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


title: Case C-493/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 5 November 2012 — Eli Lilly and Company Ltd v Human Genome Sciences Inc

text:
               12.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/33

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 5 November 2012 — Eli Lilly and Company Ltd v Human Genome Sciences Inc
   (Case C-493/12)
   2013/C 9/55
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Eli Lilly and Company Ltd

      Defendant: Human Genome Sciences Inc

      Questions referred

               (a)

               What are the criteria for deciding whether ‘the product is protected by a basic patent in force’ in Article 3(a) of Regulation 469/2009/EC (1) (the ‘Regulation’)?

               (b)

               Are the criteria different where the product is not a combination product, and if so, what are the criteria?

               (c)

               In the case of a claim to an antibody or a class of antibodies, is it sufficient that the antibody or antibodies are defined in terms of their binding characteristics to a target protein, or is it necessary to provide a structural definition for the antibody or antibodies, and if so, how much?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (Codified version) (Text with EEA relevance)
   OJ L 152, p. 1


title: Case T-138/08: Order of the General Court of 18 May 2017 — Cavankee Fishing and Others v Commission

text:
               31.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/49

         Order of the General Court of 18 May 2017 — Cavankee Fishing and Others v Commission
   (Case T-138/08) (1)

   (2017/C 249/66)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 142, 7.6.2008.


title: Case C-414/01: Action brought on 17 October 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

text:
C 348/20              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       8.12.2001
Action brought on 17 October 2001 by the Commission                       Article 36(2) of the Directive and is in breach of the general
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic                  principle of transparency in that it makes it possible to
                                                                          subdivide the objective criteria for assessing bids into sub-
                                                                          categories before the envelopes are unsealed. Finally, the
                                                                          Commission claims that, by failing to notify it of the adoption
                        (Case C-412/01)                                   of DPCM No 116/97 the Italian Republic has also infringed
                                                                          Article 44(2) of the Directive.
                        (2001/C 348/35)
                                                                          (1) OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1.
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 October
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Michel Nolin, acting as Agent, assisted by                 Action brought on 17 October 2001 by the Commission
Massimo Moretto, avvocato.                                                of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                                                                Spain
                                                                                (Case C-414/01)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (2001/C 348/36)
—     Declare that, by including in Article 2 of Decreto del
      Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri (Decree of the
      President of the Council of Ministers — DPCM), No 116
      of 27 February 1997, by reference to Article 14 of                  An action against The Kingdom of Spam was brought
      Decreto Legislativo (Legislative Decree) No 157 of                  before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
      17 March 1995, among the criteria for awarding con-                 17 October 2001 by the Commission of the European
      tracts which the awarding authorities may take into                 Communities, represented by I. Martı́nez del Peral, acting as
      consideration when determining the most economically                Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
      advantageous offer, the selection criteria listed in                of L Escobar, of the Commission Legal Service, C-254 Wagner
      Article 32 of Directive 92/50/EEC (1) and by including              Centre.
      among the criteria for awarding contracts the provision
      of quality assurance together with ‘further information as
      may be required by the awarding authorities with the                The applicant claims that the Court should:
      purpose of matching the bidder with the service under
      tender’, and by failing, furthermore, to communicate to             —     Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force the
      the Commission the text of DPCM No 116/97, the Italian                    laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary
      Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive             to comply with Directive 97/7/EC of the European
      92/50/EEC and, in particular, Articles 23, 32, 36 and 44                  Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 1997 on
      thereof,                                                                  the protection of consumers in respect of distance
                                                                                contracts (1), or, in any event, by failing to communicate
                                                                                to the Commission the adoption of such provisions, the
—     Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                              Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations, under
                                                                                Article 15(1) of that Directive,
                                                                          —     Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
The Commission takes the view that the contested provisions               Under Article 15(1) of Directive 97/7/EC, the Kingdom of
of DPCM No 116/97 are clearly in conflict with Directive                  Spain should have adopted the measures necessary to comply
92/50/EEC, inasmuch as they provide for the application of                therewith by 4 June 2000.
assessment criteria concerning the technical ability of compet-
ing bidders additionally at the stage of determining the most
                                                                          (1) OJ 1997 L 144, p. 19.
financially advantageous offer, thereby blurring the distinction
between the selection and awarding stages. Furthermore, the
Commission is of the view that the DPCM in question infringes


title: Case C-575/14 P: Appeal brought on 11 December 2014 by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 2 October 2014 in Case T-340/07 RENV: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Commission

text:
               23.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/25

         Appeal brought on 11 December 2014 by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 2 October 2014 in Case T-340/07 RENV: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Commission
   (Case C-575/14 P)
   (2015/C 065/35)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (represented by: M. Sfyri, I. Ampazis, Lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court under appeal.

               —

               order the Commission to make good damage suffered by the Appellant as a result of the Commission’s failure to comply with contractual obligations in the context of the performance of the EDC-53007 EEBO/27873 contract relating to the project entitled ‘e-Content Exposure and Business Opportunities’. More particularly, order the Commission to pay the amount of 1 72  588,62 EUR, representing all the costs incurred by the Appellant concerning all the work which was engaged by the Appellant before the termination of the contract of 16 May 2003 and delivered by the Appellant in compliance to its contractual obligations. Subsidiarily, in case the Court of Justice considers that the Appellant had to cease any work as of 16 May 2003, order the Commission to pay at least the amount of 1 27  076,48 EUR, representing all the costs incurred or engaged to by the Appellant lawfully and in strict compliance to the terms of its contract, until such date.

               —

               order the Commission to pay the Appellant’s legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with the initial procedure and the current Appeal, even if the current Appeal is rejected as well as those of the current Appeal, in case it is accepted.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Appellant founds its Appeal on the fact that the General Court distorted the clear sense of the evidence before it, by interpreting incorrectly Annex II ‘General Conditions’ of the EDC-53007 EEBO/27873 contract, by undermining the probative value of the submitted cost statement and, consequently, by assessing incorrectly that the documents produced by the Appellant were not appropriate and sufficient to prove that the costs stated in them actually incurred for the implementation of the project.


title: Case C-164/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 2 April 2013 — Turbo.com Mobile Phone’s BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

text:
               15.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/19

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 2 April 2013 — Turbo.com Mobile Phone’s BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-164/13)
   2013/C 171/38
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Turbo.com Mobile Phone’s BV

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Question referred

   Should the national authorities and judicial bodies, on the basis of the law of the European Union, refuse the right to deduct where it is established, on the basis of objective evidence, that there was VAT fraud in respect of the goods concerned and that the taxable person knew or should have known that he was participating therein, even if the national law does not make provision under those circumstances for refusing the right to deduct?


