title: Case T-584/14: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2015 — Inditex v OHIM — Ansell (ZARA) (Community trade mark — Proceedings for revocation — Community word mark ZARA — Genuine use — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               19.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/29

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2015 — Inditex v OHIM — Ansell (ZARA)
   (Case T-584/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Proceedings for revocation - Community word mark ZARA - Genuine use - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 346/34)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Industria de Diseño Textil (Inditex) (Arteixo, Spain) (represented by: C. Duch Fonoll, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Zainab Ansell and Roger Ansell (Moshi, Tanzania)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 May 2014 (Case R 1118/2013-2), relating to proceedings for revocation between Zainab Ansell and Roger Ansell, on one hand, and Industria de Diseño Textil, SA (Inditex), on the other hand.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Industria de Diseño Textil, SA (Inditex) to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 339, 29.9.2014.


title: Case C-268/07: Action brought on 6 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/13

         Action brought on 6 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-268/07)
   (2007/C 211/23)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Stromsky and D. Kukovec, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   Form of order sought

               1.

               Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (1), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 71 of that directive;
               In the alternative:

                           declare that, by failing to notify the Commission of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 71 of that directive;

               2.

               order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposition of Directive 2004/17/EC expired on 31 January 2006.

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 134, p. 1.


               26.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/19

         Removal from the register of Case C-481/04 (1)

   (2005/C 296/40)

      (Language of the case: German)

   By order of 6 June 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-481/04, in the case of Engin Torun against Stadt Augsburg, interested parties: the representative of the national interest before the Bundesverwaltungsgericht, and Landesanwaltschaft Bayern.

      (1)  OJ C 19, 22.1.2005.


title: Case C-363/17 P: Appeal brought on 13 June 2017 by Equipolymers Srl, M&G Polimeri Italia SpA, Novapet SA against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 5 April 2017 in Case T-422/13: Committee of Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Manufacturers in Europe (CPME) and Others v Council of the European Union

text:
               28.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/24

         Appeal brought on 13 June 2017 by Equipolymers Srl, M&G Polimeri Italia SpA, Novapet SA against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 5 April 2017 in Case T-422/13: Committee of Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Manufacturers in Europe (CPME) and Others v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-363/17 P)
   (2017/C 283/33)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Equipolymers Srl, M&G Polimeri Italia SpA, Novapet SA (represented by: L. Ruessmann, avocat, J. Beck, Solicitor)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Committee of Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Manufacturers in Europe (CPME), Cepsa Química SA, Indorama Ventures Poland sp. z o.o., Lotte Chemical UK Ltd, Ottana Polimeri Srl, UAB Indorama Polymers Europe, UAB Neo Group, UAB Orion Global pet, Council of the European Union, European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               declare the appeal admissible and well-founded;

               —

               set aside the General Court's judgment in so far as it dismisses the claim for compensation of damages;

               —

               rule on the substance of the claim for compensation of damages and award the appellants the damages claimed, or refer the case back to the General Court for a decision on the substance of the Application for Damages; and

               —

               order the Council to pay the appellants' costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The General Court distorted and wrongly presented the evidence submitted by the Appellants when finding that there is no causal link between the unlawful adoption of Decision 2013/226 (1) and the damages incurred by the Appellants. (Contested Judgment, paragraphs 155 to 197, and in particular paragraphs 187 to 189).

      (1)  Council Implementing Decision 2013/226/EU of 21 May 2013 rejecting the proposal for a Council implementing regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in India, Taiwan and Thailand following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 and terminating the expiry review proceeding concerning imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in Indonesia and Malaysia, in so far as the proposal would impose a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in India, Taiwan and Thailand (OJ 2013, L 136, p. 12).


title: Case T-499/13: Action brought on 9 September 2013 — nMetric v OHIM (SMARTER SCHEDULING)

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/63

         Action brought on 9 September 2013 — nMetric v OHIM (SMARTER SCHEDULING)
   (Case T-499/13)
   2013/C 344/116
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: nMetric LLC (Costa Mesa, United States) (represented by: T. Fuchs and A. Münch, lawyers)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 June 2013 given in Case R 887/2012-2;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘SMARTER SCHEDULING’ for goods in Class 9 — International registration No 1 093 837 designating the European Union

      Decision of the Examiner: Refused the application in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and 7(2) CTMR.


title: Action brought on 6 July 1998 by Christina Papadeas against the Committee of the Regions (Case T-102/98)

text:
C 278/40              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     5.9.98
abilities into consideration for the 1997 promotion period,         Ð request the defendant to produce the minutes of the
with the result that it was unable, to the detriment                    proceedings of the selection board and the reasoned
of the applicant's interests, to carry out any valid                    report of that Selection Board,
examination of the comparative merits of each of the
candidates for promotion. According to the applicant, it            Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
follows that the contested decisions were adopted in
breach of Articles 43 and 45 of the Staff Regulations of            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
officials and of the principle of non-discrimination.
                                                                    In support of her claim, the applicant pleads, first, breach
                                                                    of the principle of non-discrimination; she maintains that
                                                                    she was obliged to sit the compulsory written tests under
                                                                    conditions and circumstances which were different from
Action brought on 6 July 1998 by Christina Papadeas                 those applying to the other candidates, solely on account
            against the Committee of the Regions                    of the fact that she chose Greek, her mother tongue, as the
                                                                    language of the competition.
                       (Case T-102/98)
                        (98/C 278/86)                               She also considers that the Selection Board disregarded the
                (Language of the case: French)                      terms of the notice of competition, in that, first, it failed
                                                                    in its letter to comply with that notice as regards the
An action against the Committee of the Regions was                  procedure for holding the first test and, second, it decided
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European          not to admit her to the oral test although the notice did
Communities on 6 July 1998 by Christina Papadeas,                   not provide for that possibility.
residing in Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersanden
and Laure Levi, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for            The applicant further maintains that the administration
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson            committed a breach of the principles of proper
sarl, 30 rue de Cessange.                                           management and sound administration and failed to fultil
                                                                    its duty to have regard for the welfare and interests of
The applicant claims that the Court should:                         officials, inasmuch as it omitted to ensure that the work
Ð declare the present application admissible and well               apparatus which was made available to the candidates
    founded,                                                        was functioning properly at the time of the tests
                                                                    irrespective of the language chosen by each candidate.
Ð annul the decision of the Selection Board in internal
    competition No C/01/97 not to admit the applicant to            Lastly, she considers that the fact that participation in the
    the oral test, which decision was notified to the               recruitment procedure initiated by the notice of internal
    applicant by letter from the chairman of the Selection          competition at issue was open not only to staff members
    Board of 8 December 1997, and, in so far as may be              of the Committee of the Regions but also to staff members
    necessary, annul the decision contained in a letter sent        of the Economic and Social Committee constitutes an
    by the appointing authority to the applicant's legal            infringement of Article 29(1) of the Staff Regulations of
    advisers on 8 April 1998,                                       officials.


title: Case C-449/04: Action brought on 27 October 2004 by Commission of the European Communities against Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               18.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/7

         Action brought on 27 October 2004 by Commission of the European Communities against Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-449/04)
   (2004/C 314/12)
   An action was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 October 2004 by Commission of the European Communities, represented by C. O'Reilly and A.-M. Rouchaud-Joët, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

               1.

               Declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions needed to comply with Council Directive 2001/51/EC of 28 June 2001 supplementing the provisions of Article 26 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985, (1) the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas and main arguments
   The period set for transposition of the directive into internal law expired on 11 February 2003.

      (1)  OJ L 187 of 10.7.2001.


title: Case T-325/11: Action brought on 17 June 2011 — Amador López v OHIM (AUTOCOACHING)

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/37

         Action brought on 17 June 2011 — Amador López v OHIM (AUTOCOACHING)
   (Case T-325/11)
   2011/C 252/83
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Pedro Germán Amador López (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by A. Falcón Morales, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant requests the General Court to find the present application and the accompanying documents to be duly lodged and admissible, to take note that an action has been brought against the Decision of 23 March 2011 of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM), partially dismissing the appeal in Case R 1665/2010-2, and, consequently, to annul the said decision.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘AUTOCOACHING’ (application No 8.945.362), for goods and services in Classes 16, 41 and 45.

      Decision of the Examiner: Application refused in part.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

      Pleas in law: Incorrect application and interpretation of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the President of the Arrondissementsrechtbank, The Hague, by order of 19 December 1997 in the case of Emesa Sugar (Free Zone) NV and 1. the Netherlands State, 2. the Hoofdproductschap voor Akkerbouwproducten and 3. Aruba (Case C-17/98)

text:
28.3.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 94/9
     Commission examined whether it was possible to                It cannot share the view of the French authorities that,
     apply the derogations provided for in Article 92(2)           technically, there are two types of contracts relating to
     and (3). That point in the decision must suffer the           underground work (electrification) and installation above
     same consequences as the unlawful assessment carried          ground' (street lighting) respectively; the two operations
     out for the purposes of Article 92(1) denounced under         are closely linked and reference to the NACE
     the preceding submission which, should it be upheld,          nomenclature and the CPC and ISIC nomenclatures is
     would overturn all that has been decided on the               irrelevant.
     presumption that the aid is incompatible.
5. Unlawful order to recover the aid on the ground that            Moreover, the Commission considers, in particular in view
     it is in breach of the principles of protection of            of the notices published in both the Official Journal of the
     legitimate expectations, proportionality and equal            European Communities and the French Bulletin Official
     treatment.                                                    des Annonces des MarcheÂs Publics, that SYDEV must be
                                                                   considered to be the only contracting entity in question
(1) Commission Decision 98/95/EC (OJ L 20, 27.1.1998, p. 30).      rather than the individual associations of communes for
                                                                   the electrification of the VendeÂe. Since the contracting
                                                                   entity, for the purposes of the Directive, may be an entity
                                                                   with no legal personality, the question as to who is a legal
                                                                   party to the public contract is not decisive in order to
                                                                   identify it as the contracting entity. Finally, the work
Action brought on 22 January 1998 by the Commission of             concerned has only one purpose and is intended to fulfil a
  the European Communities against the French Republic             single economic and technical function, namely
                        (Case C-16/98)                             electrification over a number of years of the deÂpartement
                         (98/C 94/17)                              of the VendeÂe. Only the geographical location of the work
                                                                   is varied within the same deÂpartement. That difference is
An action against the French Republic was brought before           not such as to enable various works to be distinguished: it
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                merely means that several lots may be distinguished within
22 January 1998 by the Commission of the European                  the same works. However, pursuant to the second
Communities, represented by Hendrik van Lier, Legal                paragraph of Article 14(10), in particular, where a work is
Adviser, and Olivier Couvert-CasteÂra, a national civil            the subject of several lots, the value of each lot is to be
servant on secondment to the Legal Service, acting as              taken into account when assessing the value of all the
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the           contracts.
office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,
Kirchberg.                                                         The notices of the award of contracts as published
The Commission of the European Communities claims                  confirm the Commission's view that the result of splitting
that the Court should:                                             the contracts has been to reserve the contracts to local
                                                                   undertakings, who were better informed as to the real
Ð declare that, in the course of the procurement                   scale of the programme of works. Those notices show in
     procedure issued by the Syndicat DeÂpartement                 fact that all the contracts were awarded to a restricted
     d'Electrification de la VendeÂe in December 1994 for          group of undertakings of the deÂpartement of the VendeÂe.
     the award of a contract for electrification and street
     lighting work, the French Republic failed to fulfil its       (1) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 84.
     obligations under Articles 4(2), 14(1), 10 and 13,            (2) Judgment in Case C-311/96 (OJ C 212, 12.7.1997, p. 6).
     together with Articles 21, 24 and 25 of Council
     Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating the
     procurement procedures of entities operating in the
     water, energy, transport and telecommunications
     sectors (1),
Ð order the French Republic to pay the costs.                      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the President of the
                                                                   Arrondissementsrechtbank, The Hague, by order of
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                   19 December 1997 in the case of Emesa Sugar (Free Zone)
When the procedure for the award of public contracts in            NV and 1. the Netherlands State, 2. the Hoofdproduct-
question was held (end 1994 to early 1996), Directive 93/                 schap voor Akkerbouwproducten and 3. Aruba
38/EEC of 14 June 1993 had still not been transposed into                                  (Case C-17/98)
French law (2). None the less, the contracting entity was
required to apply the provisions of that Directive to that                                  (98/C 94/18)
award procedure by reason of their direct effect as from
1 July 1994.
                                                                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
The Commission considers that the entire electrification           European Communities by order of the President of the
and street lighting work in question comes within the              Arrondissementsrechtbank, The Hague, of 19 December
scope of one contracting entity and constitutes a single           1997, received at the Court Registry on 23 January 1998,
contract which was artificially split in order to avoid the        for a preliminary ruling in the case of Emesa Sugar (Free
obligations of the Directive.                                      Zone) NV and 1. the Netherlands State, 2. the Hoofdpro-
 ---pagebreak--- C 94/10              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   28.3.98
ductschap voor Akkerbouwproducten and 3. Aruba on the                9. Is Council Decision 97/803/EC valid, having regard
following questions:                                                     to the expectations aroused by the information
                                                                         brochure (DE 76) distributed by the Commission in
                                                                         October 1993, given that, at page 16, the brochure
 1. Is the mid-term amendment of the OCT Decision on                     states that the period of validity of the Sixth OCT
     1 December 1997 by Council Decision 97/803/EC of                    Decision is now 10 (previously five) years?
     24 November 1997 (OJ L 329, 29.11.1997, p. 50)
     proportionate, more specifically the insertion of
     Article 108b(1) and deletion of milling' as a relevant        10. Is Article 108b, which was inserted on 1 December
     method of processing for the purposes of origin?                    1997, so unworkable that it must be deemed to be
                                                                         invalid?
 2. Is it acceptable for the restrictive consequences of
     that Council decision Ð more specifically the                  11. Does the national court have jurisdiction, in
     insertion of Article 108b(1) and deletion of milling'              circumstances such as those described in Joined Cases
     as a relevant method of processing for the purposes                 C-143/88 and C-92/89 Zuckerfabrik Süderdithmar-
     of origin Ð to be (far) more serious than would have                schen and Others and subsequent cases, to adopt an
     been the case had recourse had been to safeguard                    interim measure in advance, in the event of an
     measures pursuant to Article 109 of the OCT                         imminent breach of Community law by a non-
     Decision?                                                           Community enforcement body designated by
                                                                         Community law, in order to prevent that breach?
 3. Is it compatible with the EC Treaty, in particular
     Part IV thereof, for a Council decision of the kind            12. On the assumption that the answer to Question 11 is
     referred to in the second paragraph of Article 136 of               in the affirmative and that assessment of the
     the Treaty (in the present case, Decision 97/803/EC)                circumstances referred to in Question 11 is a matter
     to include quantitative restrictions on imports or                  for the Court of Justice, rather than the national
     measures having equivalent effect?                                  court, are the circumstances described in this
                                                                         judgment at points 3.9 to 3.11 inclusive such as to
                                                                         justify a measure of the kind referred to in
 4. Is the answer to that question different:                            Question 11?
     (a) if those restrictions or measures are in the form
         of tariff quotas or limitations to the provisions
         relating to origin or a combination of the two,
         or
                                                                    Action brought on 23 January 1998 by the Commission of
     (b) if the provisions in question comprise safeguard
                                                                    the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
         measures or not?
                                                                                (Case C-18/98)
 5. Does it follow from the EC Treaty, in particular                                       (98/C 94/19)
     Part IV thereof, that for the purposes of the second
     paragraph of Article 136, the experience acquired Ð
     in the form of measures favourable to the OCT Ð                An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought
     may not subsequently be reviewed or annulled to the            before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
     detriment of the OCT?                                          on 23 January 1998 by the Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities, represented by Christian Tufvesson and Eric
                                                                    Gippini Fournier, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents,
 6. If that is indeed the case, are the Council decisions at        with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
     issue therefore void and can individuals then rely on          Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, 254, Wagner Centre.
     that in proceedings before the national court?
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
 7. To what extent must the OCT Decision (Council
     Decision 91/482/EEC (OJ L 263, 19.9.1991, p. 1);
     corrigendum (OJ L 15, 23.1.1993, p. 33)) be deemed             Ð declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force,
     to apply without amendment during the 10-year                      or     communicate,    the   laws,     regulations   or
     period referred to in Article 240(1) thereof, given that           administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     the Council did not amend that Decision before the                 Council Directive 93/22/EEC of 10 May 1993 on
     expiry of the first (period of) five years referred to in          investment services in the securities field (1), the
     Article 240(3) thereof?                                            Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                        under the EC Treaty, and
 8. Is the Council's amending Decision (97/803/EC)
     contrary to Article 133(1) of the EC Treaty?                   Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Action brought on 30 April 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium (Case C-163/97)

