title: Case T-56/16: Action brought on 10 February 2016 — Oil Pension Fund Investment Company v Council

text:
               29.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 111/35

         Action brought on 10 February 2016 — Oil Pension Fund Investment Company v Council
   (Case T-56/16)
   (2016/C 111/42)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Oil Pension Fund Investment Company (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: K. Kleinschmidt, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul, with immediate effect, Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/2216 of 30 November 2015 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2204 of 30 November 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012, in so far as these acts concern the applicant;

               —

               adopt a measure of organisation of procedure, under Article 89 of the Rules of Procedure, ordering the defendant to produce all the documents in connection with the contested decision in so far as they concern the applicant;

               —

               provide access to the case file in Oil Pension Fund Investment Company v Council (T-121/13, ECLI:EU:T:2015:645);

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law: Infringement of Article 266 TFEU
               The applicant takes the view that, in accordance with Article 266 TFEU, the Council is prohibited from adopting acts which have the same content as the acts of 21 December 2012 annulled by the judgment of the Court in Oil Pension Fund Investment Company v Council (T-121/13, ECLI:EU:T:2015:645).

               2.

               Second plea in law: Infringement of the applicant’s rights of defence, its right to effective legal protection and the duty to state reasons
               In that regard, the applicant complains that due consultation did not take place and that it was not granted access to the file. The reasoning contained in the contested acts is not comprehensible to the applicant. As a result the applicant’s rights of defence and its right to effective legal protection have been infringed. There has also been a breach of the principle of the right to be heard. The applicant also submits that the Council did not correctly assess the circumstances relating to the applicant. The applicant takes the view that it was deprived of a fair trial based on the rule of law, having been unable, in the absence of adequate knowledge, to comment specifically on the relevant allegations and alleged evidence of the Council, or to put forward any contrary evidence in the proceedings.

               3.

               Third plea in law: Manifest errors of assessment, lack of or erroneous exercise of discretion and infringement of the principle of proportionality
               In the applicant’s view, the Council made manifest errors of assessment when it adopted the contested acts. The Council failed adequately and/or correctly to investigate the facts underlying the contested acts. In that context, it is submitted, inter alia, that, so far as concerns the applicant, the grounds for adoption of the restrictive measures that are stated in the contested acts are inapplicable. The contested acts also breach the principle of proportionality.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law: Infringement of the rights guaranteed under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
               Here, the applicant claims that its fundamental rights as guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) have been infringed by the contested acts. It invokes, in that regard, breach of the freedom to conduct a business in the European Union (Article 16 of the Charter) and of the right to use its lawfully acquired possessions in the European Union and, in particular, to dispose of them freely (Article 17 of the Charter). Furthermore, the applicant claims breach of the principle of equal treatment (Article 20 of the Charter) and of the principle of non-discrimination (Article 21 of the Charter).


title: Case T-508/09: Action brought on 22 December 2009 — Cañas v Commission

text:
               27.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/26

         Action brought on 22 December 2009 — Cañas v Commission
   (Case T-508/09)
   2010/C 80/46
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Guillermo Cañas (Buenos Aires, Argentina) (represented by: F. Laboulfie, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the European Commission of 12 October 2009 in Case COMP/39471, Guillermo Cañas v WAA, ATP and ICAS

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant, a professional Argentinian tennis player, seeks the annulment of the decision of the Commission of 12 October 2009 by which the Commission rejected, on the ground of insufficient Community interest, the applicant’s complaint against the World Anti-doping Agency (WAA), ATP Tour Inc. (ATP) and the International Council of Arbitration for Sport (ICAS) concerning alleged breaches of Article 81 EC and/or Article 82 EC in connection with agreements or concerted practices and an abuse of dominant position by those sporting bodies.
   In support of his action, the applicant submits that the rules of the World Anti-doping Code drafted, applied and validated by the WAA, ATP and ICAS are discriminatory because they permit different punishments, according to the category of substance found in bodily fluids, to be handed down to two athletes, who tested positive due to negligence, who committed the same infringement. To be exact, the applicant submits that those anti-doping rules penalise doping due to negligence with a substance categorised as prohibited with a minimum suspension of one year, while the minimum penalty for doping due to negligence with a substance categorised as specific (now specified) is a warning.
   In the view of the applicant, the anti-doping rules in question are excessive, since the penalty system which they lay down does not permit account to be taken of the effect, in this case adverse, of a substance accidentally ingested. The anti-doping rules and their application are disproportionate in relation to the (relative) seriousness of the infringement alleged.
   The WAA, ATP and ICAS, three undertakings within the Community meaning of that term, concluded agreements or adopted concerted practices unlawfully restricting competition between professional tennis players and affecting trade between the Member States. The anti-doping rules in question apply to all athletes in all sporting disciplines, at least, Olympic ones, and not solely to the applicant, for which reason their prohibition is of considerable Community interest.
   In addition, the WAA, ATP and ICAS, jointly and/or severally, abused their dominant position, first by actual and potential discrimination between competing professional sportsmen and women and next because the anti-doping rules allow ATP to refuse to enter into a contract with a tennis player who tested positive due to negligence for a prohibited substance for a minimum period of one year.