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 November 2001 in Case C-424/99: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 89/105/EEC — "Positive list" for the purposes of Article 6 of Directive 89/105/EEC — Time-limit for examination of an application for inclusion of a medicinal product on the list — Obligation to provide for a judicial remedy in the event of refusal)

text:
6.4.2002                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 84/11
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                            first consulting the committee provided for in Article 29 of the
                                                                                directive. That provision also does not authorise a Member
                                                                                State to adopt measures excluding goods from the system of
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                         deducting value added tax which contain no indication as to
                                                                                their limitation in time and/or which form part of a package of
                           8 January 2002                                          structural adjustment measures whose aim is to reduce the
                                                                                budget deficit and allow State debt to be repaid.
in Case C-409/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Metropol Treuhand                          (1) OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.
WirtschaftstreuhandgmbH v Finanzlandesdirektion für
Steiermark and between Michael Stadler and Finanz-
                landesdirektion für Vorarlberg (1)
(Sixth VAT Directive — Article 17(6) and (7) — Right to
deduct input VAT — Exclusions provided for under national
laws at the date of entry into force of the directive —
Exclusions for cyclical economic reasons — Consultation of                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
          the Advisory Committee on value added tax)
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                            (2002/C 84/18)
                                                                                of 27 November 2001
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                             in Case C-424/99: Commission of the European Communi-
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                          ties v Republic of Austria (1)
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
                                                                             89/105/EEC — ‘Positive list’ for the purposes of Article 6 of
In Case C-409/99: reference to the Court under Article 234                   Directive 89/105/EEC — Time-limit for examination of an
EC by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary                 application for inclusion of a medicinal product on the list
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                  — Obligation to provide for a judicial remedy in the event
Metropol Treuhand WirtschaftstreuhandgmbH and Finanz-                                                      of refusal)
landesdirektion für Steiermark and between Michael Stadler
and Finanzlandesdirektion für Vorarlberg, on the interpret-                                              (2002/C 84/19)
ation of Article 17(6) and (7) of Sixth Council Directive
77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the
laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —                                           (Language of the case: German)
Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assess-
ment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1),the Court (Fifth Chamber),
composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, A. La Pergola,               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
L. Sevón (Rapporteur), M. Wathelet and C.W.A. Timmermans,                                       in the European Court Reports)
Judges, Advocate General: L.A. Geelhoed, Registrar: D. Louter-
man-Hubeau, Head of Division, has given a judgment on
8 January 2002, in which it has ruled:
                                                                             In Case C-424/99: Commission of the European Communities
                                                                             (Agent: J.C. Schieferer) v Republic of Austria (Agent: C. Pesen-
1.    The second subparagraph of Article 17(6) of Sixth Council              dorfer) — application for a declaration that, by not adopting
      Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation               or by not communicating to the Commission within the
      of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —          prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative
      Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment          provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
      — precludes a Member State from excluding, after the entry             89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to the transparency
      into force of the Sixth Directive, expenditure relating to certain     of measures regulating the prices of medicinal products for
      motor vehicles from the right to deduct value added tax where,         human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health
      at the date of entry into force of that directive, that expenditure    insurance systems (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 8), the Republic of Austria
      gave rise to the right to deduct value added tax in accordance         has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty — the
      with a consistent practice of the public authorities of that State     Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: N. Colneric, President of
      on the basis of a ministerial circular.                                the Second Chamber, acting for the President of the Sixth
                                                                             Chamber, C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen, V. Skouris (Rapporteur)
2.    The first sentence of Article 17(7) of the Sixth Directive must        and J. N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate
      be interpreted as not authorising a Member State to exclude            General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
      goods from the system of deducting value added tax without             has given a judgment on 27 November 2001, in which it:
 ---pagebreak--- C 84/12                    EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                             6.4.2002
1.    Declares that, by not adopting within the prescribed period the         market in Belgium, France and the Netherlands (OJ 1996 L 99,
      laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to            p. 16), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 841/96
      comply with the second sentence of Article 6(2) of Council              of 7 May 1996 (OJ 1996 L 114, p. 18),the Court (Fifth
      Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to the                Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber,
      transparency of measures regulating the prices of medicinal             D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, L. Sevón (Rapporteur) and
      products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of              M. Wathelet, Judges, Advocate General: F.G. Jacobs, Registrar:
      national health insurance systems, the Republic of Austria has          H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, has given a judgment on
      failed to fulfil its obligations under that article;                    8 January 2002, in which it has ruled:
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;
3.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.                             1.   The Community provisions applicable to the common agricul-
                                                                                tural policy in the beef and veal sector are to be interpreted as
                                                                                meaning that, in response to information concerning a possible
                                                                                link between bovine spongiform encephalopathy and Creutz-
(1) OJ C 6 of 8.1.2000.
                                                                                feldt-Jakob disease in humans and to the bovine spongiform
                                                                                encephalopathy crisis in the United Kingdom, the Member
                                                                                States were entitled, under Article 8(1)(a) of Council Directive
                                                                                90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinary and
                                                                                zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade in
                                                                                certain live animals and products with a view to the completion
                                                                                of the internal market, as amended by Council Directive
                                                                                92/118/EEC of 17 December 1992 laying down animal
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                            health and public health requirements governing trade in and
                                                                                imports into the Community of products not subject to the said
                                                                                requirements laid down in specific Community rules referred to
                             (Fifth Chamber)                                       in Annex A (I) to Directive 89/662/EEC and, as regards
                                                                                pathogens, to Directive 90/425:
                             8 January 2002
                                                                                —      to order the slaughter of young bovine animals originating
in Case C-428/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                                 from the United Kingdom present in their territory and,
the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven): H. van den
Bor BV v Voedselvoorzieningsin- en verkoopbureau (1)
                                                                                —      since there could be serious grounds for believing that, in
(Agriculture — Combating bovine spongiform encephalo-                                     the absence of fair compensation, farmers might conceal
pathy — Powers of the Member States — Compensation for                                    the origin of animals in their possession in order to avoid
farmers following the slaughter of United Kingdom calves                                  their slaughter and the resulting financial loss, to adopt a
ordered during the bovine spongiform encephalopathy crisis                                compensation measure ancillary to the measure requiring
                             in March 1996)                                               slaughter of the animals.
                              (2002/C 84/20)
                                                                              2.   Even though the Member States had the power to adopt
                      (Language of the case: Dutch)                                compensation measures under Article 8(1)(a) of Directive
                                                                                90/425, as amended by Directive 92/118, Community law,
                                                                                in particular Commission Regulation (EC) No 717/96 of
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published             19 April 1996 adopting exceptional support measures for the
                     in the European Court Reports)                                beef and veal market in Belgium, France and the Netherlands,
                                                                                as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 841/96 of
                                                                                7 May 1996, precluded the amount of compensation to farmers
                                                                                from being determined by national provisions from the date
In Case C-428/99: reference to the Court under Article 234                         upon which that regulation became applicable.
EC by the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Nether-
lands) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between H. van den Bor BV and Voedsel-
voorzieningsin- en verkoopbureau on the power of the
Member States to compensate cattle farmers and determine                      (1) OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.
the amount of compensation due following the slaughter of
United Kingdom calves ordered during the bovine spongiform
encephalopathy crisis in March 1996 and on the interpretation
of Commission Regulation (EC) No 717/96 of 19 April 1996
adopting exceptional support measures for the beef and veal


