title: Case T-630/13: Action brought on 28 November 2013 — DK Recycling und Roheisen v Commission

text:
               1.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/15

         Action brought on 28 November 2013 — DK Recycling und Roheisen v Commission
   (Case T-630/13)
   2014/C 31/27
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: DK Recycling und Roheisen GmbH (Duisburg, Germany) (represented by: S. Altenschmidt, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Article 1(1) of the Commission Decision of 5 September 2013 concerning national implementation measures for the transitional free allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances in accordance with Article 11(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council (C(2013) 5666, 2013/448/EU, OJ 2013 L 240, p. 27), in so far as it rejects inclusion of the installations with installation identifiers DE000000000001320 and DE-new-14220-0045, presented by Germany to the Commission within the meaning of Article 11(1) of Directive 2003/87/EC, falling within the scope of Directive 2003/87/EC and the corresponding preliminary annual amounts of emission allowances, which should be allocated to those installations free of charge;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               —

               The contested decision, in so far as it is challenged by the applicant, infringes Directive 2003/87/EC and Decision 2011/278/EU (2). Furthermore, the decision is incompatible with the principle of proportionality and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. It is also not properly justified.

               —

               In so far as the rejection of the free allocation of allowances for the applicant’s installations is based on the fact that Germany allocated it an additional transitional free allowances as compensation for excessive hardship, the applicant claims that, contrary to the Commission’s opinion, that allocation is not contrary to Decision 2011/278. In any event, a special allocation for hardship cases is required as compensation for excessive burdens as a result of the trade in emissions guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular the fundamental rights of freedom of undertakings and freedom to choose property, as well as the principle of proportionality.

               —

               In so far as the rejection of the free allocation of allowances for the applicant’s installations is based on the fact that Germany granted it an additional transitional free allowances for the manufacture of zinc concentrate in the applicant’s blast furnaces on the basis of a process emissions sub-installation, the applicant claims that the contested decision is incompatible with Decision 2011/278 and that the grounds for the decision are contradictory and insufficient.

               —

               Finally, the applicant complains of an infringement of the requirement of good administrative practice under Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Ahead of the decision, the applicant was not given any opportunity to submit its opinion.

      (1)  Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).

      (2)  2011/278/EU: Commission Decision of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (notified under document C(2011) 2772 (OJ 2011 L 130, p. 1).


title: Case T-102/04: Order of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 10 July 2008 — Cornwell v Commission

text:
               27.9.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/23

         Order of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 10 July 2008 — Cornwell v Commission
   (Case T-102/04) (1)

   (2008/C 247/47)

      Language of the case: French

   The President of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 30.4.2004.


title: Case C-511/07: Action brought on 21 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/33

         Action brought on 21 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-511/07)
   (2008/C 22/59)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

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

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to communicate the information required under Article 3(1)(f) of Decision No 280/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 concerning a mechanism for monitoring Community greenhouse gas emissions and for implementing the Kyoto Protocol (1), in conjunction with Articles 2 and 4(1)(b) and (d) of Commission Decision No 2005/166/EC of 10 February 2005 laying down rules implementing Decision No 280/2004/EC (2), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions;

               —

               order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By its action, the Commission accuses the defendant of not fully implementing the obligations contained in Decision No 280/2004/EC, read in conjunction with Decision No 2005/166/EC. First, the defendant has failed to provide in its annual report the information relating to the methods and to the types of activity data and emissions factors used in the Community's principal sources. Second, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has not communicated to the Commission a general uncertainty assessment affecting the elements of the Luxembourg national inventory report.

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 49, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2005 L 55, p. 57.


title: Case C-473/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle (Belgium), lodged on 22 October 2012 — Institut professionnel des agents immobiliers (IPI) v Geoffrey Englebert, Immo 9 SPRL, Grégory Francotte

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle (Belgium), lodged on 22 October 2012 — Institut professionnel des agents immobiliers (IPI) v Geoffrey Englebert, Immo 9 SPRL, Grégory Francotte
   (Case C-473/12)
   2013/C 26/36
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour constitutionnelle

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Institut professionnel des agents immobiliers (IPI)

      Defendants: Geoffrey Englebert, Immo 9 SPRL, Grégory Francotte

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 13(1)(g), in fine, of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (1) to be interpreted as meaning that it leaves the Member States free to choose whether or not to provide for an exception to the immediate obligation to inform set out in Article 11(1) if this is necessary in order to protect the rights and freedoms of others, or are the Member States subject to restrictions in this matter?

               2.

               Do the professional activities of private detectives, governed by national law and exercised in the service of authorities authorised to report to the judicial authorities any infringement of the provisions protecting a professional title and organising a profession, come, depending on the circumstances, within the exception referred to in Article 13(1)(d) and (g), in fine, of Directive 95/46?

               3.

               In the event of a negative reply to Question 2, is Article 13(1)(d) and (g), in fine, of Directive 95/46 compatible with Article 6(3) of the Treaty on European Union, more specifically with the principle of equality and non-discrimination?

      (1)  OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31.


title: Case T-412/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 24 September 2008 — M v Ombudsman (Non-contractual liability — Decision by the Commission to take no action on a complaint calling into question the conduct of a Member State — Decision by the European Ombudsman concerning the handling of the complaint — Errors made by the Commission in its finding of instances of maladministration — Naming of the applicant — Infringement of the right to respect for private life, and of the principles of proportionality and the right to be heard — Non-material damage — Causal link)

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/35

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 24 September 2008 — M v Ombudsman
   (Case T-412/05) (1)

   (Non-contractual liability - Decision by the Commission to take no action on a complaint calling into question the conduct of a Member State - Decision by the European Ombudsman concerning the handling of the complaint - Errors made by the Commission in its finding of instances of maladministration - Naming of the applicant - Infringement of the right to respect for private life, and of the principles of proportionality and the right to be heard - Non-material damage - Causal link)
   (2008/C 285/62)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: M (Brussels, Belgium) (represented initially by G. Vandersanden and A. Kalogeropoulos, then by A. Kalogeropoulos and L. Levi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Ombudsman (represented by: J. Sant'Anna and G. Grill, Agents)
   Re:
   Action under the second paragraph of Article 288 EC for compensation for damage suffered by the applicant as a result of being named in the decision of the European Ombudsman of 18 July 2002 concerning the complaint registered with the reference 1288/99/OV and as a result of the negligent conduct of the Ombudsman concerning the investigation of that complaint and the conclusions he reached in that decision.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Orders the European Ombudsman to pay Mr M compensation of EUR 10 000;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 48, 25.2.2006.


title: Case C-54/08: Action brought on 12 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               26.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/16

         Action brought on 12 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-54/08)
   (2008/C 107/24)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Støvlbæk and G. Braun, Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by making access to the profession of notary conditional on possession of German nationality, in Paragraph 5 of the Bundesnotarordnung (Federal code on notaries), the Federal Republic of Germany has infringed Articles 43 and 45 EC;