title: Case C-39/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht (Germany) lodged on 4 February 2008 — Trade mark case: Bild.T-Online.de AG & Co. KG v President of the German Patent- und Markenamt

text:
               26.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht (Germany) lodged on 4 February 2008 — Trade mark case: Bild.T-Online.de AG & Co. KG v President of the German Patent- und Markenamt
   (Case C-39/08)
   (2008/C 107/18)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundespatentgericht
   Parties to the main proceedings
   Bild.T-Online.de AG & Co. KG v President of the German Patent- und Markenamt
   Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 3 of Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 (1), which seeks to secure equality of opportunity in matters of competition, require that identical or similar applications be treated in the same way?

               2.

               If the answer is ‘yes’, is the national court required to investigate specific indications of unequal treatment which distorts competition and, in so doing, to take account, in its analysis, of earlier decisions of the competent authority in similar cases?

               3.

               If the answer is ‘yes’, is the national court required to take account of the prohibition of discrimination having the effect of distorting competition when interpreting and applying Article 3 of Directive 89/104 if it has established discrimination of that nature?

               4.

               If Questions 1 to 3 are answered in the negative, in order to prevent distortion of competition, must it be possible under national legislation for the national authority to be placed under an obligation to initiate, of its own motion, an action for the annulment of trade marks which have previously been wrongly registered?

      (1)  OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1.


title: Case C-216/04: Order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of  5 April 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy)) — SABA Italia SpA v Comune di Bolzano and SEAB SpA

text:
               29.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/29

         Order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of 5 April 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy)) — SABA Italia SpA v Comune di Bolzano and SEAB SpA
   (Case C-216/04) (1)

   (2006/C 178/48)

      Language of the case: Italian

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

      (1)  OJ C 190, 24.7.2004.


title: Case T-535/13: Order of the General Court of 13 January 2015  — Vakoma v OHIM — VACOM (VAKOMA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark VAKOMA — Earlier Community word mark VACOM — Application instituting proceedings — Failure to comply with procedural requirements — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               9.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 81/19

         Order of the General Court of 13 January 2015 — Vakoma v OHIM — VACOM (VAKOMA)
   (Case T-535/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark VAKOMA - Earlier Community word mark VACOM - Application instituting proceedings - Failure to comply with procedural requirements - Manifest inadmissibility))
   (2015/C 081/25)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Vakoma GmbH (Magdeburg, Germany) (represented by: P. Kazzer, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: VACOM Vakuum Komponenten & Messtechnik GmbH (Jena, Germany)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 August 2013 (Case R 908/2012-1), relating to opposition proceedings between VACOM Vakuum Komponenten & Messtechnik GmbH and Vakoma GmbH.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible;

               2.

               Vakoma GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 367, 14.12.2013.


title: Case T-191/05: Action brought on 10 May 2005 by Viviane Le Maire against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               23.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/41

         Action brought on 10 May 2005 by Viviane Le Maire against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-191/05)
   (2005/C 182/77)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 10 May 2005 by Viviane Le Maire, residing in Evere (Belguim), represented by Gilles Bounéou and Frédéric Frabetti, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               annul the implied decision of 5 September 2004, by which the Commission refused to grant the applicant the daily subsistence allowances following her entry into service;

               2.

