive 92/43/EEC. The Commission submits that:
   Since 1981, Ireland has failed to classify in accordance with article 4(1) and (2) of directive 79/409/EEC on the conservations of wild birds, (hereinafter ‘the birds directive’) all the most suitable territories in number and size for the species of Annex I of the directive as well as regularly occurring migratory species. This has two aspects. First of all, there has been an omission to make any classification in respect of certain sites (‘non-classification’). Secondly, there has been a failure to fully classify other sites (‘partial classification’). In terms of territorial coverage, the combined effect of non-classification and partial classification left Ireland with the second smallest SPA network of any Member State before the accessions that took place on 1 May 2004.
   Ireland has failed to establish the necessary legal protection regime for SPAs in accordance with article 4(1) and (2) of the birds directive. The scope of the relevant Irish legislation is limited to what might be termed preventive measures, i.e. measures which seek to address threats to habitats and disturbances of wild birds arising from human interventions. Quite apart from the inherent flaws in these preventive measures, the Commission contends that the requisite legal protection regime required by article 4(1) and (2) is larger in scope and that ensuring the survival and reproduction of bird species within SPAs may require more than efforts to restrain negative human interventions.
   While there is Irish legislation of relevance to habitat protection outside of classified SPAs, this lacks the specificity required by the birds directive in respect of Article 4(4), first sentence. In particular, the Irish legislation fails to impose any specific duties in respect of the habitats of the wild bird species which should benefit from SPA protection in areas not covered by Ireland's existing SPA network.
   There is no specific set of provisions implementing the second sentence of Article 4(4) which provides that Member States shall ‘strive to avoid pollution or deterioration of habitats’ outside classified areas. Many activities which destroy habitats are not subject to any meaningful form of statutory control.
   Directive 92/43/EEC (‘the habitats directive’) was required to be implemented from 10 June 1994. This means that Ireland should have transposed and applied the provisions of articles 6(2) to (4) to all SPAs classified under article 4(1) of the birds directive or recognised under article 4(2) of the same directive on or after that date.
   The Commission considers that Ireland has not transposed or applied article 6(2) of the habitats directive.
   The adoption of national measures to implement article 10 of the birds directive is necessary to ensure that the directive is fully effective. By not reflecting in the relevant statutory provisions the obligation to encourage research, Ireland has failed to implement article 10.

      (1)  OJ L 103, 25.04.1979, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ L 206, 22.07.1992, p. 7.


title: Case C-541/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 4 December 2008 — Fokus Invest AG v FIAG Finanzierungsberatung-Immobilientreuhand und Anlageberatung GmbH (FIAG)

text:
               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 4 December 2008 — Fokus Invest AG v FIAG Finanzierungsberatung-Immobilientreuhand und Anlageberatung GmbH (FIAG)
   (Case C-541/08)
   (2009/C 55/13)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Oberster Gerichtshof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Fokus Invest AG

      Defendant: FIAG Finanzierungsberatung-Immobilientreuhand und Anlageberatung GmbH (FIAG)
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 25 of Annex I to the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to treat as nationals for the purposes of the acquisition of immovable property applies only in relation to natural persons, but not to companies?

               2.

               If the first question is answered in the affirmative:
               Do the provisions of the Wiener Ausländergrunderwerbsgesetz (Viennese law on the purchase of real property by non-nationals; ‘WrAuslGEG’) which in the case of acquisition of immovable property by foreign companies as defined in point 3 of Paragraph 2 of the WrAuslGEG require the production of a certificate attesting to exemption from the requirement to obtain authorisation (Paragraph 5(4) and point 3 of Paragraph 3 of the WrAuslGEG) constitute a restriction on the free movement of capital (Article 56 EC) permitted under Article 57(1) EC in relation to Switzerland as a third country?

      (1)  OJ 2002 L 114, p. 6.


title: Case C-181/17: Action brought on 7 April 2017 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               19.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/15

         Action brought on 7 April 2017 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-181/17)
   (2017/C 195/20)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Hottiaux and J. Rius, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

      Form of order sought

   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare, in accordance with Article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, that, by laying down a minimum number of vehicles for obtaining a public transport authorisation, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3 and 5(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 concerning access to the occupation of road transport operator;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The action brought by the European Commission against the Kingdom of Spain concerns the application of Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing common rules concerning the conditions to be complied with to pursue the occupation of road transport operator and repealing Council Directive 96/26/EC. (1)

   The Commission takes the view that, by imposing the requirement, for the purpose of obtaining a public transport authorisation, that undertakings should have at least three vehicles, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(1) and (2) and Article 5(b) of that regulation.