               —

               declare that, by failing to transpose Directive 89/48/EC (or Directive 2005/36/EC) in respect of the profession of notary, the Federal Republic of Germany has infringed that directive and Articles 43 and 45 EC;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Article 43 EC prohibits any discrimination based on nationality which results from legislation in the form of restrictions on freedom of establishment. Pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 45 EC, the chapter on the right of establishment does not apply to activities which in a Member State are connected, even occasionally, with the exercise of official authority.
   Pursuant to the Bundesnotarordnung only German nationals may be appointed notaries in Germany. The provision in question therefore discriminates on the basis of nationality and infringes the freedom of establishment of nationals of other Member States, by preventing them from exercising the profession of notary.
   The Commission takes the view that the activities of notaries do not fall within the exception of Article 45 EC so that freedom of establishment is applicable to that profession.
   In order to reply to the question of what ‘official authority’ means for the purposes of Article 45 EC, reference should be made, first, to the interpretation at national level. Activities which, in one Member State, do not fall within the sphere of official authority cannot be relied upon for the purposes of the exception, even if the same activities fall within the sphere of official authority in other Member States. Second, for the interpretation within the meaning of Article 45 EC, the concept and scope of official authority must be determined from the point of view of Community law and its meaning must be interpreted by the Court in an independent and uniform manner. The fact that the German legislature and the German courts regard activities of notaries in principle as participation in national official authority does not mean that those activities may therefore be excluded from freedom of establishment according to the stricter Community law assessment. As an exception to a fundamental freedom, the first paragraph of Article 45 EC must be interpreted restrictively.
   In the current state of integration, it is extremely difficult to find a substantive justification for the nationality condition in relation to the activities of notaries. None of those activities, even if they are of a sovereign nature, requires the relationship of a particular connection with the State, as in the case of nationality. In addition, none of those activities risks, through the exercise of sovereign authority and the deployment of State powers, creating conflicts with nationals.
   The activities put forward by the Federal Republic of Germany for the justification of the nationality requirement — authentication of legal transactions and agreements, the probative value of such documents, the insertion of an enforcement clause and the legal advice connected with the authentication — are not sufficient to justify the application of Article 45 EC. In so far as those activities actually participate in the exercise of official authority, they do so only in an indirect manner. The exercise of official authority should moreover not be confused with activities in the public interest. Public benefit does not necessarily form part of official authority; activities which seek to promote the general interest and not the interest of individuals do not necessarily presuppose the transfer of official authority. Whilst the actual exercise of official authority may continue to be reserved for a Member State's own nationals, the exercise of a given activity in the general interest which, for example, is the case in respect of the administration of justice for preventive purposes may also be guaranteed by making access to the profession and the professional duties subject to specific rules and control.
   The Commission therefore takes the view that none of the activities, considered separately or altogether, with which notaries in Germany are concerned, constitutes direct and specific participation in the exercise of official authority within the meaning of the case-law.


title: Joined Cases C-431/09 and C-432/09: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 October 2011 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel (Belgium)) — Airfield NV, Canal Digitaal BV v Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers CVBA (Sabam) (C-431/09), Airfield NV v Agicoa Belgium BVBA (C-432/09) (Copyright — Satellite broadcasting — Directive 93/83/EEC — Articles 1(2)(a) and 2 — Communication to the public by satellite — Satellite package provider — Single communication to the public by satellite — Persons to whom that communication may be attributed — Authorisation from copyright holders for the communication)

text:
               3.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/3

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 October 2011 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel (Belgium)) — Airfield NV, Canal Digitaal BV v Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers CVBA (Sabam) (C-431/09), Airfield NV v Agicoa Belgium BVBA (C-432/09)
   (Joined Cases C-431/09 and C-432/09) (1)

   (Copyright - Satellite broadcasting - Directive 93/83/EEC - Articles 1(2)(a) and 2 - Communication to the public by satellite - Satellite package provider - Single communication to the public by satellite - Persons to whom that communication may be attributed - Authorisation from copyright holders for the communication)
   2011/C 355/03
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hof van beroep te Brussel

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Airfield NV, Canal Digitaal BV (C-431/09), Airield NV (C-432/09)

      Respondents: Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers CVBA (Sabam) (C-431/09), Agicoa Belgium BVBA (C-432/09)

      Re:

   References for a preliminary ruling — Hof van beroep te Brussel — Interpretation of Article 1(2)(a) and (b) and Article 2 of Council Directive 93/83/EEC of 27 September 1993 on the coordination of certain rules concerning copyright and rights related to copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission (OJ 1993 L 248, p. 15) — Exclusive right of the author to authorise communication of his works — Transmission by a broadcasting organisation of programme-carrying signals to a digital television supplier via an independent satellite — Subsequent retransmission of those signals — Authorisation of the copyright holders

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 2 of Council Directive 93/83/EEC of 27 September 1993 on the coordination of certain rules concerning copyright and rights related to copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission must be interpreted as requiring a satellite package provider to obtain authorisation from the right holders concerned for its intervention in the direct or indirect transmission of television programmes, such as the transmission at issue in the main proceedings, unless the right holders have agreed with the broadcasting organisation concerned that the protected works will also be communicated to the public through that provider, on condition, in the latter situation, that the provider’s intervention does not make those works accessible to a new public.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.


title: Case C-189/15: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 18 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS) — Fondazione Santa Lucia v Cassa conguaglio per il settore elettrico and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2003/96/EC — Taxation of energy products and electricity — Tax reductions — Substantive scope — Incentives in respect of the amounts covering general electricity charges — Article 17 — Energy-intensive businesses — Incentives granted to such businesses in the manufacturing sector alone — Lawfulness)

text:
               6.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 70/2

         Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 18 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS) — Fondazione Santa Lucia v Cassa conguaglio per il settore elettrico and Others
   (Case C-189/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2003/96/EC - Taxation of energy products and electricity - Tax reductions - Substantive scope - Incentives in respect of the amounts covering general electricity charges - Article 17 - Energy-intensive businesses - Incentives granted to such businesses in the manufacturing sector alone - Lawfulness))
   (2017/C 070/02)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS) — Fondazione Santa Lucia

      Defendant: Cassa conguaglio per il settore elettrico, Ministero dello Sviluppo economico, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Autorità per l’energia elettrica e il gas

      Intervening party: 2M SpA

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 17(1) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘tax reductions’ covers the incentives granted, under national law, to energy-intensive businesses, as defined in that provision, in respect of amounts, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, covering general electricity charges, subject to verification by the referring court of the facts and the rules of national law on which this answer from the Court is based.

               2.

               Article 17(1) of Directive 2003/96 must be interpreted as not precluding national rules which provide for tax reductions on the consumption of electricity in favour of energy-intensive businesses, within the meaning of that provision, in the manufacturing sector alone.