title: Case C-321/06: Action brought on 20 July 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               2.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/26

         Action brought on 20 July 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-321/06)
   (2006/C 212/46)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

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

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by not adopting, and in any event by not notifying to the Commission, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community (1), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11 of that directive;

               —

               order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for the transposition of Directive 2002/14/EC into domestic law expired on 23 March 2005.

      (1)  OJ L 80, p. 29.


title: Case T-217/15: Action brought on 30 April 2015 — Fiesta Hotels & Resorts v OHIM — Residencial Palladium (PALLADIUM PALACE IBIZA RESORT & SPA)

text:
               22.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/40

         Action brought on 30 April 2015 — Fiesta Hotels & Resorts v OHIM — Residencial Palladium (PALLADIUM PALACE IBIZA RESORT & SPA)
   (Case T-217/15)
   (2015/C 205/54)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Fiesta Hotels & Resorts, SL (Ibiza, Spain) (represented by: J. Devaureix, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Residencial Palladium, SL (Ibiza, Spain)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘PALLADIUM PALACE IBIZA RESORT & SPA’ — Community trade mark No 10 524 213

      Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 February 2015 in Case R 2391/2013-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul and declare ineffective the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 February 2015;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009, read in conjunction with Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009.

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-619/10: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 September 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts — Latvia) — Trade Agency Ltd v Seramico Investments Ltd (Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Enforcement — Grounds for challenge — Document instituting proceedings not served on the defendant — Review by the court in which enforcement is sought — Scope — Value of the information in the certificate — Infringement of public policy — Judgment lacking reasoning)

text:
               27.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/3

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 September 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts — Latvia) — Trade Agency Ltd v Seramico Investments Ltd
      (Case C-619/10) (1)

      (Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Enforcement - Grounds for challenge - Document instituting proceedings not served on the defendant - Review by the court in which enforcement is sought - Scope - Value of the information in the certificate - Infringement of public policy - Judgment lacking reasoning)
      (2012/C 331/05)
      Language of the case: Latvian

         Referring court

      Augstākās tiesas Senāts

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Trade Agency Ltd

         Defendant: Seramico Investments Ltd

         Re:

      Reference for a preliminary ruling — Augstâkâs tiesas Senâts — Interpretation of Article 34(1) and (2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Interpretation of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Grounds for refusing recognition — Right to an effective remedy — Defendant claiming to have received neither service of the application initiating proceedings nor the default judgment — Power of the enforcing court to determine whether the application initiating proceedings had been served on the defendant in default when service is accompanied by a certificate as provided for by Article 54 of the regulation — Decision of the court of the Member State of origin given in default of appearance without consideration of the merits of the application

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Article 34(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, to which Article 45(1) thereof refers, read in conjunction with recitals 16 and 17 in the preamble, must be interpreted as meaning that, where the defendant brings an action against the declaration of enforceability of a judgment given in default of appearance in the Member State of origin which is accompanied by the certificate provided for by Article 54 of that regulation, claiming that he has not been served with the document instituting the proceedings, the court of the Member State in which enforcement is sought hearing the action has jurisdiction to verify that the information in that certificate is consistent with the evidence.

                  2.

                  Article 34(1) of Regulation No 44/2001, to which Article 45(1) thereof refers, must be interpreted as meaning that the courts of the Member State in which enforcement is sought may refuse to enforce a judgment given in default of appearance which disposes of the substance of the dispute but which does not contain an assessment of the subject-matter or the basis of the action and which lacks any argument of its merits, only if it appears to the court, after an overall assessment of the proceedings and in the light of all the relevant circumstances, that that judgment is a manifest and disproportionate breach of the defendant’s right to a fair trial referred to in the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, on account of the impossibility of bringing an appropriate and effective appeal against it.

         (1)  OJ C 72, 5.3.2011.


title: Case T-470/13: Action brought on 30 August 2013 — Merck v Commission

text:
               9.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 325/46

         Action brought on 30 August 2013 — Merck v Commission
   (Case T-470/13)
   2013/C 325/74
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Merck KGaA (Darmstadt, Germany) (represented by: B. Bär-Bouyssière, K. Lillerud, L. Voldstad, B. Marschall, P. Sabbadini, R. De Travieso, M. Holzhäuser, S. O, lawyers, M. Marelus, Solicitor, R. Kreisberger and L. Osepciu, Barristers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Articles 1(1), 2(1) of Commission’s Decision C(2013) 3803 final of 19 June 2013 in case COMP/39.226 — Lundbeck), and Articles 2(5), 3 and 4 insofar as these are addressed to Merck;

               —

               In the alternative, annul or reduce the penalty imposed on Merck; and

               —

               In any event grant Merck its costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in its interpretation of the concept of a restriction by object within the meaning of Article 101.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s theory of harm was fundamentally flawed.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s approach is contrary to the principle of legal certainty.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in failing to take any, or any adequate, account of the factual, economic and legal context, which showed that, absent the Agreements, GUK would not have launched citalopram any more quickly in the UK or other EEA markets.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in its assessment of the scope of the Agreements between Lundbeck and GUK.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law and in fact in finding that Lundbeck and GUK were potential competitors.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment in concluding that GUK had an anti-competitive intention in entering into the UK and EEA Agreements.