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 300, p. 51.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 December 2003 in Case T-219/99: British Airways plc v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Abuse of a dominant position — Competence of the Commission Discrimination between airlines — Relevant product and geographic market — Nexus between the product markets allegedly affected — Legal basis of the contested decision — Existence of a dominant position — Abuse of the dominant position — Proportionality of the amount of the fine)

text:
C 71/22                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                           20.3.2004
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 18 December 2003
                      of 17 December 2003
                                                                           in Case T-326/99: Nancy Fern Olivieri v Commission of
in Case T-219/99: British Airways plc v Commission of                      the European Communities and European Agency for the
                 the European Communities (1)                                            Evaluation of Medicinal Products (1)
                                                                           (Medicinal product — Marketing authorisation — Opinion
(Competition — Abuse of a dominant position — Com-
                                                                           of the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal
petence of the Commission Discrimination between airlines
                                                                           Products — Admissibility — Interest in bringing proceedings
— Relevant product and geographic market — Nexus
                                                                           — Public health — Verification of reported data — Review
between the product markets allegedly affected — Legal
                                                                                of scientific evaluations — Professional reputation)
basis of the contested decision — Existence of a dominant
position — Abuse of the dominant position — Pro-
             portionality of the amount of the fine)
                                                                                (2004/C 71/39)
                          (2004/C 71/38)                                                      (Language of the case: English)
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                           In Case T-326/99, Nancy Fern Olivieri, resident in Toronto
                                                                           (Canada), represented by N. Green QC and J. Marks, barrister,
                                                                           and R. Stein, solicitor, with an address for service in Luxem-
                                                                           bourg, v Commission of the European Communities and
                                                                           European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products
In Case T-219/99, British Airways plc, established in Waterside
                                                                           (Agents: R. Wainwright and H. C. Støvlbæk), supported by
(United Kingdom), represented by W. Allan and O. Black,
                                                                           Apotex Europe Ltd, established in Leeds (United Kingdom),
solicitors, W. Wood and H. Davies, barristers, with an address
                                                                           represented by P. Bogaert, G. Berrisch, lawyers: Application
for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of the European
                                                                           for annulment of the Commission Decision of 25 August
Communities (Agents: M. Erhart and A. Barav), supported by
                                                                           1999 granting marketing authorisation for the medicinal
Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd, established in Crawley (United
                                                                           product for human use known as Ferriprox-Deferiprone
Kingdom), represented by P. Binetter, solicitor, N. Green and
                                                                           [C(1999) 2820] and of the revised Opinion of the European
C. West, barristers: Application for the annulment under
                                                                           Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products of 23 June
Article 230 EC of Commission Decision 2000/74/EC of
                                                                           1999, the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed
14 July 1999 relating to a proceeding under Article 82 of the
                                                                           of: R. García-Valdecasas, President, P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke,
EC Treaty (IV/D-2/34.780 Virgin/British Airways) (OJ 2000
                                                                           Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
L 30, p. 1), the Court of First Instance (First Chamber),
                                                                           judgment on 18 December 2003, in which it:
composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, M. Jaeger and H. Legal,
Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 December 2003, in
which it:                                                                  1.    Dismisses the application as inadmissible;
                                                                           2.    Orders the applicant to bear her own costs and to pay those
1.    Dismisses the application;                                                 incurred by the Commission and the European Agency for the
                                                                                Evaluation of Medicinal Products, including those relating to
                                                                                the interim proceedings;
2.    Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay those
      incurred by the Commission and by the intervener.                    3.    Orders the intervener to bear its own costs, both in the main
                                                                                proceedings and in the interim proceedings.
(1) OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.


title: Judgment of the Court of 1 March 2017 in Case E-10/16 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2014/68/EU on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to the making available on the market of pressure equipment)

text:
               22.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 198/6

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 1 March 2017
   in Case E-10/16
   EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

      (Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2014/68/EU on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to the making available on the market of pressure equipment)

   (2017/C 198/06)
   In Case E-10/16, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at point 6a and at point 6e of Chapter VIII of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2014/68/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to the making available on the market of pressure equipment) as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement Article 13 of the Act within the time prescribed or, in any event, by failing to inform the EFTA Surveillance Authority thereof, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 1 March 2017, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at point 6a and at point 6e of Chapter VIII of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2014/68/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to the making available on the market of pressure equipment) as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement Article 13 of the Act within the time prescribed.

               2.

               Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.


title: Case T-474/10: Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2013 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v European Commission (Public service contracts — Tender procedure — External service provision for development, studies and support for information systems (ESP DESIS II) — Classification of a tenderer — Award of the contract — Obligation to state reasons — Transparency — Equal treatment — Manifest error of assessment — Non-contractual liability)

text:
               30.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/12

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2013 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v European Commission
   (Case T-474/10) (1)

   (Public service contracts - Tender procedure - External service provision for development, studies and support for information systems (ESP DESIS II) - Classification of a tenderer - Award of the contract - Obligation to state reasons - Transparency - Equal treatment - Manifest error of assessment - Non-contractual liability)
   2013/C 352/22
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens (Greece)) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and M. Dermitzakis, lawyers,)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: N. Bambara and S. Delaude, and subsequently by S. Delaude, acting as Agents, and by O. Graber-Soudry, Solicitor,)

      Re:

   Application, first, for annulment of four Commission decisions communicated in four separate letters of 16 July 2010 to classify the applicant’s tender submitted in the context of the call for tenders DIGIT/R2/PO/2009/045, concerning ‘External service provision for development, studies and support for information systems’ (ESP DESIS II) (OJ 2009/S 198-283663), for Lot 1A in second place, for Lot 1B in third place, for Lot 1C in second place and for Lot 3 in third place, and also of all the related decisions of the Commission’s Directorate General for Informatics, including the decisions to award the respective contracts to the tenderers classified in first and second places; and, second, for damages,

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 346, 18.12.2010.