      (1)  OJ C 228, 13.7.2015.


title: Case T-9/08: Order of the Court of First Instance of 25 June 2008 — Volkswagen v OHIM (Silhouette of a car with its headlights) (Community trade mark — Waiver of registration of national mark — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/44

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 25 June 2008 — Volkswagen v OHIM (Silhouette of a car with its headlights)
   (Case T-9/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Waiver of registration of national mark - No need to adjudicate)
   (2008/C 223/77)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Volkswagen (Wolfsburg, Germany) (represented by: H.-P. Schrammek, C. Drzymalla, S. Risthaus and R. Jepsen, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 November 2007 (Case R 1306/2007-4) concerning a national registration, pursuant to the Protocol relating to the Madrid Agreement concerning the international registration of marks, adopted at Madrid on 27 June 1989, of the figurative mark representing the silhouette of a car with its headlights.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2006.


title: Judgment of the Court of 6 April 2017 in Case E-5/16 — Municipality of Oslo (Directive 2008/95/EC — Trade mark — Copyright — Public policy — Public domain — Distinctiveness — Descriptiveness — Signs consisting exclusively of the shape which gives substantial value to the goods)

text:
               13.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/18

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 6 April 2017
   in Case E-5/16
   Municipality of Oslo

      (Directive 2008/95/EC — Trade mark — Copyright — Public policy — Public domain — Distinctiveness — Descriptiveness — Signs consisting exclusively of the shape which gives substantial value to the goods)

   (2017/C 224/09)
   In Case E-5/16, Municipality of Oslo – REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by the Norwegian Board of Appeal for Industrial Property Rights (Klagenemnda for industrielle rettigheter) concerning the interpretation of Directive 2008/95/EC to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, and in particular Article 3(1)(b) to (f) thereof, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 6 April 2017, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The registration as a trade mark of a sign which consists of works for which the copyright protection period has expired, is not in itself contrary to public policy or accepted principles of morality within the meaning of Article 3(1)(f) of Directive 2008/95/EC.

               2.

               Whether registration for signs that consist of works of art as a trade mark shall be refused on the basis of accepted principles of morality within the meaning of Article 3(1)(f) of Directive 2008/95/EC depends, in particular, on the status or perception of the artwork in the relevant EEA State. The risk of misappropriation or desecration of a work may be relevant in this assessment.

               3.

               Registration of a sign may only be refused on basis of the public policy exception provided for in Article 3(1)(f) of Directive 2008/95/EC, if the sign consists exclusively of a work pertaining to the public domain and registration of this sign would constitute a genuine and sufficiently serious threat to a fundamental interest of society.

               4.

               Article 3(1)(e)(iii) of Directive 2008/95/EC may apply to two-dimensional representations of three-dimensional shapes, including sculptures.

               5.

               Article 3(1)(c) of Directive 2008/95/EC must be interpreted as being applicable to two-dimensional and three-dimensional representations of the shape of a good.

               6.

               Article 3(1)(b) of Directive 2008/95/EC must be interpreted as meaning that where a sign is descriptive within the meaning of Article 3(1)(c), that sign necessarily lacks distinctiveness under Article 3(1)(b). Should the referring body find that the sign at issue is not descriptive, it may assess its distinctiveness for the purposes of Article 3(1)(b) in relation to the goods and services covered by that mark and to the presumed expectations of an average consumer of the category of goods and services in question, who is reasonably well-informed, observant and circumspect.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 24 October 2000 in Case T-178/98: Fresh Marine Company SA v Commission of the European Communities (Provisional anti-dumping and countervailing duties — Farmed Atlantic salmon — Non-contractual liability of the Community)

text:
9.12.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 355/21
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 3 October 2000
                     of 29 September 2000
                                                                         in Case T-187/98: Pascual Juan Cubero Vermurie v Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities (1)
in Case T-87/98: International Potash Company v Council
                   of the European Union (1)                                 (Officials — Promotions — Mobility — Admissibility)
                                                                                (2000/C 355/47)
(Anti-dumping duties — Fixed duty combined with a variable
duty — Dumping margin — Principle of proportionality —
                      Statement of reasons)                                                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         In Case T-187/98: Pascual Juan Cubero Vermurie, an official
                         (2000/C 355/46)                                 in the Commission of the European Communities, residing in
                                                                         Brussels, represented by E. Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with
                                                                         an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                         L. Schiltz, 2, rue du Fort Rheinsheim, against Commission of
                                                                         the European Communities (Agents: C. Berardis-Kayser and
                  (Language of the case: English)                        F. Clotuche-Duvieusart) — application for, first, the annulment
                                                                         of the decision of 6 April 1998 not to promote the applicant
                                                                         to Grade A 5 during the 1998 promotions and, secondly,
                                                                         compensation for material and non-material damage caused
In Case T-87/98: International Potash Company, established in            to the him as a result of his non-promotion — the Court
Moscow (Russia), represented by J.F. Bellis and R. Luff, of the          of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Garcı́a-
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the           Valdecasas, President, P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges; G. Her-
Chambers of A.F. Brausch, 8 Rue Zithe, against Council of the            zig, administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on
European Union (Agents: S. Marquardt, H. J. Rabe and                     3 October 2000, in which it:
G. Berrisch), supported by the Commission of the European
Communities (Agents V. Kreuschitz and N. Khan) and by the                1.    dismisses the application.
European Potash Producers’ Association, represented by
D. and D. Ehle, Rechtsanwälte, Cologne, with an address for              2.    orders the parties to bear their own costs.
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of M. Lucius, 6 Rue
Michel Welter — application for annulment of Article 1 of
Council Regulation (EC) No 449/98 of 23 February 1998                    (1) OJ No C 20 of 23.1.99.
amending Regulation (EEC) No 3068/92 in respect of definitive
anti-dumping duties on imports of potassium chloride orig-
inating in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine (OJ 1998 L 58, p. 15)
— the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber, Extended
Composition), composed of: M.K. Lennaerts, President, and
J. Azizi, R.M. Moura Ramos, M. Jaeger and P. Mengozzi, Judges;
B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
a judgment on 29 September 2000 in which it:                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 24 October 2000
1.    Dismisses the application;
                                                                         in Case T-178/98: Fresh Marine Company SA v Com-
2.    Orders the applicant to pay its own costs and the costs of the               mission of the European Communities (1)
      Council and the European Potash Producers’ Association;
                                                                         (Provisional anti-dumping and countervailing duties —
                                                                         Farmed Atlantic salmon — Non-contractual liability of the
3.    Orders the Commission to bear its own costs.                                                    Community)
                                                                                (2000/C 355/48)
(1) OJ C 234, 25.7.98.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                         In Case T-178/98: Fresh Marine Company SA, established in
                                                                         Trondheim, Norway, represented by J.-F. Bellis and B. Servais,
 ---pagebreak--- C 355/22                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         9.12.2000
of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg            aid illegal and incompatible with the common market and
at the Chambers of J. Loesch, 11 rue Goethe, against Com-                 order its recovery — the Court of First Instance (Third
mission of the European Communities (Agents: V. Kreuschitz                Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of: K. Lenaerts,
and N. Khan) — application for compensation to make good                  President, J. Azizi, R.M. Moura Ramos, M. Jaeger and P. Men-
the damage allegedly suffered as a consequence of the adoption            gozzi, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the
of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2529/97 of 16 December                   Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 September 2000, in
1997 imposing provisional anti-dumping and countervailing                 which it:
duties on certain imports of farmed Atlantic salmon originat-
ing in Norway (OJ 1997 L 346, p. 63) — the Court of First                 1.    Dismisses the application;
Instance (Third Chamber, Extended Composition), composed
of K. Lenaerts, President, J. Azizi, R.M. Moura Ramos, M. Jaeger          2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
and P. Mengozzi, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator,
for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 24 October 2000, in
which it:                                                                 (1) OJ C 174 of 19.6.99.
1.    Orders the Commission to pay to the applicant NOK 431 000;
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;
3.    Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay three
      quarters of the applicant’s costs;
4.    Orders the applicant to bear one quarter of its own costs.              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
(1) OJ No C 160 of 5.6.99.
                                                                                of 3 October 2000
                                                                          in Case T-130/99: David Crabbe v European Centre for
                                                                           the Development of Vocational Training (CEDEFOP) (1)
                                                                          (Officials — Establishment of linguist posts — No need to
                                                                                adjudicate)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (2000/C 355/50)
                      of 29 September 2000
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
in Case T-55/99: Confederación Española de Transporte
de Mercancı́as (CETM) v Commission of the European
                          Communities (1)                                 In Case T-130/99: David Crabbe, an official at the European
                                                                          Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (CEDE-
(State aid — Aid within the meaning of Article 92(1) of the               FOP), residing in Thessaloniki, Greece, represented by
EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87(1) EC) —                      M.-A. Lucas, of the Liège Bar, with an address for service in
Statement of reasons — Obligation to recover aid —                        Luxembourg at the offices of Société de gestion fiduciaire
Legitimate expectations of recipients — Principle of pro-                 SARL, 13, avenue du Bois, against European Centre for
                            portionality)                                 the Development of Vocational Training (CEDEFOP) (Agent:
                                                                          B. Wägenbaur) — application for the annulment of CEDEFOP’s
                                                                          implied decision not to create linguist posts in its organisation
                          (2000/C 355/49)                                 — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of
                                                                          R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas, President, P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke,
                                                                          Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar,
                    (Language of the case: Spanish)                       gave a judgment on 3 October 2000, the operative part of
                                                                          which is as follows:
In Case T-55/99: Confederación Española de Transporte de
Mercancı́as (CETM) having its registered office in Madrid,                1.    There is no need to adjudicate on the present application.
represented by J. Pérez Villar, of the Madrid Bar, 322 Calle
López de Hoyos, Madrid, against Commission of the European               2.    CEDEFOP is ordered to pay the costs.
Communities (Agents: J. Guerra Fernández and D. Triantafyllou
) — application for annulment of Commission Decision
98/693/EC of 1 July 1998 concerning the Spanish Plan Renove               (1) OJ No C 226 of 7.8.99.
Industrial system of aid for the purchase of commercial
vehicles (August 1994 — December 1996) (OJ 1998 L 329,
p. 23) in that Articles 3 and 4 of that decision declare certain