text:
No C 212/ 12            EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                  12 . 7 . 97
Action brought on 30 April 1997 by the Commission of                       Communities on 30 April 1997 by the European
the European Communities against the Kingdom of                            Parliament, represented by Johann Schoo, Head of
                                   Belgium                                 Division in its Legal Service, and Joao Sant'Anna, of its
                          ( Case C-163/97)                                 Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service
                                                                           in Luxembourg at its General Secretariat, Mail and
                              ( 97/C 212/20 )                              Registry Service, Tower Building, Office 017.
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                       The European Parliament claims that the Court should:
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
on 30 April 1997 by the Commission of the European                         — annul, pursuant to Article 173 of the EC Treaty,
Communities, represented by Hendrik van Lier, Legal                            Regulation ( EC ) No 307/97 ('), amending Regulation
Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in                        ( EEC) No 3528/86 (2 ) on the protection of the
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,                           Community's forests against atmospheric pollution,
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                                      and
The Commission of the European Communities claims                          — order the Council of the European Union to pay the
that the Court should :                                                        costs .
— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     and administrative provisions necessary to comply
     with Council Directive 92/74/EEC of 22 September                      The contested Regulation, which extends until
     1992 widening the scope of Directive 81 /851 /EEC on                  31 December 2001 the duration of the scheme provided
     the approximation of provisions laid down by law,                     for by Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3528/86 of
     regulation or administrative action relating to                       17 November 1986 on the protection of the Community's
     veterinary medicinal products and laying down                         forests against atmospheric pollution, was adopted on the
     additional provisions on homeopathic veterinary                       sole basis of Article 43 of the EC Treaty, relating to the
     medicinal products H , the Kingdom of Belgium has                     common agricultural policy, which provides that the
     failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive,                European Parliament is to be consulted . The legal basis
                                                                           for the Regulation should, however, have been Article 130s
— in the alternative declare that, in any event, by failing                of the Treaty, relating to environmental policy, which
     to inform the Commission of such measures forthwith,                  provides for the 'cooperation' procedure between the
     the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its                       Council and the Parliament .
     obligations under the same provisions, and
                                                                           Regulation ( EEC ) No 3528/86 was itself adopted on the
— order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .                          legal basis of Articles 43 and 235 of the EC Treaty. Being
                                                                           adopted before the entry into force of the Single European
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced, in support:                       Act, it could not have been based on Article 130s.
                                                                           Regulation ( EEC ) No 3528/86 was amended for the first
Under Article 10 of the Directive in issue, Member States                  time by Regulation ( EEC ) No 1613/89 of 29 May 1989
were to take the measures necessary to comply with the                     on the protection of the Community's forests against
 Directive by 31 December 1993 .                                            atmospheric pollution ( 3 ). It was again amended by
                                                                            Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2157/92 of 23 July 1992 on
                                                                           the protection of the Community's forests against
 In reply to a letter of formal notice, the Belgian authorities             atmospheric pollution (4). Those two Regulations are
 stated on 12 June 1995 that the necessary measures were                    based on both Article 43 and Article 130s of the EC
 contained in a draft Royal Decree submitted to the office                  Treaty. Admittedly, at that time Article 130s involved only
 of the Minister of Public Health .
                                                                           the 'consultation' procedure, as did Article 43 of the
                                                                            Treaty.
 Since then, the Commission has heard nothing more of
 that legislative procedure .                                               From its content, it is clear that the contested Regulation
                                                                            concerns environmental protection . The measures which it
 (•) OJ No L 297, 13 . 10 . 1992 , p . 12 .                                 extends — in particular projects for observing damage,
                                                                            and understanding pollution and its effects on forests —
                                                                            are strictly linked to forests and their protection . Their
                                                                            aim is the protection of forests . Such measures cannot fall
                                                                            within the scope of the common agricultural policy. They
                                                                            are of no relevance to the products concerned by
 Action brought on 30 April 1997 by the European                            Articles 38 to 46 of the EC Treaty, namely those listed in
    Parliament against the Council of the European Union                    Annex II to the Treaty. The measures concerned fall
                            ( Case C-164/97 )                               within the scope of Article 13 Or of the Treaty.
                                ( 97/C 212/21 )
                                                                            The stated objectives of Regulation ( EEC ) No 3528/86
                                                                            and of Regulations ( EEC ) No 1613/89 and ( EEC)
 An action against the Council of the European Union was                    No 2157/92 are the fight against pollution and the
  brought before the Court of Justice of the European                       preservation of forest resources, which play an essential


title: Case C-211/09: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 November 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2006/24/EC — Electronic communications — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/16