               8.

               Eighth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in fact in its findings as to the size and purpose of the value transfer between Lundbeck and GUK.

               9.

               Ninth plea in law, alleging that the Commission fails properly to assess the arguments raised by the parties under Article 101(3) TFEU.

               10.

               Tenth plea in law, alleging that the Commission has failed to have due regard to evidence from Merck rebutting the presumption of decisive influence and has accordingly erred in fact and law in finding that presumption not rebutted.

               11.

               Eleventh plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s decision should be set aside on ground of undue delay.

               12.

               Twelfth plea in law, alleging that the Commission has breached the parties right to be heard.

               13.

               Thirteenth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in its assessment of penalties.


title: Case T-375/06: Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2011 — Viega v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Copper and copper alloy fittings sector — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Participation in the infringement — Obligation to state reasons — Fines — Relevant turnover — Attenuating circumstances)

text:
               14.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2011 — Viega v Commission
   (Case T-375/06) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Copper and copper alloy fittings sector - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Participation in the infringement - Obligation to state reasons - Fines - Relevant turnover - Attenuating circumstances)
   2011/C 145/26
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Viega GmbH & Co. KG (Attendorn, Germany) (represented initially by J. Burrichter, T. Mäger and F. Bulst, and subsequently by J. Burrichter, T. Mäger and M. Röhrig, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Nijenhuis and V. Bottka, acting as Agents, and by A. Böhlke, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2006) 4180 of 20 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F-1/38.121 — Fittings), and also, in the alternative, for a reduction in the fine imposed on the applicant in that decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Viega GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 20 June 1996 in Case C-155/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Value-added Tax Tribunal): Wellcome Trust Ltd v. Commissioners of Customs & Excise (Sixth VAT Directive - Concept of economic activity)

text:
9 . 11 . 96           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 336/ 1
                                                                  I
                                                           (Information)
                                              COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                        COURT OF JUSTICE
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                 sale of shares and other securities by a trustee in the course
                        ( Fifth Chamber )                            of the management of the assets of a charitable trust.
                       of 20 June 1996                               (') OJ No C 275 , 1 . 10 . 1994 .
in Case C-155/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling made           ( 2 ) OJ No L 145 , 1977, p . 1 .
by the Value-added Tax Tribunal ): Wellcome Trust Ltd v.
            Commissioners of Customs & Excise (')
   (Sixth VAT Directive — Concept of economic activity)
                          ( 96/C 336/01 )
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( First Chamber )
                                                                                of 20 June 1996
                (Language of the case: English)                      in Case C-121 /95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                     from the Bundesfinanzhof): VOBIS Microcomputer AG v.
                                                                                Oberfinanzdirektion München ( 1 )
In Case C-155/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177           (Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Basic
of the EC Treaty by the Value-added Tax Tribunal , London,           module for the assembly of a data-processing machine —
                                                                              Classification in the combined nomenclature)
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before
that tribunal between Wellcome Trust Ltd and the                                                ( 96/C 336/02 )
Commissioners of Customs & Excise — on the
interpretation of the sixth Council Directive ( 77/388/EEC )                         (Language of the case: German)
of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the
Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
system of value-added tax : uniform basis of assessment ( 2 )                  published in the European Court Reports)
— the Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of: D. A. O.
Edward, President of the Chamber, J. -P. Puissochet, J. C.           In Case C-121 /95 : reference to the Court pursuant to
Moitinho de Almeida ( Rapporteur ), C. Gulmann and P.                 Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the Bundesfinanzhof
Jann, Judges; C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General ; L. Hewlett,              ( Federal Finance Court ) for a preliminary ruling in the
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on             proceedings pending before that court between VOBIS
20 June 1996 , the operative part of which is as follows :            Microcomputer AG and Oberfinanzdirektion München —
                                                                      on the interpretation of the combined nomenclature of the
                                                                      Common Customs Tariff in the version annexed to
                                                                      Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 2505/92 of 14 July 1992
 The concept of economic activities, within the meaning of            amending Annexes I and II to Council Regulation ( EEC )
Article 4 (2) of the sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of          No 2658 /87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and
 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the                  on the Common Customs Tariff ( 2 ) — the Court ( First
 Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common                    Chamber ), composed of: D. A. O. Edward ( Rapporteur ),
system of value-added tax: uniform basis ofassessment, is to          President of the Chamber, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges;
 be interpreted as not including an activity, such as that at         C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General ; R. Grass, Registrar, has
 issue in the main proceedings, consisting in the purchase and        given a judgment on 20 June 1996 , in which it rules :


title: Case T-375/12: Action brought on 20 August 2012 — Brouwerij Van Honsebrouck v OHIM — Beverage Trademark (KASTEEL)

text:
               10.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/16

         Action brought on 20 August 2012 — Brouwerij Van Honsebrouck v OHIM — Beverage Trademark (KASTEEL)
   (Case T-375/12)
   2012/C 343/28
   Language in which the application was lodged: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Brouwerij Van Honsebrouck (Ingelmunster, Belgium) (represented by: P. Maeyaert, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Beverage Trademark Co. Ltd BTM (Tortola, British Virgin Islands)

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul in its entirety the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 June 2012 in Case R 652/2011-2;

               —

               order OHIM and Beverage Trademark Co. Ltd BTM to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The international word mark ‘KASTEEL’ for goods in Class 32 — International registration No W 975 634

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Beverage Trademark Co. Ltd BTM

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: National trade mark ‘CASTEL BEER’ for goods in Class 32

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law:

               —

               Breach of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Breach of Article 42 of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-217/08: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 March 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Milano, Italy) — Rita Mariano v Istituto nazionale per l'assicurazione contro gli infortuni sul lavoro (INAIL) (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Equal treatment in employment matters — Articles 12 EC and 13 EC — Grant of survivor’s benefit — National provision laying down differences in treatment between surviving spouses and surviving cohabitees)

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/24

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 March 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Milano, Italy) — Rita Mariano v Istituto nazionale per l'assicurazione contro gli infortuni sul lavoro (INAIL)
   (Case C-217/08) (1)

   (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Equal treatment in employment matters - Articles 12 EC and 13 EC - Grant of survivor’s benefit - National provision laying down differences in treatment between surviving spouses and surviving cohabitees)
   2009/C 180/41
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale ordinario di Milano

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Rita Mariano

      Defendant: Istituto nazionale per l'assicurazione contro gli infortuni sul lavoro (INAIL)

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale Ordinario di Milano — Interpretation of Articles 12 and 13 EC — Equal treatment in employment matters — Grant of survivor’s benefit — National provision laying down differences in treatment between surviving spouses and surviving partners who were in a life partnership.