title: Case T-132/10: Order of the General Court of 1 September 2011 — Communauté de communes de Lacq v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Concentration — Commission decision declaring compatible the concentration operation for the acquisition of control of Acetex Corp by Celanese Corp. — No undertaking by Celanese to continue the operation of the factory in Pardies (France) — No breach of a rule of law by the Commission — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               29.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/21

         Order of the General Court of 1 September 2011 — Communauté de communes de Lacq v Commission
   (Case T-132/10) (1)

   (Non-contractual liability - Concentration - Commission decision declaring compatible the concentration operation for the acquisition of control of Acetex Corp by Celanese Corp. - No undertaking by Celanese to continue the operation of the factory in Pardies (France) - No breach of a rule of law by the Commission - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
   2011/C 319/44
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Communauté de communes de Lacq (Mourenx, France) (represented by: J. Daniel, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Van Nuffel and N. von Lingen, Agents)

      Re:

   Claim for compensation for various kinds of harm allegedly suffered by the Communauté de communes de Lacq by reason of unlawfulness and deficiency of the Commission’s behaviour following the concentration operation involving the acquisition of control of Acetex Corp. situated in Pardies (France) by Celanese Corp.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as partially devoid of any foundation in law and as partially manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               The Communauté de communes de Lacq is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 148, 5.6.2010.


title: Case T-323/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 July 2008 — Coffee Store v OHIM (THE COFFEE STORE) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark THE COFFEE STORE — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/45

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 July 2008 — Coffee Store v OHIM (THE COFFEE STORE)
   (Case T-323/05) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark THE COFFEE STORE - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2008/C 209/78)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: The Coffee Store GmbH (Mannheim, Germany) (represented by: M. Buddeberg, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially T. Eichenberg, and subsequently by G. Schneider, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 June 2005 (Case R 855/2004-2) concerning an application for the registration of the word sign THE COFFEE STORE as a Community trade mark
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders The Coffee Store GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 281, 12.11.2005.


title: Case T-129/13: Action brought on 4 March 2013 — Alpiq RomIndustries and Alpiq RomEnergie v Commission

text:
               18.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/22

         Action brought on 4 March 2013 — Alpiq RomIndustries and Alpiq RomEnergie v Commission
   (Case T-129/13)
   2013/C 141/40
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Alpiq RomIndustries Srl (Bucharest, Romania) and Alpiq RomEnergie Srl (Bucharest) (represented by: H. Wollmann and F. Urlesberger, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Decision C(2012) 2542 final of 25 April 2012 (SA.33451; 2012/C; ex 2012/NN) pursuant to Article 264 TFEU, in so far as it concerns the applicants;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicants’ costs pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants submit, in essence, that the Commission lacks competence. In the applicants’ view, the alleged aid does not fall within the scope ratione temporis of Articles 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU. Under Annex V to Romania’s Act of Accession, the Commission is competent to examine aid measures put into effect prior to the date of Romania’s accession only if those measures are still applicable after that date. The applicants submit in that context, inter alia, that Hidroelectrica’s liabilities vis-à-vis the alleged recipients were already established so clearly in the power supply contracts concluded prior to accession that a subsequent expansion of Hidroelectrica’s supply obligation that might have resulted in additional advantages had to be ruled out.


title: Case T-203/14: Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2015 — Mo Industries v OHIM (Splendid) (Community trade mark — Application for Community figurative mark Splendid — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Equal treatment — Principle of sound administration)

text:
               6.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/13

         Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2015 — Mo Industries v OHIM (Splendid)
   (Case T-203/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for Community figurative mark Splendid - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Equal treatment - Principle of sound administration))
   (2015/C 221/18)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Mo Industries LLC (Los Angeles, California, United States) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of 7 January 2014 of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM (Case R 1542/2013-1) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign Splendid as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders Mo Industries LLC to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 212, 7.7.2014.


title: Case T-166/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 29 September 2008 — Powderject Research v OHIM (POWDERMED) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark POWDERMED — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               20.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 327/24

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 29 September 2008 — Powderject Research v OHIM (POWDERMED)
   (Case T-166/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark POWDERMED - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2008/C 327/45)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Powderject Research Ltd (Oxford, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Bryson, Barrister, and P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis, acting as Agent)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 April 2006 (Case R 1189/2005-2) concerning an application for registration of the word sign POWDERMED as a Community trade mark.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Powderject Research Ltd shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 190, 12.8.2006.


title: Case T-756/15: Order of the General Court of 19 January 2017 — Tengelmann Warenhandelsgesellschaft v EUIPO — Fédération Internationale des Logis (T)

text:
               13.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/43

         Order of the General Court of 19 January 2017 — Tengelmann Warenhandelsgesellschaft v EUIPO — Fédération Internationale des Logis (T)
   (Case T-756/15) (1)

   (2017/C 078/60)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 59, 15.2.2016.