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 November 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-211/09) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2006/24/EC - Electronic communications - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   2010/C 24/27
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Balta and M. Karanasou Apostolopoulou, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: N. Dafniou and K. Vasiliki, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt within the prescribed period all the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC (OJ L 105, p. 54)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed periods, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 193 of 15.08.2009


title: Case C-70/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 5 February 2010 — Scarlet Extended SA v Société Belge des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs (SABAM)

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 5 February 2010 — Scarlet Extended SA v Société Belge des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs (SABAM)
   (Case C-70/10)
   2010/C 113/30
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour d’appel de Bruxelles

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Scarlet Extended SA

      Defendant: Société Belge des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs (SABAM)

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do Directives 2001/29 (1) and 2004/48, (2) in conjunction with Directives 95/46, (3) 2000/31 (4) and 2002/58, (5) construed in particular in the light of Articles 8 and 10 of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, permit Member States to authorise a national court, before which substantive proceedings have been brought and on the basis merely of a statutory provision stating that: ‘They [the national courts] may also issue an injunction against intermediaries whose services are used by a third party to infringe a copyright or related right’, to order an Internet Service Provider (ISP) to introduce, for all its customers, in abstracto and as a preventive measure, exclusively at the cost of that ISP and for an unlimited period, a system for filtering all electronic communications, both incoming and outgoing, passing via its services, in particular those involving the use of peer-to-peer software, in order to identify on its network the sharing of electronic files containing a musical, cinematographic or audio-visual work in respect of which the applicant claims to hold rights, and subsequently to block the transfer of such files, either at the point at which they are requested or at which they are sent?

               2.

               If the answer to the question in paragraph 1 is in the affirmative, do those directives require a national court, called upon to give a ruling on an application for an injunction against an intermediary whose services are used by a third party to infringe a copyright, to apply the principle of proportionality when deciding on the effectiveness and dissuasive effect of the measure sought?

      (1)  Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10).

      (2)  Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (OJ L 157, 30.4.2004). Corrected version in (OJ 2004 L 195, p. 16).

      (3)  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 (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31).

      (4)  Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’) (OJ 2000 L 78, p. 1).

      (5)  Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications) (OJ 2002, L 201, p. 37).


title: Case C-617/11 P: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 3 October 2013 — Luigi Marcuccio v European Commission (Appeal — Assignment — Automatic transfer — Decision to reassign an official from a third country to the Commission headquarters in Brussels (Belgium) — Decision annulled by the General Court after referral back by the Court of Justice — Compensation for the harm purportedly suffered as a result of the annulment of a decision to reassign)

text:
               21.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 377/2

         Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 3 October 2013 — Luigi Marcuccio v European Commission
   (Case C-617/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Assignment - Automatic transfer - Decision to reassign an official from a third country to the Commission headquarters in Brussels (Belgium) - Decision annulled by the General Court after referral back by the Court of Justice - Compensation for the harm purportedly suffered as a result of the annulment of a decision to reassign)
   2013/C 377/02
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 September 2011 in Case T-236/02 Marcuccio v Commission, by which that court dismissed, in part, first, an application for annulment of the decision of the European Commission of 18 March 2002 to reassign the appellant from the Commission Delegation in Luanda (Angola) to the Directorate General for Development in Brussels (Belgium), of all preliminary, connected or consecutive measures, in particular those relating to the recruitment of another official to occupy his post, of the Commission’s notes of 13 and 14 November 2001 and of the opinion or opinions of the External Service Steering Committee, and, second, a claim for allowances in connection with his duties in Angola and damages for harm suffered — Rights of the defence — Failure to state reasons — Distortion of the facts

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Luigi Marcuccio is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.


title: Case T-323/00: Action brought on 16 October 2000 by SAT.1 SatellitenFernsehen GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
C 4/6                    EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       6.1.2001
Action brought on 6 September 2000 by Cooperative                           Action brought on 16 October 2000 by SAT.1 Satel-
Codess Sociale Cooperative Sociale a r.l. and Others                        litenFernsehen GmbH against the Office for Harmonis-
    against Commission of the European Communities                            ation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                                (Case T-323/00)
                           (Case T-235/00)
                                                                                (2001/C 4/09)
                             (2001/C 4/08)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                                                                            An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                     (Language of the case: Italian)                        Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
                                                                            Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                            16 October 2000 by SAT.1 SatellitenFernsehen GmbH, Mainz
                                                                            and Berlin, Germany, represented by Rheinhard Schneider, of
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                   Büsing, Müffelmann & Theye, Bremen (Germany).
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 6 September 2000 by Cooperative
Codess Sociale Cooperative Sociale a r.l. and Others, represent-            The applicant claims that the Court should:
ed by Franca Gajulli and Isabella Gianniotti, of the Venice Bar.
                                                                            —     annul and declare invalid the decision of the Second
                                                                                Board of Appeal of the defendant of 2 August 2000 in
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                       Case R 312/99-2;
                                                                            —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
—     annul Articles 1, 2, 5 and 6 of Commission Decision
      2000/394/EEC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in
      Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security
      contributions under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995,
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
      or annul Articles 1, 2, 5 and 6 thereof, and declare
      applicable the exemption provided for by Article 86(2) of
      the Treaty (services of general economic interest) to the
      applicant;                                                            Mark:                         Wordmark ‘SAT. 2’ — Appli-
                                                                                cation No 513135
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                                Goods or services:            Goods and services in Classes 35,
                                                                                38, 41, 42 (including distribution
                                                                                of radio and television pro-
                                                                                grammes, production of films and
                                                                                television programmes, distri-
                                                                                bution of film rights, development
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                           of software)
                                                                            Decision        contested     Refusal by the examiner to register
                                                                            before the Board of
The pleas in law and main arguments are those relied upon in                Appeal:
Cases T-234/00 Fondazione Opera S. Maria della Carità v
Commission. (1)
                                                                            Pleas in law:                 — misapplication of Article
                                                                                7(1)(b) of Regulation (EEC)
                                                                                No 40/94
(1) See p. 5 of this Official Journal.                                                                    — misapplication of Article
                                                                                7(1)(c) of Regulation (EEC)
                                                                                No 40/94