      Operative part

   The application, which the courts of Member States must ensure, of the prohibition under Community law of all discrimination is not mandatory where the allegedly discriminatory treatment contains no link with Community law. In circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, no such link arises from Articles 12 EC and 13 EC in themselves.
   Those articles do not preclude, in those circumstances, national rules under which, in the event of the death of a person as a result of an accident, a pension amounting to 50 % of the remuneration received by that person before his death is paid solely to his surviving spouse and the infant child of the deceased receives only a pension amounting to 20 % of that remuneration.

      (1)  OJ C 197, 02.08.2008.


title: Case C-308/10 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 May 2011 — Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Unicre-Cartão International De Crédito SA (Appeal — Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 74(2) — Evidence not submitted in support of the opposition within the period prescribed for that purpose — Failure to take account thereof — Discretion of the Board of Appeal)

text:
               9.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 204/11

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 May 2011 — Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Unicre-Cartão International De Crédito SA
   (Case C-308/10 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 74(2) - Evidence not submitted in support of the opposition within the period prescribed for that purpose - Failure to take account thereof - Discretion of the Board of Appeal)
   2011/C 204/20
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH (represented by: J.Zindel, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent), Unicre-Cartão International De Crédito SA

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 27 April 2010 — Union Investment Privatfonds v OHIM — Unicre-Cartão International De Crédito, by which the General Court dismissed the action for annulment brought by the holder of the national figurative marks UniFLEXIO, UniVARIO and UniZERO for goods and services in Classes 35 and 36 against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 October 2006 dismissing the appeal brought against the decision of the Opposition Division rejecting the appellant’s opposition to registration of the Community figurative mark unibanco for goods in Classes 36 and 38 — Misinterpretation of Article 74(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Discretion of the Board of Appeal in respect of evidence not submitted in support of the opposition within the period prescribed for that purpose.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 246, 11.9.2010.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 February 2005 in Case C-320/04 Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2000/43/EC — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               16.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/2

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 24 February 2005
   in Case C-320/04 Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2000/43/EC - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2005/C 93/04)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-320/04 Commission of the European Communities (Agent: D. Martin) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent: S. Schreiner) – action for failure to fulfil obligations under Article 226 EC, brought on 27 July 2004 – the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta, President of the Chamber, J. Makarczyk and J. Klučka (Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 24 February 2005, in which it:

               1.

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

               2.

               Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 228 of 11. 9. 2004.


title: Case C-60/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia by order of that court of 14 December 2004 in WWF Italia and Others v Regione di Lombardia and with the intervention of the Associazione migratoristi italiani

text:
               16.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia by order of that court of 14 December 2004 in WWF Italia and Others v Regione di Lombardia and with the intervention of the Associazione migratoristi italiani
   (Case C-60/05)
   (2005/C 93/24)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) of 14 December 2004, received at the Court Registry on 10 February 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between WWF Italia and Others and Regione di Lombardia, and with the intervention of the Associazione migratoristi italiani, on the following questions:

               1.

               Is Directive 79/409/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that, irrespective of the internal allocation of powers between the State and the Regions laid down by national systems, the Member States must prepare implementing provisions governing all situations considered deserving of protection by the same, in particular as regards ensuring that hunting derogations do not exceed the small numbers laid down in Article 9(1)(c)?

               2.

               As regards in particular the numbers of hunting derogations, should Directive 79/409/EC be interpreted as meaning that the national implementing provision must refer to a criterion which is determined or can be determined, and even entrusted to qualified technical bodies, so that the exercise of hunting derogations is governed by criteria objectively establishing a quantitative level which may not be exceeded at national or regional level, having regard to the various environmental conditions which may prevail?

               3.

               Does the national provision in Article 19 of Law No 157/92, by requiring the obligatory, but non-binding, opinion of INPS to determine that criterion without, however, providing for a process for reaching agreement between the regions on the binding determination of the distribution for each species of the numerical limits of hunting derogations set at national level as small numbers, constitute a proper application of Article 9 of the Directive?

               4.

               Is the procedure for verifying the compatibility with Community provisions of the hunting derogations authorised by the Italian Regions under Article 19a of Law No 157/92, preceded by a period of notice and therefore requiring fixed periods of time, which are also necessary for the adoption and publication of the measure, during which the brief period of hunting derogations itself may expire, suitable for ensuring effective application of Directive 79/409/EC?

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


title: Case T-224/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 October 2008 — Imperial Chemical Industries v OHIM (LIGHT & SPACE) (Community trade mark — Application for registration of Community word mark LIGHT & SPACE — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/33

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 October 2008 — Imperial Chemical Industries v OHIM (LIGHT & SPACE)
   (Case T-224/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for registration of Community word mark LIGHT & SPACE - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2008/C 301/54)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Imperial Chemical Industries plc (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: initially by S. Malynicz, Barrister and V. Chandler, Solicitor and subsequently by S. Malynicz, J. Bainbridge and K. Briggs, Solicitors)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 March 2007 (Case R 1631/2006-1) concerning registration of the sign LIGHT & SPACE as a Community trade mark.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Imperial Chemical Industries plc to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 199, 25.8.2007.


title: Case C-592/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 28 November 2011 — Anssi Ketelä

text:
               18.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 49/15

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 28 November 2011 — Anssi Ketelä
   (Case C-592/11)
   2012/C 49/25
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Korkein hallinto-oikeus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Anssi Ketelä

      Defendant: Etelä-Pohjanmaan elinkeino-, liikenne- ja ympäristökeskus.

      Questions referred

               1.

               How are Article 22(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 (1) (‘are setting up for the first time on an agricultural holding as head of the holding’) and Article 13(4) and (6) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 (2) to be interpreted in a situation where agriculture is being engaged in as part of activity in company form? When assessing whether a person has started for the first time as head of a holding, is decisive significance to be given (in the assessment of previous activity) to the fact that the person has authority based on share ownership in the company; or to the amount of income he obtains from agriculture; or to whether his activity in the company can be differentiated functionally and economically as an independent production unit? Or is being head of a holding to be assessed as a whole, taking into account (in addition to the above-mentioned factors) the person’s position in the company, and whether he in fact bears the risk pertaining to entrepreneurial activity?

               2.