title: Case T-56/06: Action brought on  17 February 2006  — France v Commission

text:
               22.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/21

         Action brought on 17 February 2006 — France v Commission
   (Case T-56/06)
   (2006/C 96/38)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: French Republic (Paris, France) (represented by: G. de Bergues and S. Ramet, Agents)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               primarily, annul the contested decision in its entirety;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Article 5 of that decision;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By decision of 30 June 1997, adopted following a proposal from the Commission and in accordance with the procedure laid down in Directive 92/81/EEC (1), the Council authorised Member States to apply or to continue to apply the existing reduced rates of excise duty or exemptions from excise duty to certain mineral oils when used for specific purposes. By four subsequent decisions, the Council extended this authorisation, the final authorisation period expiring on 31 December 2006. France is authorised to apply these reduced rates or exemptions to heavy fuel oil used as fuel for the production of alumina in the Gardanne region.
   In a letter of 30 October 2001 the Commission notified France of its decision to initiate proceedings under Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty relating to the exemption from excise rights on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in the Gardanne region (2). On 7 December 2005, in consequence of this procedure, the Commission adopted the disputed decision (3) finding that exemptions from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in the Gardanne region, the Shannon region and Sardinia, implemented by France, Ireland and Italy respectively, constituted State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC that is in part incompatible with the common market, and thus ordered the Member States concerned to recover all such aid.
   France seeks by this action to have that decision annulled in part in so far as it affects the exemption granted by France to the Gardanne region.
   In support of its action it relies on several pleas, the first deriving from infringement of the concept of State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC. It submits that the Commission committed an error of law in holding that State aid existed even though not all the conditions required to establish the existence of aid, as laid down in the Altmark case (4), had been fulfilled, particularly the condition that competition be restricted or that the function of the internal market be distorted. It maintains that the Commission cannot, on the one hand, propose that the Council adopt a decision on the foundation of Directive 92/81/EEC authorising an exemption of excise duty and object not to that exemption's being extended and, on the other hand, find that that exemption constitutes State aid incompatible with the common market.
   The second plea raised by the applicant alleges a failure to give reasons in that the decision contested contains a contradiction in the Commission's reasoning relating to the finding of a restriction on competition.
   The applicant's third plea, submitted in the alternative, is that the demand for recovery set out in Article 5 of the contested decision breaches the principles of protection of legitimate expectations, legal certainty and observance of a reasonable period. It claims that the beneficiaries of the exemption are entitled to rely on the principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations until the decision in dispute is adopted, rather than until the date of publication of the decision to initiate formal investigation proceedings, as the Commission maintains. The applicant also asserts that the Commission's failure to act for a period of four years between the decision to initiate proceedings and the final decision constitutes a breach of the principles of protection of legitimate expectations, legal certainty and observance of a reasonable period.

      (1)  Council Directive of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils

      (2)  Published in OJ 2002 C 30

      (3)  Decision C (2005) 4436 final, State aid Nos C 78-79-80/2001

      (4)  Decision of the Court of 24 July 2004, Altmark Trans, C-280/00, ECR p. I-7747


title: Case C-276/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 4 June 2012 — Jiří Sabou v Finanční ředitelství pro hlavní město Prahu

text:
               8.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 273/3

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 4 June 2012 — Jiří Sabou v Finanční ředitelství pro hlavní město Prahu
   (Case C-276/12)
   2012/C 273/04
   Language of the case: Czech

      Referring court

   Nejvyšší správní soud

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Jiří Sabou

      Defendant: Finanční ředitelství pro hlavní město Prahu

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does it follow from European Union law that a taxpayer has the right to be informed of a decision of the tax authorities to make a request for information in accordance with Directive 77/799/EEC? (1) Does the taxpayer have the right to take part in formulating the request addressed to the requested Member State? If the taxpayer does not derive such rights from European Union law, is it possible for domestic law to confer similar rights on him?

               2.

               Does a taxpayer have the right to take part in the examination of witnesses in the requested State in the course of dealing with a request for information under Directive 77/799/EEC? Is the requested Member State obliged to inform the taxpayer beforehand of when the witness will be examined, if it has been requested to do so by the requesting Member State?

               3.

               Are the tax authorities in the requested Member State obliged, when providing information in accordance with Directive 77/799/EEC, to observe a certain minimum content of their answer, so that it is clear from what sources and by what method the requested tax authorities have obtained the information provided? May the taxpayer challenge the correctness of the information thus provided, for example on grounds of procedural defects of the proceedings in the requested State which preceded the provision of the information? Or does the principle of mutual trust and cooperation apply, according to which the information provided by the requested tax authorities may not be called in question?

      (1)  Council Directive 77/799/EEC of 19 December 1977 concerning mutual assistance by the competent authorities of the Member States in the field of direct taxation (OJ 1977 L 336, p. 15).


title: Case C-227/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial, Salamanca (Spain) lodged on 26 May 2008 — Eva Martín Martín v EDP Editores, S.L and Juan Caballo Bueno

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial, Salamanca (Spain) lodged on 26 May 2008 — Eva Martín Martín v EDP Editores, S.L and Juan Caballo Bueno
   (Case C-227/08)
   (2008/C 223/32)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Referring court
   Audiencia Provincial, Salamanca
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Eva Martín Martín

      Defendant: EDP Editores, S.L and Juan Caballo Bueno
   Question referred
   Must Article 153 EC, in conjunction with Articles 3 EC and 95 EC, Article 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and Council Directive 85/577/EEC (1) of 20 December 1985 to protect the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away from business premises, specifically Article 4 thereof, be interpreted as meaning that a court seised of an appeal against a judgment given at first instance may, of its own motion, declare a contract which falls within the scope of that directive void, where no plea of nullity was raised at any point by the defendant consumer when submitting a defence to the order for payment procedure, at the hearing, or during the appeal?

      (1)  OJ L 372, p. 31 — EE 15/06, p. 131.


title: Case T-119/11: Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2013 — Gbagbo v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire — Freezing of funds — Alteration of heads of claim — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Misuse of power — Rights of the defence — Right to property)

text:
               8.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 164/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2013 — Gbagbo v Council
   (Case T-119/11) (1)

   (Common foreign and security policy - Specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire - Freezing of funds - Alteration of heads of claim - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Misuse of power - Rights of the defence - Right to property)
   2013/C 164/26
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Simone Gbagbo (Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire) (represented by: J.-C. Tchikaya, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and M. Chavrier, agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bordes and M. Konstantinidis, agents) and the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire (represented by: J.-P. Mignard, J.-P. Benoit and G. Merland, lawyers)

      Re:

   Initially, an application for annulment, first, of Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011 amending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 36), and, second, of Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d'Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 1), in so far as those measures concern the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mrs Simone Gbagbo to bear her own costs and those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

               3.