title: Case T-13/03: Action brought on 16 January 2003 by Nintendo Co., Ltd. and Nintendo of Europe GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
22.3.2003              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 70/27
Action brought on 15 January 2003 by Mrs Elizabeth                         —     Violation of the principle of proportionality as to the
           Afari against the European Central Bank                               penalty.
                                                                           —     Violation of the Council Directive 2000/43 of 29 June
                         (Case T-11/03)
                                                                                2000 implementing the principle of equal treament
                                                                                between persons irrespective of racial and ethnic
                         (2003/C 70/43)                                          origin (1).
                   (Language of the case: English)                         (1 ) Official Journal L 180, of 19.7.2000, p. 22.
An action against the European Central Bank was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
on 15 January 2003 by Mrs Elizabeth Afari, Frankfurt,
Germany, represented by Mr Georges Vandersanden and                        Action brought on 16 January 2003 by Nintendo Co., Ltd.
Mr Laure Levi, Lawyers.                                                    and Nintendo of Europe GmbH against the Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Case T-13/03)
—     annul the disciplinary decision of the ECB of 5 November
      2002 imposing on the Appellant a written reprimand;                                             (2003/C 70/44)
—     order that the ECB pays 1 euro as compensation for the                                    (Language of the case: English)
      moral predudice;
—     order that the ECB pays the costs.
                                                                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 16 January 2003 by Nintendo
                                                                           Co., Ltd., Kyoto, Japan and Nintendo of Europe GmbH,
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           Großostheim, Germany, represented by Mr Ian Forrester, QC,
                                                                           Mr John Pheasant, Solicitor, Mr Mark Powell, Solicitor,
The Appellant in the present case challenges the decision of               Ms Ciara Kennedy-Loest, Solicitor and Mr James Killick,
the defendant’s Administration imposing on her a disciplinary              Barrister.
measure consisting of a written reprimand. The main charges
against her were that she made allegations of racism and                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
accused members of the management of the ECB of encourag-
ing xenophobia.                                                            —     annul Article 3 of the decision to the extent that it
                                                                                imposes an unlawfully large fine on Nintendo;
She complains that at the beginning of this disciplinary                   —     set a lower fine (if any) in such amount as may appear
procedure there was a difficult relationship with a colleague                    appropriate to the Court in the exercise of its unlimited
who put her under very strong pressure, harassment and                           discretion pursuant to Article 229 EC;
discriminated against her in many ways. The conflict escalated
to a written complaint, as she unsuccessfully called the                   —     order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs
attention of her management on that situation.
                                                                           —     take such other or further steps as justice may require
The Appellant invokes the following as pleas in law:
—     Violation of the duty to state reasons, of the right to good         Pleas in law and main arguments
      administration and of the obligation of due care.
                                                                           The applicants contest the decision of the Commission decision
—     Violation of the rights of defense, in so far as the burden
                                                                           C(2002) 4072 final of 30 October 2002 in Cases COMP/
      of the proof would have been illegally put on the
                                                                           35.587 PO Video games, COMP/35.706 PO Nintendo Distri-
      applicant’s shoulders and her right to be heard, as well as
                                                                           bution and COMP/36.321 Omega-Nintendo, regarding an
      the principle of impartiality, would have been ignored.
                                                                           infringement of Article 81 (1) of the EC Treaty insofar as it
                                                                           imposes an unlawfully large fine on the applicants.
—     Manifest error of appreciation in relation to the substance
      of the case. Concretely, it is submitted that the applicant
      has violated neither Article 4(1) of Conditions of Employ-           In support of their application, the applicants claim that the
      ment for Staff of the ECB, nor the ECB Code of Conduct.              Commission has infringed essential procedural requirements
 ---pagebreak--- C 70/28               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                           22.3.2003
such as the rights of defence, the principle of impartiality and        Action brought on 15 January 2003 by José Luis Zuazaga
fairness, the obligation to state the reasons for a decision and        Meabe against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
the obligation to make decisions within a reasonable period.                      Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)
The applicants furthermore invoke violations of general prin-
ciples of law such as the principle of proportionality, equal
treatment, non bis in idem, legitimate expectations and                                           (Case T-15/03)
transparency, coherence and non-discrimination.
                                                                                (2003/C 70/45)
According to the applicants, the fine imposed on them was                                 (Language of the case: Spanish)
unlawful in that its amount was manifestly exorbitant and that
several steps by which this amount was calculated were
individually unlawful. The applicants submit that the setting
of the amount of the fine for gravity was made on the                   An action against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
manifestly inappropriate basis of the applicants’ share of sales        Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) was brought before
of Nintendo’s products. If there were other considerations,             the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
these were, according to the applicants, insufficiently stated.         15 January 2003 by José Luis Zuazaga Meabe, residing in
                                                                        Bilbao (Spain), represented by José Antonio Calderón Chavero.
The decision then applied an increase for deterrence where,             The applicant claims that the Court should:
according to the applicants, none was appropriate and in a
manner that conflicted with previous policy, was based on an            —     set aside the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of
error of law, involved double counting and infringed the rights               the OHIM of 24 October 2002 in Case R-918/2001;
of defence. The applicants also state that a multiplier of 3 for
deterrence was contrary to the principle of equal treatment,            —     uphold in its entirety the opposition submitted in pro-
without giving sufficient reasons and on the basis of an
                                                                              ceeding B 290157;
inappropriate methodology.
                                                                        —     uphold the arguments submitted by the applicant and
                                                                              allow the appropriate Opposition Division of the OHIM
The applicants furthermore submit that the decision imposed                   to refuse to register the trade mark in question; and
an increase on the fine of 10 % for each full year of
the infringement although the infringement was not of a                 —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
continuous intensity. According to the applicants, the increase
to the fine for the first full year of the infringement is also
contrary to the Commission’s guidelines.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
With regard to an increase of 75 % to the fine for aggravating          Applicant for the Com-         BANCO BILBAO              VIZCAYA
circumstances, the applicants submit that this is based on              munity trade mark:             ARGENTARIA S.A.
manifest errors of assessment of the applicants’ situation and
behaviour and is contrary to the Commission’s previous policy           The Community trade            ‘BLUE’        —          Application
and practice.                                                           mark concerned:                No 1345974, for goods and ser-
                                                                                vices in Classes 9, 36 and 38
                                                                        Proprietor of the right to     The applicant
The applicants finally submit that the granting of a reduction          the trade mark or sign
of 25 % for attenuating circumstances did not give proper               asserted by way of oppo-
regard to the criteria specified in the Leniency Notice and the         sition in the opposition
Commission’s previous policy and practice thereunder. It                proceedings:
was also not consistent with the treatment given to other
undertakings in this case and did not take proper account of            Trade mark or sign             Spanish word mark BILBAO
the behaviour of the applicants who had voluntarily                     asserted by way of oppo-       BLUE for services in Class 36
approached the Commission to inform it of the infringing                sition in the opposition
conduct. The altered assessment of the applicants’ cooperation          proceedings:
during the administrative procedure, also infringed, according
to the applicants, on its rights of defence.                            Decision of the Oppo-          Partial refusal of the application
                                                                        sition Division:               in respect of certain services in
                                                                                Class 36 (Insurance services;
                                                                                financial affairs; monetary affairs
                                                                                and real estate affairs)


               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/63

         Removal from the Register of Case T-63/97 (1)

   (2005/C 217/130)

      (Language of the case: Dutch)

   By order of 16 June 2005, the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-63/97, P.J.M. Janssen v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 142 of 10.5.1997


title: Case F-85/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 6 December 2011 — Wendelboe v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Preliminary issues — Objection of inadmissibility — Refusal to promote an official — Transfer between institutions during the promotion year in which the official would have been promoted in his institution of origin — Complaint — Delay — Inadmissibility)