               When assessing the significance of previous activity when aid is being granted on the basis of other activity, is ‘being head of a holding’ to be interpreted in the same way in the case of previous activity and in that of the activity which forms the basis of the aid application? Does refusal of setting up aid for young farmers as referred to in Article 22 of the Council Regulation on the basis of activity previously engaged in require that the previous activity would be activity which, in principle, would be eligible for aid under the currently valid provisions?

               3.

               Is Article 13(4) of the Commission Regulation to be interpreted in such a way that, the criteria mentioned in question 1 above on the basis of which a person is regarded as having set up as head of a holding can be made more precise or defined in more detail in national legislation, or does the provision merely give entitlement to define the date of setting up as a farmer?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD); OJ 2005 L 277, p. 1.

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 of 15 December 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD); OJ 2006 L 368, p. 15.


title: Case C-181/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 9 April 2010 — Emilian Kuć and Halina Jeziorska-Kuć v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Warszawie

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/17

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 9 April 2010 — Emilian Kuć and Halina Jeziorska-Kuć v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Warszawie
   (Case C-181/10)
   2010/C 179/29
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Emilian Kuć and Halina Jeziorska-Kuć

      Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Warszawie

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is a flat-rate farmer within the meaning of Article 295(1)(3) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) … who sells plots of land used for his agricultural activity which are designated in a municipality’s urban management plan for residential and service development and were purchased as agricultural land (VAT-free) covered by Article 16 of that directive, which regards the application of business assets for the taxable person’s private use or for purposes other than those of his business as a supply of goods for consideration only where the tax on those assets was wholly or partly deductible?

               2.

               Must a flat-rate farmer within the meaning of Article 295(1)(3) of Directive 2006/112/EC who sells plots of land previously used for his agricultural activity which are designated in a municipality’s urban management plan for residential and service development and were purchased as agricultural land (VAT-free) be regarded as a taxable person who is required to account for VAT on that sale under the general rules?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case T-239/08: Order of the Court of First Instance of 3 February 2009 — Comtec Translations v Commission

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/53

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 3 February 2009 — Comtec Translations v Commission
   (Case T-239/08) (1)

   (2009/C 69/118)

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 209, 15.8.2008.


title: Case F-91/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 4 may 2016 — Bandieri v Commission

text:
               20.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 222/45

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 4 may 2016 — Bandieri v Commission
   (Case F-91/12) (1)

   (2016/C 222/58)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 331, 27/10/2012, p. 33.


title: Case T-428/12: Action brought on 26 September 2012 — Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria v OHIM (VALORES DE FUTURO)

text:
               24.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 366/37

         Action brought on 26 September 2012 — Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria v OHIM (VALORES DE FUTURO)
   (Case T-428/12)
   2012/C 366/75
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, SA (Bilbao, Spain) (represented by J. de Oliveira Vaz Miranda Sousa and N. González-Alberto Rodríguez, 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 part of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 4 July 2012 in Case R 2299/2011-2 which confirms the refusal to register Community trade mark No 9 408 758; and

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: word mark ‘VALORES DE FUTURO’ for goods and services in Classes 16, 36 and 41 — Community trade mark application No 9 408 758

      Decision of the Examiner: rejection in part of the application for registration

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law:

               —

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

               —

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


title: Case T-358/04: Action brought on 30 August 2004 by Georg Neumann GmbH, Berlin against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               20.11.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 284/22

         Action brought on 30 August 2004 by Georg Neumann GmbH, Berlin against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case T-358/04)
   (2004/C 284/44)
   Language of the case: German
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 30 August 2004 by Georg Neumann GmbH, Berlin, Berlin (Germany), represented by R. Böhm, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 June 2004 in Case R 919/2002-2;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               Community trade mark applied for:

               Three-dimensional trade mark in the form of a microphone head grill in respect of goods in Class 9 (Microphones) — Application No 493 643

               Decision contested before the Board of Appeal:

               Refusal of the application by the examiner

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Dismissal of the appeal

               Pleas in law:

                           —

                           The contested decision infringes Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94.

                           —

                           The trade mark applied for is distinctive.


title: Case T-309/06: Action brought on 14 November 2006 — Budějovický Budvar v OHIM — Anheuser-Busch (BUD)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/64

         Action brought on 14 November 2006 — Budějovický Budvar v OHIM — Anheuser-Busch (BUD)
   (Case T-309/06)
   (2006/C 326/136)
   Language in which the application was lodged: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik (České Budějovice, Czech Republic) (represented by F. Fajgenbaum, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Anheuser-Busch, Inc.
   Form of order sought

               —

               set aside the contested decision R 305/2005-2 of 1 September 2006 of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM;

               —

               reject application No 24 711 for registration of the word mark BUD for goods in Class 32;

               —

               transmit the decision of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities to OHIM;

               —

               order Anheuser-Busch to pay all the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Anheuser-Busch, Inc.

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark BUD for goods in Class 32 — application No 24 711

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Right to the protected appellation of origin BUD for beer

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 62(1) of Regulation No 40/94 (1) and Article 20 of the implementing regulation No 2868/95 (2) in that the Board of Appeal does not have jurisdiction to rule on the validity of the appellation of origin relied on by the applicant in its opposition. The applicant also submits that the sign BUD constitutes an appellation of origin protected in France and Austria. It also relies on incorrect application of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 40/94 in that the appellation of origin BUD in its view does indeed constitute a sign used in the course of trade.

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

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1).


title: Case F-70/05: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2011 — Mische v Commission (Civil service — Appointment — Successful candidate in a competition published before the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations but finalised afterwards — Grading under new, less favourable rules)

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/21

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2011 — Mische v Commission
   (Case F-70/05) (1)

   (Civil service - Appointment - Successful candidate in a competition published before the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations but finalised afterwards - Grading under new, less favourable rules)
   2012/C 138/39
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Harald Mische (Brussels, Belgium) (represented: initially by G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers, and subsequently by R. Holland, B. Maluch and J. Mische, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and H. Krämer, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Arpio Santacruz and M. Simm, Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of the Commission’s decision classifying the applicant at grade A*6 following a competition published before the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations but finalised after that date, under the less favourable provisions of those regulations (Article 12 of Annex XIII to Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs;

               3.