               Orders the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 130, 30.4.2011.


title: Action brought on 12 May 1995 by European Fertilizer Manufacturers Association against the Council of the European Union (Case T-121/95)

text:
No C 189/18         ΓΕΝ                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       22 . 7. 95
Action brought on 3 May 1995 by Pierre Jaminon against               No 1639/91 , and that that condition was properly satisfied
the Council of the European Union and the Commission of              in this case, since the provisional specific reference allocated
                 the European Communities                            to him has been turned into a definitive reference by an order
                       ( Case T-111/95 )                             of the Prefect of the Ardennes of 1 August 1991 .
                         ( 95/C 189/37)                              Furthermore, he points out that the decision at issue in the
                                                                     dispute is the result of a mistaken assessment of the facts of
               (Language of the case: French)                        the matter by the competent authority.
An action against the Council of the European Union and
the Commission of the European Communities was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 3 May 1995 by Pierre Jaminon, resident at
Beaulieu ( France ), represented by Bernard Peignot and              Action brought on 12 May 1995 by European Fertilizer
Denis Garreau, avocats to the Council of State and Court of          Manufacturers Association against the Council of the
Cassation, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                                   European Union
Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue .
                                                                                ( Case T-121/95 )
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                                    ( 95/C 189/38 )
— order the Council of the European Union and the                                     (Language of the case: English)
    Commission of the European Communities, each as far
    as it is concerned, acting respectively through its duly
    appointed representatives, jointly and severally to              An action against the Council of the European Union was
    compensate Mr Jaminon for the damage suffered by him             brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
    as a result of the application of Council Regulation             Communities on 12 May 1995 by the European Fertilizer
    ( EEC ) No 857/84 of 3 March 1984, as amended , in as            Manufacturers Association, represented by M. Dominique
    much as that Regulation did not provide for the                  Voillemot and M. Hubert de Broca, with an address for
    allocation of a reference quantity to producers who, in          service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch and
    performance of an undertaking given pursuant to                  Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe, BP 1107, L-1011 Luxembourg.
    Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1078/77 of 17 May 1977,
    had not delivered milk during the reference year used by         The applicant claims that the Court should :
    France ,
                                                                     — annul Article 1 of Council Regulation ( EC ) No 477/95
— consequently order payment to Mr Jaminon of the sum                      amending the definitive anti-dumping measures
    of FF 173 232,36 by way of compensation, together                      applying to imports into the Community of urea
    with interest thereon at the rate of 8 % to run from the               originating in the former USSR and terminating the
    date of the offer made to the applicant on 29 June 1994                anti-dumping measures applying to imports into the
    and subsequently withdrawn, or, at least, from the date                Community of urea originating in the former
    of the judgment to be given,                                           Czechoslovakia (*),
— order the defendants to pay all the costs .                        — order that such anti-dumping duty imposed by that
                                                                           provision be maintained until the competent institutions
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                        adopt more stringent measures needed to comply with
The applicant, a farmer who had given an undertaking not                   the hereby requested judgment, and
to market milk pursuant to Regulation ( EEC ) No 1078/77,
                                                                    — order the Council to pay the costs .
was allocated a provisional specific quantity and was
offered compensation under Regulation ( EEC ) No 21 87/93 ,
challenges the decision of the Office National                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Interprofessionnel du Lait ( National Milk Trades Board,
Onilait ) refusing to pay him that compensation on the              The applicant submits that Article 1 of the contested
ground that his specific reference quantity cannot be                Regulation is void for the following reasons:
regarded as definitive, since he has never personally resumed
milk production, contrary to Article 3 ( 3 ) of Regulation           ( a ) With regard to the calculation of normal value: the
( EEC ) No 857/84 . In that connection, the applicant points                choice of the Slovak Republic as the reference country
out that in carrying on his milk-producing operations he                    infringes Article 2 ( 5 ) of the Council Regulation ( EEC )
uses cows belonging to him and milking machinery                            No 2423/88 of 11 July 1988 on protection against
belonging to a neighbouring producer, under a scheme of                     dumped or subsidized imports from countries not
mutual aid between them .                                                   members of the European Economic Community.
The applicant considers that the decision at issue is contrary       ( b ) With regard to the comparison between normal value
to the applicable Community legislation inasmuch as                         and export price: by comparing normal value and
compensation is to be paid as soon as the person concerned                  export price at two obviously different stages, i.e. at the
has been allocated a definitive specific reference quantity as              ex-works level and at the ex-frontier level respectively,
provided by either Regulation ( EEC ) No 764/89 or ( EEC )                  the defendant :
 ---pagebreak--- 22 . 7 . 95                 EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                            No C 189/19
           ( i ) infringed Articles 2 ( 9 ) and 2 ( 10 ) of Regulation     ordered the removal from the register of Case T-246/94:
                 ( EEC ) No 2423/88 ;                                      Yves Tychon v. European Parliament.
         ( ii ) infringed an essential procedural requirement in           (!) OJ No C 233 , 20 . 8 . 1994 .
                 that it failed to comply with Article 190 of the
                 Treaty or; at least,
       ( iii ) committed a manifest error of appraisal .
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-3 79/94 H
(c ) With regard to the determination of injury: in making                                           ( 95/C 189/40 )
       adjustments to the cif price of Russian-produced
       urea to compensate alleged quality differences, the                              (Language of the case: German)
       defendant :
                                                                           By order of 17 May 1995 the President of the Third
         (i)     committed a manifest error of appraisal; and              Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                           Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
       ( ii )    infringed an essential procedural requirement.            T-379/94 : Frank Kessler v. Commission of the European
                                                                           Communities .
       Furthermore , in its determination of the profit margin
       necessary for Community producers, the defendant                    (!) OJ No C 386 , 31 . 1 . 1994 .
       infringed an essential procedural requirement.
f 1 ) OJ No L 49 , 4 . 3 . 1995 , p . 1 .
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T- 1 2/95 ( J )
                                                                                ( 95/C 189/41 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
        Removal from the register of Case T-246/94 H
                               ( 95/C 189/39 )
                                                                           By order of 30 May 1995 the President of the Third
                                                                           Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                           Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                      (Language of the case: French)                       T-12/95 : José Hodar v. Commission of the European
                                                                           Communities .
By order of 12 June 1995 the President of the First Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                 (!) OJ No C 74, 25 . 3 . 1995 .


title: Case C-7/17 P: Appeal brought on 5 January 2017 by ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 27 April 2016 in Case T-155/14, ANKO v European Commission

text:
               27.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/21

         Appeal brought on 5 January 2017 by ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 27 April 2016 in Case T-155/14, ANKO v European Commission

   (Case C-7/17 P)
   (2017/C 063/29)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Appellant: ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias (represented by: Stavroula Paliou, lawyer)

      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 of 27 April 2016 in Case T-155/14 and refer the case back to the General Court to give a ruling on the substance.

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   The appellant maintains that the judgment of 27 April 2016 of the General Court in Case T-155/14 makes findings of law which are contrary to principles of EU law and challenges those findings by means of this appeal.
   The appellant considers that the judgment under appeal should be set aside:

               i.

                     First
                  , with respect to the provisions of substantive law to be applied, on grounds that relate to an error in law and procedural irregularities which vitiate the reasoning in that judgment.

               ii.

                     Second
                  , on grounds that relate to an error in law, with regard to the rules that govern, in relation to the claim, the matters to be proved and the burden of proof and, in relation to the counterclaim, the allocation of the burden of proof.

         Within that framework, the grounds of appeal are the following:

               I.

               In connection with the error in law and procedural irregularities:

                           1)

                           First ground of appeal: Wholly deficient statement of reasons.

                           2)

                           Second ground of appeal: Error in law and contradictory reasoning.

               II.

               With respect to the error as to the law and the rules governing the matters to be proved and the burden of proof:

                           3)

                           Third ground of appeal: Error in law with regard to the matters to be proved and the burden of proof.