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/32

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 6 December 2011 — Wendelboe v Commission
   (Case F-85/11) (1)

   (Civil service - Officials - Preliminary issues - Objection of inadmissibility - Refusal to promote an official - Transfer between institutions during the promotion year in which the official would have been promoted in his institution of origin - Complaint - Delay - Inadmissibility)
   2012/C 138/72
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Wendelboe (Howald, Luxembourg) (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Bercheid and C. Berardis-Kayser, Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of the Commission’s decision not to promote the applicant to grade AST 5 from 1 March 2009 in the 2009 promotion year.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Ms Wendelboe shall bear all the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 340, 19.11.2011, p. 42.


title: Action brought on 7 November 1995 by European Fertilizer Manufacturers Association against Council of the European Union (Case T-210/95)

text:
 3 . 2 . 96            EN |                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 31 / 19
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             1 . pending delivery of the final order in the procedure
                       of 9 January 1996                                   for interim measures, the recruitment procedure
                                                                           commenced by competition CdR A/03/95 is suspended,
 in Case T-23/95 : Efthimia Bitha and Others v. Commission
                                                                           including the assessment of the tests held to date, the
               of the European Communities ( l )                           holding ofany further tests, the drawing-up of the list of
 (Cover against the risk of accident and of occupational                   suitable candidates and any appointments which may be
 disease for officials of the Community — Payment of the                   made on the basis of that list;
 benefits provided for in Article 73 (2) of the Staff
   Regulations — Accidental death — Underwater diving)                2 . the costs are reserved.
                           ( 96/C 31 /44 )
                (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-23/95 : Efthimia Bitha, Vasiliki Bitha and
Georgios Bitha, the persons entitled under Krinio Bitha, a
                                                                      Action brought on 7 November 1995 by European Fertilizer
former official of the Commission of the European
                                                                     Manufacturers Association against Council of the European
Communities, residing in Thessaloniki ( Greece ),                                                  Union
represented by Jean-Noel Louis, of the Brussels Bar, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of                                         ( Case T-2 10/95 )
Fiduciaire Myson Sari ., 1 Rue Glesener, v. Commission of                                      ( 96/C 31 /46 )
the European Communities (Agents : Julian Currall and
Jean-Luc Fagnart) — application for the annulment of the
decision of the Commission of 26 April 1994 refusing the                             (Language of the case: English)
applicants the benefits provided for in Article 73 ( 2 ) of the
Staff Regulations of officials in the event of the accidental        An action against the Council of the European Union was
death of an official — the Court of First Instance ( Fourth           brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Chamber ), composed of D. P. M. Barrington, President, and           Communities on 7 November 1995 by the European
K. Lenaerts and P. Lindh, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has            Fertilizer Manufacturers Association, represented by
given a judgment on 9 January 1996 , in which it:                    Dominique Voillemot of Gide Loyrette, Paris, with an
                                                                     address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
1 . dismisses the action .                                           Zeyen Beghin Feider, 67 rue Ermesinde .
2 . orders the Commission to pay the costs.                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
(■) OJ No C 87, 8 . 4 . 1995 .                                       — annul       Article   1    of   Council     Regulation    ( EC )
                                                                          No 2022/95 ,
                                                                     — order that such anti-dumping duty imposed by that
                                                                          provision be maintained until the competent institutions
                                                                          adopt the measures needed to comply with this
               ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT                                     judgment,
           OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                     of 6 December 1995
                                                                     — order to the Council to pay the costs .
in Case T-220/95 R: Christophe Gimenez v. Committee of
                           the Regions                               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                          ( 96/C 31 /45 )
                                                                     The applicant, an association representing the European
                                                                     ammonium industry, challenges the abovementioned
                (Language of the case: French)                       regulation, in so far as by fixing in it the profit margin of the
                                                                     European industry at 5 % on actual costs , the defendant
In Case T-220/95 R: Christophe Gimenez, residing at 29               institution made a manifest error of appraisal of the facts of
                                                                     the case .
Avenue du Mont Kemmel, Brussels, represented by Eric
Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an addres for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du                The applicant cannot agree with the Commission's
Fort Rheinsheim, v. Committee of the Regions, 27 Galerie              statement to the effect that a profit of 5 % on costs has been
Ravenstein, Brussels — application for suspension of the             used in recent anti-dumping cases concerning urea and UAN
procedure in competition CdR A/03/95 or of the prospective           solutions and was therefore considered as a reasonable
appointments to be made in consequence of that                       profit margin for nitrogen fertilizers in the present case . The
competition — the President of the Court of First Instance           choice of a 5 % profit margin cannot be used in the
made an order on 6 December 1995 , the operative part of             proceedings concerning two different products, other than
which is as follows :                                                 ammonium nitrate .
 ---pagebreak--- No C 31 /20            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                           3 . 2 . 96
The choice of a 5 % profit margin is difficult to understand          Commission has hitherto failed to adopt a final decision
in that in a regional procedure limited to the United                 regarding their application for a negative clearance or an
Kingdom concerning the same product, which led the                    exemption for the rules for the certification of crane hire
Commission to accept quantitative undertakings from May               businesses which they have notified, and which include a
1994 , it accepted a profit margin of 10% .                           prohibition on the hiring of non-certificated cranes . In
                                                                      interlocutory proceedings the national court has ordered
The applicant finally considers that a 15 % profit margin is          that the prohibition of hiring such cranes is not to be applied
the vital minimum which would enable the Community                    until the Commission has adopted a final decision. The
industry, on the one hand, to finance necessary sustaining            applicants claim that as a result of the prohibition by the
investment and, on the other hand, to reinvest for updating           court there is a danger that the national Raad voor de
and replacing existing capacities .                                   Certificatie will withdraw its recognition of the applicants,
                                                                      which threatens their existence and impairs their good
                                                                      reputation .
                                                                      The applicants consider that the Commission's failure is
                                                                      unlawful because it infringes Article 6 of the European
                                                                      Convention on the Protection of Human Rights, in
Action brought on 27 November 1995 by the Stichting                   particular the requirement for a fair timelimit to
Certificatie Kraanverhuurbedrijf and the Federatie van                proceedings, and because it infringes general principles of
Nederlandse Kraanverhuurbedrijven against Commission                  law, namely the principle of legal certainty, the principle of
                 of the European Communities                          the protection of legitimate expectations and the applicants'
                        ( Case T-2 13/95 )                            right to a hearing.
                           ( 96/C 31 /47
                  (Language of the case: Dutch)
An action against the Commission of the European                             Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-97/93
Communities was brought before the Court of First                                                  and others (M
Instance of the European Communities on 27 November                                                   96/C 31 /48
 1995 by the Stichting Certificatie Kraanverhuurbedrijf and
the Federatie van Nederlandse Kraanverhuurbedrijven,                                   (Language of the case: German)
whose registered offices are both at Culemborg
 ( Netherlands ), represented by M. van Empel, of the                 By order of 11 December 1995 the President of the First
Amsterdam Bar, and T. Janssens, of the Brussels Bar, with             Chamber ( Extended Composition ) of the Court of First
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of               Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
M. Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe .                                            from the register of Cases T-142/93 : Heinz Giinther Herken
                                                                      v. Council of the European Union and Commission of the
The applicants claim that the Court should:                           European Communities, and T-149/93 : Hans Roper v.
                                                                       Council of the European Union and Commission of the
 1 . hold the European Community liable for the damage                European Communities.
      which the applicants are suffering and will suffer as a
      result of the unlawful conduct of the Commission cited           ( ] ) OJ No C 178 , 18 . 7. 1990, OJ No C 146 , 5 . 6 . 1991 and OJ
                                                                             No C 44 , 19 . 2 . 1992 .
      in the application;
 2 . order the European Community to pay compensation
      for that damage and to establish the extent of the
      damage in consultation with the applicants, and if the
      parties are not able to reach a mutual agreement                         Removal from the register of Case T-224/94 ( J )
      regarding the determination of the extent of the damage                                          96/C 31 /49
      to declare that the Court will establish its extent, if
      necessary after appointing an expert in order to quantify                         (Language of the case: English)
      exactly what damage has been suffered;
                                                                       By order of 18 December 1995 the President of the Fifth
  3 . order the European Community to pay the costs of these           Chamber ( Extended Composition ) of the Court of First
      proceedings .                                                    Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                       from the register of Case T-224/94 : Ferchimex N.V. v.
  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   Council of the European Union, supported by the
                                                                        Commission of the European Communities .
  The applicants claim that despite an express call for it to act,
  made pursuant to Article 175 of the EC Treaty, the                    (!) OJ No C 218 , 6 . 8 . 1994 .