               Orders the Council of the European Union, the intervener, to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 229, 17.9.2005, p. 35 (case initially registered before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under the Number T-288/05 and transferred to the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union by order of 15.12.2005).


title: Case F-2/09: Action brought on 19 January 2009 — Menghi v ENISA

text:
               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/53

         Action brought on 19 January 2009 — Menghi v ENISA
   (Case F-2/09)
   (2009/C 55/97)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Achille Menghi (Cagliari, Italy) (represented by: L. Defalque, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Network and Information Security Agency
   Subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   The annulment of the decision not to confirm the applicant's contract after the probationary period and an application for compensation for the material and non-material harm suffered.
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               Annul the decision of 3 October 2008 rejecting the applicant's complaint relating to the decision of the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment of 14 March 2008 not to confirm the applicant's contract;

               —

               Consequently, annul the decision of the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment of 14 March 2008 not to confirm the applicant's contract;

               —

               Order the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment to pay compensation to the applicant for the financial harm caused by the failure to confirm his three year contract of employment, the financial harm caused as a result of the medical expenses which he had to incur and the non-material harm suffered on account of psychological harassment;

               —

               Order the European Network and Information Security Agency to pay the costs.


title: Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 January 2002 in Case C-45/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo): Sonae Turismo, SGPS, SA, against Fazenda Pública (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Directive 69/335/EEC — Mandatory recordal in a commercial register of the act relating to amendments to company statutes — Duties paid by way of fees or dues)

text:
4.5.2002                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 109/15
Treaty, the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: N. Colneric               1.   Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning
(Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen and                        indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Council
V. Skouris, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass,                       Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985, must be interpreted
Registrar, has given a judgment on 27 February 2002, in                         as meaning that charges collected in respect of the recordal in a
which it:                                                                       national commercial register of an increase in the capital of a
                                                                                capital company or of any other transaction falling within the
                                                                                scope of that directive constitute a tax within the meaning of
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt all the measures necessary to
                                                                                that directive.
      comply with Council Directive 98/18/EC of 17 March 1998
      on safety rules and standards for passenger ships, the Kingdom
      of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
      directive;
                                                                           2.   The charges payable in respect of recordal in a national
2.    Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                           commercial register of an increase in the capital of a capital
                                                                                company or of any other transaction covered by Directive
                                                                                69/335, as amended by Directive 85/303, are, inasmuch as
(1) OJ C 161 of 2.6.2001.                                                       they constitute a tax within the meaning of the directive,
                                                                                prohibited in principle by Article 10(c) of that directive.
                                                                           3.   Charges levied in respect of the recordal in a national commercial
                                                                                register of an increase in the capital of a capital company or of
                     ORDER OF THE COURT                                         any other transaction covered by Directive 69/335, as amended
                                                                                by Directive 85/303, the amount of which increases directly
                         (Fourth Chamber)                                       and without restriction in proportion to the paid-up capital of
                                                                                the company are not duties paid by way of fees or dues.
                         of 24 January 2002
in Case C-45/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                           4.   Charges paid by way of fees or dues, within the meaning of
the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo): Sonae Turismo,
                                                                                Article 12(1)(e) of Directive 69/335, as amended by Directive
              SGPS, SA, against Fazenda Pública (1)
                                                                                85/303, include only those fees paid the amount of which is
                                                                                calculated on the basis of the cost of the service provided.
(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Directive
69/335/EEC — Mandatory recordal in a commercial register
of the act relating to amendments to company statutes —
                 Duties paid by way of fees or dues)
                                                                           5.   In order to calculate the amount of such charges, a Member
                                                                                State is entitled to take into account not only the costs in
                           (2002/C 109/24)                                      materials and salary terms which are directly linked to the
                                                                                registration operations in consideration of which they are paid,
                  (Language of the case: Portuguese)                            but also the portion of the relevant general administrative costs
                                                                                which are attributable to those operations. It is permissible for
                                                                                a Member State to levy a charge only in respect of major
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published          registration operations and for it to pass on to them the cost of
                    in the European Court Reports)                              minor operations carried out free of charge.
In Case C-45/00: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) for a                  6.   The cost of registration in the commercial registration may be
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                       assessed at a flat rate and must be established by reasonable
court between Sonae Turismo, SGPS, SA, and Fazenda Pública,                    means taking into account, in particular, the number and the
Ministério Público, intervener — on the interpretation of                      type of agents, the time employed by those agents and the
Articles 4, 10 and 12(1)(e) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of                  various materials necessary to the completion of that operation.
17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital                However, a Member State is entitled to fix in advance, on the
(OJ English Special Edition, 1969(II) p. 412), as amended by                    basis of the average foreseeable registration costs, standard
Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985 (OJ 1985                           charges for the completion of the formalities for registering
L 156, p. 23) — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of:                        capital companies. There is nothing to prevent the amount of
D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), acting as President of the Fourth                   those charges being established for an indeterminate period
Chamber, and A. La Pergola and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges;                       provided that the Member State satisfies itself, at regular
L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made                  intervals, for instance every year, that they continue not to
an order on 24 January 2002, in which it has ruled:                             exceed its registration costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 109/16                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           4.5.2002
7.    Article 10 of Directive 69/335, as amended by Directive              2.    Orders Royal Olympic Cruises Ltd, Valentine Oceanic Trading
      85/303, gives rise to rights on which individuals may rely                 Inc., Caroline Shipping Inc., Simpson Navigation Ltd, Solar
      before national courts.                                                    Navigation Corporation, Ocean Quest Sea Carriers Ltd, Athena
                                                                                2004 SA, Freewind Shipping Co. and Elliniki Etaireia
                                                                                Diipeirotikon Grammon AE to pay the costs.
(1) OJ 2000 C 122.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 108 of 7.4.2002.
                    ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
                          (First Chamber)
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                        of 15 January 2002
                                                                                of 31 January 2002
in Case C-49/01 P: Royal Olympic Cruises Ltd and Others
v Council of the European Union and Commission of the
                   European Communities (1)                                in Case C-161/01 P: Franco Campoli v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
(Appeal — Non-contractual liability of the Community —
Harm caused by armed intervention in the Federal Republic                  (Appeal — Application for annulment of a decision transfer-
       of Yugoslavia — Appeal manifestly unfounded)                        ring an official and appointing a different official to the
                                                                           vacant post — Disguised disciplinary measure — Rights of
                                                                                defence — Appeal manifestly inadmissible)
                          (2002/C 109/25)
                                                                                (2002/C 109/26)
                    (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-49/01 P: Royal Olympic Cruises Ltd, established in
Monrovia (Liberia), Valentine Oceanic Trading Inc., established
in Monrovia, Caroline Shipping Inc., established in Monrovia,              In Case C-161/01 P: Franco Campoli, residing in Brussels
Simpson Navigation Ltd, established in Monrovia, Solar Navi-               (Belgium), represented by S. Diana, avocat, — appeal against
gation Corporation, established in Monrovia, Ocean Quest Sea               the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
Carriers Ltd, established in Monrovia, Athena 2004 SA,                     Communities (Fifth Chamber) of 6 March 2001 in Case
established in Monrovia, Freewind Shipping Co., established in             T-100/00 Campoli v Commission [2001] ECR FP I-A-71 and
Monrovia, and Elliniki Etaireia Diipeirotikon Grammon AE,                  II-347, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other
established in Pireus (Greece), represented by N. Skandamis                party to the proceedings being Commission of the European
and A. Potamianos, dikigoroi — appeal against the order of                 Communities (Agents: J. Currall and D. Waelbroeck) — the
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                    Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the
(Second Chamber) of 12 December 2000 in Case T-201/99                      Chamber, S. von Bahr, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), A. La
Royal Olympic Cruises and Others v Council and Commission                  Pergola and C.W.A: Timmermans, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed,
[2000] ECR II-4005, seeking to have that order set aside, the              Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on
other parties to the proceedings being Council of the European             31 January 2002, in which it:
Union (Agents: M. Vitsentzatos and S. Kyriakopolou) and
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: T. Chris-                  1.    Dismisses the appeal;
toforou and A. van Solinge) — the Court (First Chamber),
composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber,               2.    Orders Mr. Campoli to pay the costs.
L. Sevón and M. Wathelet, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 15 January
2002, in which it:                                                         (1) OJ C 200 of 14.7.2001.
1.    Dismisses the appeal;