                           4)

                           Fourth ground of appeal: Error in law with regard to allocation of the burden of proof in the Commission’s counterclaim.


title: Case T-326/13: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2016 — Commission v Thales développement et coopération (Arbitration clause — Fourth and fifth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities — Contracts concerning projects on the design and development of direct methanol fuel cells — Nullity of contracts on grounds of fraud — Repayment of financial contributions from the European Union — Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 2988/95 — Limitation period — Application of French and Belgian law — Rights of defence — Interest)

text:
               22.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2016 — Commission v Thales développement et coopération
   (Case T-326/13) (1)

   ((Arbitration clause - Fourth and fifth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities - Contracts concerning projects on the design and development of direct methanol fuel cells - Nullity of contracts on grounds of fraud - Repayment of financial contributions from the European Union - Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 2988/95 - Limitation period - Application of French and Belgian law - Rights of defence - Interest))
   (2016/C 305/31)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and B. Conte, acting as Agents, and by N. Coutrelis, lawyer)

      Defendant: Thales développement et coopération SAS (Vélizy-Villacoublay, France) (represented by: N. Huc-Morel, P. Vanderveeren, L. Defalque, A. Guillerme and J. Fréal-Saison, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action based on Article 272 TFEU and seeking an order from the Court that the defendant repay all of the financial contributions paid by the Commission to its legal predecessor, together with interest, in the context of Contract JOE3-CT-97-0063 under the fourth framework programme of European Community activities in the field of research and technological development and demonstration (1994-1998), established by Decision No 1110/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 April 1994 (OJ 1994, L 126, p. 1), and in the context of Contract ENK6-CT-2000-00315 under the fifth framework programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (1998-2002), established by Decision No 182/1999/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 December 1998 (OJ 1999, L 26, p. 1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Orders Thales développement et coopération SAS to repay to the European Commission the amounts paid to its legal predecessor in performance of Contract JOE3-CT-97-0063, under the fourth framework programme of European Community activities in the field of research and technological development and demonstration (1994-1998), established by Decision No 1110/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 April 1994, set out below:

                           —

                           The amount of EUR 162 195,79, together with interest at the statutory rate laid down by French law, running from the date of payment of that amount until complete repayment thereof;

                           —

                           The amount of EUR 179 201, together with interest at the statutory rate laid down by French law, running from the date of payment of that amount until complete repayment thereof;

                           —

                           The amount of EUR 167 612,49, together with interest at the statutory rate laid down by French law, running from the date of payment of that amount until complete repayment thereof;

                           —

                           The amount of EUR 136 892,29, together with interest at the statutory rate laid down by French law, running from the date of payment of that amount until complete repayment thereof;

                           —

                           The amount of EUR 54 434,09, together with interest at the statutory rate laid down by French law, running from the date of payment of that amount until complete repayment thereof.

               2.

               Orders Thales développement et coopération to repay to the European Commission the amounts paid to its legal predecessor in performance of Contract ENK6-CT-2000-00315, under the fifth framework programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (1998-2002), established by Decision No 182/1999/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 December 1998, set out below:

                           —

                           The amount of EUR 232 389,04, together with interest at the statutory rate laid down by Belgian law, running from the date of payment of that amount until complete repayment thereof;

                           —

                           The amount of EUR 218 734,67, together with interest at the statutory rate laid down by Belgian law, running from the date of payment of that amount until complete repayment thereof;

                           —

                           The amount of EUR 237 504,86, together with interest at the statutory rate laid down by Belgian law, running from the date of payment of that amount until complete repayment thereof;

                           —

                           The amount of EUR 124 192,86, together with interest at the statutory rate laid down by Belgian law, running from the date of payment of that amount until complete repayment thereof.

               3.

               Orders the Commission to pay half of the costs incurred by Thales développement et coopération.

               4.

               Orders Thales développement et coopération to pay the costs incurred by the Commission and half of its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 298, 12.10.2013.


title: Case C-347/02: Action brought on 30 September 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
23.11.2002               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 289/15
that the system has the influence which it is alleged to have on             Pleas in law and main arguments
the prevention of accidents; rather, it tends to encourage the
amicable settlement of small-scale damage claims.
                                                                             The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
                                                                             Case C-346/02 ( 2).
( 1) Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the coordination
     of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to          (1 ) Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the coordination
     direct insurance other than life assurance and amending Directives           of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to
     73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (third non-life insurance Directive)               direct insurance other than life assurance and amending Directives
     (OJ L 228 of 11.8.1992, p. 1).                                               73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (third non-life insurance Directive)
                                                                                (OJ L 228 of 11.8.1992, p. 1).
                                                                             (2 ) See p. 14 of this Official Journal.
                                                                             Action brought on 28 September 2002 against the Italian
                                                                             Republic by the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties
Action brought on 30 September 2002 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against the French                                                   (Case C-348/02)
                               Republic
                                                                                (2002/C 289/25)
                           (Case C-347/02)
                                                                             An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
                                                                             Court of Justice of the European Communities on 28 Septem-
                           (2002/C 289/24)                                   ber 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                             represented by G. Valero Jordana and R. Amorosi, acting as
                                                                             Agents.
                                                                             The applicant claims that the Court should:
An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                             —      declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 30 Septem-
                                                                                and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
ber 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by C. Tufvesson and J.-F. Pasquier, acting as                           Council Directive 1999/13/EC (1) of 11 March 1999 on
                                                                                the limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                                due to the use of organic solvents in certain activities and
                                                                                installations, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
                                                                                obligations under Article 15 of that directive;
The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                             —      order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
the Court should:
—      declare that, by introducing and maintaining in force a               Pleas in law and main arguments
       system of bonuses and penalties having automatic and
       compulsory repercussions on premium rates and apply-
       ing to all motor insurance contracts concluded on French              Article 249 EC, according to which a directive is to be binding,
       territory, without any distinction being drawn between                as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member State to
       insurance companies based in France and insurance                     which it is addressed, means that Member States are obliged to
       undertakings operating there through a branch or by the               comply with time-limits for transposition laid down by
       provision of services, contrary to the principle of freedom           directives. Although the time-limit expired on 1 April 2001,
       to set premium rates and elimination of prior or system-              the Italian Republic had not enacted the provisions necessary
       atic controls on premium scales and contracts, as laid                to comply with the directive referred to in the Commission’s
       down by Articles 6(3), 29 and 39 of Directive 92/49/                  claim.
       EEC (1), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
       obligations under that directive;
                                                                             (1 ) OJ L 85 of 29.3.1999, p. 1.
—      order the French Republic to pay the costs.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 10 September 1996 in Case C-222/94: Commission of the European Communities, supported by French Republic, v. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure to fulfil obligations - Directive 89/552/EEC - Telecommunications - Television broadcasting - Jurisdiction over broadcasters)