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant in these proceedings objects to the Appointing Authority's refusal to grant her the daily subsistence allowances provided for in Article 10 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations. It is apparent from the documents annexed to the application that the reason for that refusal is the fact that the period of 120 days referred to in paragraph 2(a) of that provision was exceeded in the present case.
   In support of her claims, the applicant argues:

               —

               breach of Article 10 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, in the versions of that text before and after 1 May 2004, to the extent that the administration made her subject to requirements which are not provided for by that provision,

               —

               breach of the principles of sound administration, prohibition on arbitrary conduct and abuse of power, by requiring the applicant to produce evidence that she was renting a house,

               —

               breach of the obligation to state reasons for a measure,

               —

               breach of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination,

               —

               breach of the duty to have regard to the interests of officials.


title: Joined Cases C-210/11 and C-211/11: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — Belgium) — État belge v Medicom SPRL (C-210/11), Maison Patrice Alard SPRL (C-211/11) (Requests for a preliminary ruling — Sixth VAT Directive — Article 6(2), first paragraph, point (a) and Article 13(B)(b) — Right to deduction — Capital goods belonging to legal persons made partly available to their managers for private use — No rent payable in money, but taking into account of a benefit in kind for income tax purposes)

text:
               7.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/4

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — Belgium) — État belge v Medicom SPRL (C-210/11), Maison Patrice Alard SPRL (C-211/11)
   (Joined Cases C-210/11 and C-211/11) (1)

   (Requests for a preliminary ruling - Sixth VAT Directive - Article 6(2), first paragraph, point (a) and Article 13(B)(b) - Right to deduction - Capital goods belonging to legal persons made partly available to their managers for private use - No rent payable in money, but taking into account of a benefit in kind for income tax purposes)
   2013/C 260/06
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: État belge

      Defendants: Medicom SPRL (C-210/11), Maison Patrice Alard SPRL (C-211/11)

      Re:

   Requests for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation (Belgium) — Interpretation of Article 6(2), first paragraph, point (a) and Article 13(B)(b) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ L 145, p. 1) — VAT exemption — Concept of supply of services in relation to immovable property — Use of part of immovable property forming part of the assets of the business for the private use of managers and their families, without there being any rent to be paid in money, but constituting a benefit in kind — No right to deduction

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Point (a) of the first paragraph of Article 6(2) and Article 13(B)(b) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995, must be interpreted as precluding the making available of part of immovable property belonging to a legal person to its manager for his private use, without there being provision for the beneficiaries of that arrangement to pay a rent in money by way of consideration for the use of that property, from constituting an exempted letting of immovable property within the meaning of that directive; the fact that the making available of that property is deemed, under the relevant national income tax legislation, to be a benefit in kind stemming from the beneficiaries’ performance of their corporate duties or under their contract of employment is of no import in that regard;

               2.

               Point (a) of the first paragraph of Article 6(2) and Article 13(B)(b) of the Sixth Directive 77/388, as amended by Directive 95/7, must be interpreted as meaning that, in situations such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the issue whether or not the making available of all or part of the property in its entirety forming part of the assets of the business to managers, administrators or members of that business is directly linked to the operation of the business is of no relevance for the determination of whether that making available comes within the exemption provided for in the latter provision.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 16.7.2011.


title: Case C-584/11 P: Appeal brought on 23 November 2011 by Dow AgroSciences Ltd, Dow AgroSciences LLC, Dow AgroSciences, Dow AgroSciences Export, Dow Agrosciences BV, Dow AgroSciences Hungary kft, Dow AgroSciences Italia Srl, Dow AgroSciences Polska sp. z o.o., Dow AgroSciences Iberica, SA, Dow AgroSciences s.r.o., Dow AgroSciences Danmark A/S, Dow AgroSciences GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2011 in Case T-475/07: Dow AgroSciences Ltd and Others v Commission

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/39

      Appeal brought on 23 November 2011 by Dow AgroSciences Ltd, Dow AgroSciences LLC, Dow AgroSciences, Dow AgroSciences Export, Dow Agrosciences BV, Dow AgroSciences Hungary kft, Dow AgroSciences Italia Srl, Dow AgroSciences Polska sp. z o.o., Dow AgroSciences Iberica, SA, Dow AgroSciences s.r.o., Dow AgroSciences Danmark A/S, Dow AgroSciences GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2011 in Case T-475/07: Dow AgroSciences Ltd and Others v Commission
      (Case C-584/11 P)
      (2012/C 25/74)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellants: Dow AgroSciences Ltd, Dow AgroSciences LLC, Dow AgroSciences, Dow AgroSciences Export, Dow Agrosciences BV, Dow AgroSciences Hungary kft, Dow AgroSciences Italia Srl, Dow AgroSciences Polska sp. z o.o., Dow AgroSciences Iberica, SA, Dow AgroSciences s.r.o., Dow AgroSciences Danmark A/S, Dow AgroSciences GmbH (represented by: C. Mereu, avocat, K. Van Maldegem, avocat)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The Appellants claim that the Court should:

                  —

                  Set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-475/07; and

                  —

                  Annul Commission Decision 2007/629/EC of 20 September 2007 (1) concerning the non-inclusion of trifluralin in Annex I to Directive 91/414 (2) and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance; or

                  —

                  alternatively, refer the case back to the General Court; and

                  —

                  Order the Respondent to pay all the costs of these proceedings (including the costs before the General Court).

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The Appellants submit that, in dismissing their application for annulment in respect of Commission Decision 2007/629/EC of 20 September 2007 concerning the non-inclusion of trifluralin in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance, the General Court breached Community law. In particular, the Appellants contend that the General Court committed a number of errors in its interpretation of the facts and of the legal framework as applicable to the Appellants' situation. That resulted in it making a number of errors in law, in particular:

                  —

                  in failing to find that the Appellants were requested by the Rapporteur Member State and EFSA to submit further data to clarify the dossier, in accordance with Article 8(5) of Regulation 451/2000 (3);

                  —

                  in failing to find that the Commission did not follow the proper course of the regulatory procedure as prescribed in the Council Decision 1999/468 (4) and in holding that the Commission did not breach Article 5 of Council Decision 1999/468; and

                  —

                  in failing to find that the Commission assessed trifluralin against criteria outside the scope of Directive 91/414, for which there is no basis in the relevant legal framework, and therefore acted ultra vires.

            For these reasons the Appellants claim that the judgment of the General Court in Case T-475/07 should be set aside and the Commission Decision 2007/629/EC should be annulled.

         (1)  OJ L 255, p. 42

         (2)  OJ L 230, p. 1

         (3)  OJ L 55, p. 25

         (4)  OJ L 184 p. 23


title: Case T-520/12: Action brought on 27 November 2012 — Pågen Trademark v OHIM (gifflar)

text:
               2.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/22

         Action brought on 27 November 2012 — Pågen Trademark v OHIM (gifflar)
   (Case T-520/12)
   2013/C 32/34
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Parties

      Applicant: Pågen Trademark AB (Malmö, Sweden) (represented by J. Norderyd, lawyer)

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

      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 27 September 2012 (1) in Case R 46/2012-2 and declare that Community trade mark No 1 009 0331 GIFFLAR (fig) applied for by Pågen Trademark AB is to be published and registered, or, in the alternative, order OHIM to publish and register the trade mark;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘gifflar’ for goods in Classes 29, 30 and 31 — application for registration of Community trade mark No 1 009 0331

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

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law:

               —

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

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009

      (1)  Translator’s note: The correct date of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) in Case R 46/2012-2 is 18 September 2012 as stated in the OHIM database.


title: Case C-234/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Republic of Latvia) lodged on 12 May 2014  — SIA ‘Ostas celtnieks’ v Talsu novada pašvaldība, Iepirkumu uzraudzības birojs

text:
               7.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/21

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Republic of Latvia) lodged on 12 May 2014 — SIA ‘Ostas celtnieks’ v Talsu novada pašvaldība, Iepirkumu uzraudzības birojs
   (Case C-234/14)
   2014/C 212/24
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Augstākā tiesa

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: SIA ‘Ostas celtnieks’

      Defendants: Talsu novada pašvaldība, Iepirkumu uzraudzības birojs

      Question referred

   Must the provisions of Directive 2004/18/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts be interpreted as meaning that, in order to reduce the risk of non-performance of the contract, they do not preclude the specifications from containing the condition that, in the event of the contract being awarded to a tenderer which relies on the capacities of other contractors, that tenderer must, before the contract is awarded, conclude with those undertakings a cooperation agreement (which includes the particular items set out in the specifications), or set up a partnership with them?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 April 2003 in Case C-116/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State): SITA EcoService Nederland BV, formerly Verol Recycling Limburg BV v Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelĳke Ordening en Milieubeheer (Environment — Waste — Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 — Directive 75/442/EEC — Treatment of waste in several stages — Use of waste as fuel in the cement industry and use of incineration residues as raw material in cement manufacture — Classification as a recovery operation or as a disposal operation — Concept of the use of waste principally as a fuel or other means to generate energy)