title: Case T-328/13: Action brought on 4 June 2013 — Tameio Pronoias Prosopikou Trapezis Kyprou v Commission and European Central Bank

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/33

         Action brought on 4 June 2013 — Tameio Pronoias Prosopikou Trapezis Kyprou v Commission and European Central Bank
   (Case T-328/13)
   2013/C 252/55
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Tameio Pronoias Prosopikou Trapezis Kyprou (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: E. Εfstathiou, K. Εfstathiou and K. Liasidou, lawyers)

      Defendants: European Central Bank and European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               declare the action to be admissible and well founded;

               —

               annul the decision of the Eurogroup of 25 March 2013, which took its final form through the decision of the Governor of the Central Bank of Cyprus as the representative and/or agent of the European System of Central Banks dated 29 Μarch 2013, K.D.P [Regulatory Administrative Act] 104/2013, whereby the ‘sale of certain operations’ of Cyprus Popular Bank Public Co Ltd was decided and which in essence constitutes a joint decision of not only the European Central Bank but also of the European Commission;

               —

               in addition, declare that the abovementioned decision of the Eurogroup in essence constitutes a decision of the European Central Bank and/or of the European Commission jointly irrespective of the shape or form in which it was dressed;

               —

               order the European Central Bank and/or the European Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action the applicant puts forward four pleas in law.

               1.

               By the first plea for annulment the applicant maintains that the contested decision is null and void, since the decision exceeds the powers conferred by the Treaty on European Union on not only the European Central Bank but also the European Commission, that is to say, it is an act which was ultra vires of those two institutions.

               2.

               By the second plea for annulment, the applicant maintains that the contested decision is in breach of the right to respect for property, which is protected by Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Article 14 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, as confirmed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

               3.

               By the third plea for annulment, the applicant maintains that the contested decision is manifestly unfounded and lacking any legal basis and is contrary to the principle of proportionality.

               4.

               By the fourth plea for annulment, the applicant maintains that the contested decision is also contrary to the generally recognised legal principles which have been disseminated in European Union law and in particular to the principle that no-one may rely on his own failures to obtain an advantage and/or to justify wrongful and/or unlawful conduct.


title: Case T-134/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 December 2007 — Xentral v OHIM — Pages jaunes (PAGESJAUNES.COM) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark PAGESJAUNES.COM — Earlier national figurative mark LES PAGES JAUNES — Domain name pagesjaunes.com — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/44

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 December 2007 — Xentral v OHIM — Pages jaunes (PAGESJAUNES.COM)
   (Case T-134/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark PAGESJAUNES.COM - Earlier national figurative mark LES PAGES JAUNES - Domain name ‘pagesjaunes.com’ - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2008/C 22/82)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Xentral LLC (Florida, United States) (represented by: A. Bertrand, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Pages jaunes SA (Sèvres, France) (represented by: C. Bertheux Scotte, B. Potot and B. Corne, lawyers)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 February 2006 (Case R 708/2005-1) in respect of opposition proceedings between Pages Jaunes SA and Xentral LLC.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Xentral LLC to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 165, 15.7.2006.


title: Case T-384/16: Order of the General Court of 17 March 2017 — Tri-Ocean Trading v Council

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/63

         Order of the General Court of 17 March 2017 — Tri-Ocean Trading v Council
   (Case T-384/16) (1)

   (2017/C 144/97)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 326, 5.9.2016.


title: Case C-518/04: Action brought on 21 December 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
               5.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 57/15

         Action brought on 21 December 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-518/04)
   (2005/C 57/30)
   Language of the case: Greek
   An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 21 December 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Michel van Beek, Legal Adviser in its Legal Service, and Minas Konstantinidis, member of its Legal Service.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to take the necessary measures for the establishment and application of an effective system of strict protection for the viper Vipera schweizeri on the island of Milos in order to avoid any deliberate disturbance of the species, particularly during the period of breeding, rearing and hibernation, and any deterioration or destruction of breeding sites or resting places, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12(1)(b) and (d) of Directive 92/43/EEC (1) on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The aim of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora is to contribute towards the protection of biodiversity through the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora in the European territory of the Member States to which the Treaty applies.
   The Commission's action relates to the failure on the part of the Greek Government to establish and apply a system of strict protection for the species of reptile Vipera schweizeri (viper) on the island of Milos.
   The Commission requests the Court to declare that, by failing to take the necessary measures for the establishment and application of an effective system of strict protection for the viper Vipera schweizeri on the island of Milos in order to avoid any deliberate disturbance of the species, particularly during the period of breeding, rearing and hibernation, and any deterioration or destruction of breeding sites or resting places, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12(1)(b) and (d) of Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.

      (1)  OJ No L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.