text:
No C 354/2            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                         23 . 11 . 96
p. 1 ) — the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias ,          United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under
President, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet ( Rapporteur )         Article 2 ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) and Article 3 ( 2 ) of that Directive — the
and G. Hirsch, Presidents of Chambers , G. F. Mancini , J. C.        Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President,
Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann and                C. N. Kakouris, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet and G.
J. L. Murray, Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate-General ; D.              Hirsch ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, J. C.
Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the                   Moitinho de Almeida , P. J. G. Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ), C.
Registrar, gave a judgment on 10 September 1 996 , in which          Gulmann , J. L. Murray, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and L.
it :                                                                 Sevón, Judges ; C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General ; D.
                                                                     Louterman-Hubeau , Principal Administrator, for the
1 . declares that, by authorizing the importation under              Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 September 1996 , in
                                                                     which it :
     inward processing reliefarrangements of dairy products
     whose customs value was lower than the minimum
     prices set under the International Dairy Arrangement,           1 . declares that, by adopting, with respect to satellite
     approved on behalf of the Community by Council                       broadcasts, the criteria set forth in section 43 of the
     Decision 80/271 /EEC of 10 December 1 979 concerning                 Broadcasting Act 1990 for the purpose of determining
     the conclusion of the Multilateral Agreements resulting              which satellite broadcasters fall under the jurisdiction of
     from the 1973 to 1979 trade negotiations, the Federal                the United Kingdom and, in the context of that
     Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations             jurisdiction, by applying different regimes to domestic
     under Article 6 (1 ) (a) of Annex I and Article 6 (a) of             satellite services and non-domestic satellite services, and
     Annexes II and III to that Arrangement, and under                    by exercising control over broadcasts which are
     Council Regulation (EEC) No 1999/85 of 16 July 1985                  transmitted by broadcasters falling under the
     on inward processing relief arrangements;                            jurisdiction of other Member States when those
                                                                          broadcasts are transmitted by a non-domestic satellite
2 . dismisses the remainder of the application;                           service or conveyed to the public as a licensable
                                                                          programme service, the United Kingdom has failed to
                                                                          fulfil its obligations under Article 2 (1 ) and (2) and
3 . orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the                     Article 3 (2) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC of
     costs .
                                                                          3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain
                                                                          provisions laid down by law, regulation or
(') OJ No C 90 , 26 . 3 . 1994 .                                          administrative action in Member States concerning the
                                                                          pursuit of television broadcasting activities;
                                                                     2 . orders the United Kingdom to pay the costs;
                                                                     3 . orders the French Republic to pay its own costs .
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                     of 10 September 1996                            (') OJ No C 275 , 1.10 . 1994 .
in Case C-222/94: Commission of the European
Communities , supported by French Republic, v. United
     Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ( ! )
 (Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 89/552/EEC —
 Telecommunications — Television broadcasting —
                Jurisdiction over broadcasters)                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          ( 96/C 354/03 )                                                   of 10 September 1996
                                                                         in Case C-277/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling
                (Language of the case: English)                      from the Arrondissementsrechtbank, Amsterdam ): Z.
                                                                     Taflan-Met, S. Altun-Baser and E. Andal-Bugdayci v.
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be        Bestuur van de Sociale Verzekeringsbank, and O. Akol v.
         published in the European Court Reports)                       Bestuur van de Nieuwe Algemene Bedrijfsvereniging (')
                                                                     (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Decision of the
In Case C-222/94 : Commission of the European                        Association Council — Social Security — Entry into force —
 Communities ( Agents : Christopher Docksey and Berend Jan                                        Direct effect)
Drijber ), supported by the French Republic ( Agents : Edwige                                    ( 96/C 354/04 )
 Belliard and Jean-Louis Falconi ), against the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ( Agent:                                 (Language of the case: Dutch)
John E. Collins, assisted by Stephen Richards and Rhodri
Thompson ) — application for a declaration that, by failing
 to implement correctly Council Directive 89/552/EEC of              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions                      published in the European Court Reports)
 laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in
 Member States concerning the pursuit of television                  In Case C-277/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
 broadcasting activities ( OJ No L 298 , 1989 , p. 23 ), the         of the EC Treaty by the Arrondissementsrechtbank [District


title: Case T-296/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 21 January 2009 — Korsch v OHIM (PharmaCheck) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark PharmaCheck — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Restriction of the list of goods)

text:
               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/23

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 21 January 2009 — Korsch v OHIM (PharmaCheck)
   (Case T-296/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark PharmaCheck - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Restriction of the list of goods)
   (2009/C 55/40)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Korsch AG (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: J. Grzam, initially, and J. Grzam, M. Dittmann and M. Scheffler, subsequently, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: R. Pethke, Agent)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 June 2007 (Case R 358/2007-4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign PharmaCheck as a Community trade mark.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Korsch AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 235, 6.10.2007.


title: Case C-314/15: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 23 November 2016 — European Commission v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 91/271/EEC — Treatment of urban waste water — Article 4(1) and (3) — Secondary treatment or equivalent treatment)

text:
               30.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/8

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 23 November 2016 — European Commission v French Republic
   (Case C-314/15) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 91/271/EEC - Treatment of urban waste water - Article 4(1) and (3) - Secondary treatment or equivalent treatment))
   (2017/C 030/07)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: O. Beynet and E. Manhaeve, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: French Republic (represented by: S. Ghiandoni, A. Daly and D. Colas)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to ensure secondary treatment or equivalent treatment for urban waste water from the agglomerations of Goyave, Bastelica, Morne-à-l’Eau, Aiguilles-Château-Ville Vieille, Borgo-Nord, Isola, Plombières-les-Bains, Saint-Céré, Vincey, Etueffont, Volx and Villeneuve, either for the entire amount of their discharges, in the case of agglomerations having a population equivalent of between 10 000 and 15 000, or for discharges into fresh water and estuaries, in the case of agglomerations having a population equivalent of between 2 000 and 10 000, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and (3) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1137/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.


title: Case T-777/16: Action brought on 4 November 2016 — Isocell v EUIPO — iCell (iCell. Insulation Technology Made in Sweden)

text:
               16.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 14/46

         Action brought on 4 November 2016 — Isocell v EUIPO — iCell (iCell. Insulation Technology Made in Sweden)
   (Case T-777/16)
   (2017/C 014/55)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Isocell GmbH (Neumarkt am Wallersee, Germany) (represented by: C. Thiele, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: iCell AB (Älvdalen, Sweden)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘iCell. Insulation Technology Made in Sweden’ — Application No 12 882 023

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 July 2016 in Case R 181/2016-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               amend the contested decision by upholding the opposition in its entirety and refusing EU trade mark application No 12882023;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case T-527/14: Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2017 — Rosenich v EUIPO (Internal market — Decision of EUIPO rejecting a request for inclusion on the list of professional representatives — Condition relating to the existence of a place of business within the European Union — Article 93(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Freedom to provide services — Article 36 of the EEA Agreement — Consistent interpretation)

text:
               28.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/30

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2017 — Rosenich v EUIPO
   (Case T-527/14) (1)

   ((Internal market - Decision of EUIPO rejecting a request for inclusion on the list of professional representatives - Condition relating to the existence of a place of business within the European Union - Article 93(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Freedom to provide services - Article 36 of the EEA Agreement - Consistent interpretation))
   (2017/C 283/43)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Paul Rosenich (Triesenberg, Liechtenstein) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and C. Eckhartt, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: initially, G. Schneider and, subsequently, D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 April 2014 (Case R 2063/2012-4), concerning the refusal of EUIPO to enter the applicant on the list of professional representatives provided for in Article 93 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the European Union trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 29 April 2014 (Case R 2063/2012-4);

               2.

               Annuls the decision of the Director of the Operations Support Department of EUIPO of 7 September 2012;

               3.

               Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 462, 22.12.2014.