title: Case T-223/08: Action brought on 12 June 2008 — Iranian Tobacco v OHIM — AD Bulgartabac (Bahman)

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/46

         Action brought on 12 June 2008 — Iranian Tobacco v OHIM — AD Bulgartabac (Bahman)
   (Case T-223/08)
   (2008/C 223/81)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Iranian Tobacco Company (Teheran, Iran) (represented by: M. Beckensträter, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: AD Bulgartabac Holding (Sofia, Bulgaria)
   Forms of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 10 April 2008 — R 709/2007-1, notified on 15 April 2008;

               —

               Order AD Bulgartabac Holding to pay the reimbursable costs, including those of the main proceedings and including those of the defendant;

               —

               In the alternative, while annulling the decision of 10 April 2008 and that of 7 March 2007 — 1415C — declare that the application by AD Bulgartabac Holding of 8 November 2005 was inadmissible.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which revocation was applied for: the figurative mark ‘Bahman’ for goods in Class 34 (Community trade mark No 427 336).

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Iranian Tobacco Company.

      Applicant in the revocation proceedings: AD Bulgartabac Holding.

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Decision declaring the Community trade mark concerned to be revoked.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the applicant's appeal.

      Pleas in law: The admissibility requirements concerning the application by AD Bulgartabac Holding which OHIM is obliged to consider of its own motion were not taken into account, contrary to Community law, Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) and other principles of procedure.

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


title: Case T-195/09: Action brought on 19 May 2009 — Matkompaniet v OHIM — DF World of Spices (KATOZ)

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/54

         Action brought on 19 May 2009 — Matkompaniet v OHIM — DF World of Spices (KATOZ)
   (Case T-195/09)
   2009/C 180/100
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Matkompaniet AB (Borås, Sweden) (represented by: J. Gulliksson and J. Olsson, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: DF World of Spices GmbH (Dissen, Germany)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 March 2009 in case R 577/2008-2; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs incurred both in the proceedings before the Court of First Instance and before OHIM.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark “KATOZ”, for goods in classes 29, 30 and 31

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited: German trade mark registration of the figurative mark “KATTUS” for goods in classes 29, 30, 31 and 33

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Upheld the appeal and partially rejected the application for the Community trade mark

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal wrongly concluded that there was a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned.


title: Case T-546/17: Action brought on 11 August 2017 — Haufe-Lexware v EUIPO — Le Shi Holdings (Beijing) (Leshare)

text:
               9.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 338/17

         Action brought on 11 August 2017 — Haufe-Lexware v EUIPO — Le Shi Holdings (Beijing) (Leshare)
   (Case T-546/17)
   (2017/C 338/19)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Haufe-Lexware GmbH & Co. KG (Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany) (represented by: N. Hebeis, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Le Shi Holdings (Beijing) Ltd (Beijing, China)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Leshare’ — Application for registration No 13 883 301

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 June 2017 in Case R 1691/2016-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case T-221/09: Action brought on 3 June 2009 — ERGO Versicherungsgruppe v OHIM — Société de Développement et de Recherche Industrielle (ERGO Group)

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/60

         Action brought on 3 June 2009 — ERGO Versicherungsgruppe v OHIM — Société de Développement et de Recherche Industrielle (ERGO Group)
   (Case T-221/09)
   2009/C 180/111
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: ERGO Versicherungsgruppe AG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: V. von Bomhard, A. Renck, T.Dolde and J. Pause, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Société de Développement et de Recherche Industrielle SAS (Chenôve, France)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 March 2009 in Case R 520/2008-4; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ERGO’ for goods and services in Classes 3 and 5 (Application No 3 296 449)

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Société de Développement et de Recherche Industrielle SAS

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word mark ‘URGO’ (Community trade mark No 989 863) for goods an services in Classes 3 and 5

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Partial acceptance of the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: The contested decision infringes Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1)) in as much as there is no likelihood of confusion between the opposing marks.

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


title: Case C-457/07: Action brought on 9 October 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

text:
               8.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/29

         Action brought on 9 October 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-457/07)
   (2007/C 297/47)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by S. Pardo Quintillán and P. Andrade, Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               a declaration that the Portuguese Republic has not complied with the judgment of the Court of Justice (First Chamber) of 10 November 2005 in Case C-432/03 Commission v Portuguese Republic;

               —

               an order that the Portuguese Republic should make penalty payments of 37 400 euro a day until the Court shall have given judgment;

               —

               an order that the Portuguese Republic should pay a fine of 5 280 euro a day from 10 November 2005, the date on which the judgment declaring the infringement was delivered, until the date on which the Portuguese State shall have complied with the judgment or until the Court shall have given judgment in accordance with Article 228 EC;

               —

               an order that the Portuguese Republic should pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission argues that the Portuguese Republic continues to restrict access to the market by requiring prior approval attesting to their fitness for a given use of new construction materials for which there exist no technical specifications or mutual recognition. The Portuguese Republic also continues to restrict access to the market by refusing to recognise the equivalence of certificates issued by other Member States, for new materials for which there exist no technical specifications, if recognition has been sought by economic operators other than the manufacturers of the products or their agents.
   The Portuguese legislation still does not state what criteria are to be applied by the authorities in assessing applications for approval so that that assessment is not made arbitrarily. Where there are no technical specifications, the Portuguese law lays down criteria to be applied in recognition decisions that are not objective but are discriminatory.
   The Portuguese Republic still has not adopted the measures that it ought to have adopted in relation to the economic traders to whom the law contrary to Articles 28 and 30 of the EC Treaty was applied.


title: Case C-226/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 11 May 2010 — Hannelore Adams v Germanwings GmbH

text:
               31.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/15

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 11 May 2010 — Hannelore Adams v Germanwings GmbH
   (Case C-226/10)
   ()
   2010/C 209/23
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Köln

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Hannelore Adams

      Defendant: Germanwings GmbH

      Question referred

   Does Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (1) apply to a passenger with a confirmed reservation for an outward and a return flight who does not present herself for boarding for the return flight owing to the following circumstances:

               —

               The operating air carrier denied the passenger, who had presented herself punctually for boarding for the outward flight, boarding against her will and announced its intention of denying her boarding on the return flight.

               —

               Boarding was denied because of the operating air carrier’s mistaken assumption that, because of a chargeback, it was entitled to a processing fee, which the passenger had not yet paid?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.


title: Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 1 February 2001 in Joined Cases C-300/99 P and C-388/99 P: Area Cova SA and Others v Council of the European Union and Others (Appeal — Fisheries — Measures to conserve resources — Community fishing quota for Greenland halibut — Appeal partly manifestly inadmissible and partly manifestly unfounded)

text:
14.7.2001               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 200/33
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                     1.    The appeals are dismissed.
                                                                           2.    Area Cova and others and the Xunta de Galicia are to pay the
                        (Fourth Chamber)
                                                                                costs.
                        of 1 February 2001
                                                                           (1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999; OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.
in Joined Cases C-300/99 P and C-388/99 P: Area Cova
SA and Others v Council of the European Union and
                             Others (1)
(Appeal — Fisheries — Measures to conserve resources —
Community fishing quota for Greenland halibut — Appeal
partly manifestly inadmissible and partly manifestly
                            unfounded)                                                         ORDER OF THE COURT
                          (2001/C 200/59)                                                          (Fourth Chamber)
                                                                                of 1 February 2001
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                           in Case C-301/99 P: Area Cova SA and Others v Council
(Provisional translation: the definitive translation will be published                         of the European Union (1)
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           (Appeal — Fisheries — Measures to conserve resources —
In Joined Cases C-300/99 P and C-388/99 P: Area Cova                       Quota for catches of Greenland halibut granted to the
SA, established in Vigo (Spain), Armadora José Pereira SA,                 Community fleet — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible
established in Vigo, Armadores Pesqueros de Aldán SA,                                    and in part manifestly unfounded)
established in Vigo, Centropesca SA, established in Vigo,
Chymar SA, established in Vigo, Eloymar SA, established in
                                                                                (2001/C 200/60)
Estribela (Spain), Exfaumar SA, established in Bueu (Spain),
Farpespan SL, established in Moaña (Spain), Freiremar SA,
established in Vigo, Hermanos Gandón SA, established in
Cangas (Spain), Heroya SA, established in Vigo, Hiopesca SA,                                  (Language of the case: Spanish)
established in Vigo, José Pereira e Hijos SA, established in Vigo,
Juana Oya Pérez, residing in Vigo, Manuel Nores González,
residing in Marı́n (Spain), Moradiña SA, established in Cangas,           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Navales Cerdeiras SL, established in Camariñas (Spain), Nugago                               in the European Court Reports)
Pesca SA, established in Bueu, Pesquera Austral SA, established
in Vigo, Pescaberbés SA, established in Vigo, Pesquerı́as Bigaro           In Case 301/99 P: Area Cova SA, established in Vigo (Spain),
Narval SA, established in Vigo, Pesquera Cı́es SA, established             Armadora José Pereira SA, established in Vigo, Armadores
in Vigo, Pesca Herculina SA, established in Vigo, Pesquera                 Pesqueros de Aldán SA, established in Vigo, Centropesca SA,
Inter SA, established in Cangas, Pesquerı́as Marinenses SA,                established in Vigo, Chymar SA, established in Vigo, Eloymar
established in Marı́n, Pesquerı́as Tara SA, established in Cangas,         SA, established in Estribela (Spain), Exfaumar SA, established
Pesquera Vaqueiro SA, established in Vigo, Sotelo Dios SA,                 in Bueu (Spain), Farpespan SL, established in Moaña (Spain),
established in Vigo, represented by A. Creus Carreras, E. Con-             Freiremar SA, established in Vigo, Hermanos Gandón SA,
treras Ynzenga and A. Agustinoy Guilayn, abogados, and                     established in Cangas (Spain), Heroya SA, established in Vigo,
Xunta de Galicia, represented by V.M. Vázquez-Portomeñe                  Hiopesca SA, established in Vigo, José Pereira e Hijos SA,
Seijas, abogado — two appeals against the order of the                     established in Vigo, Juana Oya Pérez, residing in Marı́n (Spain),
Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Third                 Manuel Nores González, residing in Marı́n, Moradiña SA,
Chamber) of 8 July 1999 in Case T-194/95 Area Cova and                     established in Cangas, Navales Cerdeiras SL, established in
Others v Council [1999] ECR II-2271, seeking to have that                  Camariñas (Spain), Nugago Pesca SA, established in Bueu,
order set aside, the other parties to the proceedings being the            Pesquera Austral SA, established in Vigo, Pescaberbés SA,
Council of the European Union (Agents: J. Carbery and                      established in Vigo, Pesquerı́as Bı́garo Narval SA, established
G. Ramos Ruano), Asociación Nacional de Armadores de                      in Vigo, Pesquera Cı́es SA, established in Vigo, Pesca Herculina
Buques Congeladores de Pesca de Merluza (Anamer), estab-                   SA, established in Vigo, Pesquera Inter SA, established in
lished in Vigo, Asociación Nacional de Armadores de Buques                Cangas, Pesquerı́as Marinenses SA, established in Marı́n, Pes-
Congeladores de Pesquerı́as Varias (Anavar), established in                querı́as Tara SA, established in Cangas, Pesquera Vaqueiro SA,
Vigo, and Asociación de Sociedades Pesqueras Españolas                   established in Vigo, Sotelo Dios SA, established in Vigo,
(ASPE), established in Vigo — the Court (Fourth Chamber),                  represented by A. Creus Carreras, E. Contreras Ynzenga and A.
composed of: A. La Pergola, President of the Chamber,                      Agustinoy Guilayn, abogados — appeal against the order
D.A.O. Edward and C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), Judges;                  made on 8 July 1999 by the Third Chamber of the Court of
F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made               First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-12/96
an order on 1 February 2000, the operative part of which is as             Area Cova S.A. and Others v Council and Commission [1999]
follows:                                                                   ECR II-2301, seeking to have that order set aside, the other


title: Case T-161/09: Action brought on 21 April 2009 — Ilink Kommunikationssysteme v OHIM (ilink)

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/44

         Action brought on 21 April 2009 — Ilink Kommunikationssysteme v OHIM (ilink)
   (Case T-161/09)
   2009/C 153/87
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Ilink Kommunikationssysteme GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by B. Schütze, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested decision of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 5 February 2009 in Case R 1849/2007-4; and

               —

               order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘ilink’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 38 and 42

      Decision of the Examiner: Registration refused in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1)), since the trade mark applied for has the requisite distinctive character and there is no need for it to be allowed to remain available.

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