text:
24.5.2003                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                                  C 124/1
                                                                          I
                                                                    (Information)
                                                      COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                                COURT OF JUSTICE
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       2.    The heading of Article 13A of that directive does not, of itself,
                                                                                entail restrictions on the possibilities of exemption provided for
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                           by that provision.
                           of 3 April 2003                                    (1 ) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.
in Case C-144/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
       the Bundesgerichtshof): Matthias Hoffmann ( 1)
(VAT — Sixth Directive — Exemptions for certain activities
in the public interest — Body — Meaning — Services                                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
performed by a natural person — Cultural services by a
                                soloist)                                                                  (Fifth Chamber)
                           (2003/C 124/01)                                                                of 3 April 2003
                   (Language of the case: German)                             in Case C-116/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                              the Raad van State): SITA EcoService Nederland BV,
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published        formerly Verol Recycling Limburg BV v Minister van
                    in the European Court Reports)                            Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieu-
                                                                                beheer (1)
                                                                              (Environment — Waste — Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 —
In Case C-144/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234                    Directive 75/442/EEC — Treatment of waste in several
EC by the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) for a preliminary                       stages — Use of waste as fuel in the cement industry and
ruling in the criminal proceedings before that court against                  use of incineration residues as raw material in cement
Matthias Hoffmann, on the interpretation of Article 13A(1)(n)                 manufacture — Classification as a recovery operation or as
of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977                      a disposal operation — Concept of the use of waste princi-
on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating                       pally as a fuel or other means to generate energy)
to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:
uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), the Court
                                                                                (2003/C 124/02)
(Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur),
President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen, V. Skouris, F. Macken
and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate                                           (Language of the case: Dutch)
General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
has given a judgment on 3 April 2003, in which it has ruled:                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
1.    Article 13A(1)(n) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC
      of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the
      Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system                In Case C-116/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
      of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, is to be               EC by the Raad van State (Netherlands) for a preliminary ruling
      interpreted to the effect that the expression ‘other [recognised]       in the proceedings pending before that court between SITA
      cultural bodies’ does not exclude soloists performing individu-         EcoService Nederland BV, formerly Verol Recycling Limburg
      ally.                                                                   BV and Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening
 ---pagebreak--- C 124/2                  EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                               24.5.2003
en Milieubeheer, on the interpretation of Council Directive 75/               Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth
442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39), as                   Chamber) of 3 May 2001 in Case T-99/00 Samper v Parliament
amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991                      [2001] ECR-SC I-A-111 and II-507, seeking to have that
(OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32) and Commission Decision 96/350/EC                       judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings being:
of 24 May 1996 (OJ 1996 L 135, p. 32), the Court                              Ignacio Samper employee of the European Parliament, resident
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the                   in Madrid (Spain), (represented by E. Boigelot), the Court
Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur),                       (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the
P. Jann and A. Rosas, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General;                  Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. La Pergola, P. Jann and
M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has                 S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate
given a judgment on 3 April 2003, in which it has ruled:                      General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 3 April
                                                                              2003, in which it has ruled:
1.    Where a waste treatment process comprises several distinct
      stages, it must be classified as a disposal operation or a recovery
      operation within the meaning of Council Directive 75/442/               1.    Annuls the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 3 May
      EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council                           2001 in Case T-99/00 Samper v Parliament;
      Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 and by Commission
      Decision 96/350/EC of 24 May 1996, for the purpose                      2.    Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance for it to give
      of implementing Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of                         judgment on the claims by Mr Samper for annulment of
      1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of shipments                   the decision of the European Parliament of 9 June 1999
      of waste within, into and out of the European Community, as                   reconstructing his career, in so far as it sets at 1 January 1998
      amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 120/97 of 20 January                    the date for his promotion to Grade A 4 to take effect;
      1997, taking into account only the first operation that the
      waste is to undergo subsequent to shipment;
                                                                              3.    Reserves the costs.
2.    The calorific value of waste which is to be combusted is not a
      relevant criterion for the purpose of determining whether that
      operation constitutes a disposal operation as referred to in            (1 ) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.
      point D10 of Annex IIA to Directive 75/442, as amended by
      Directive 91/156 and by Decision 96/350, or a recovery
      operation as referred to in point R1 of Annex IIB thereof.
      Member States may establish distinguishing criteria for that
      purpose, provided that those criteria comply with those laid
      down in the Directive.
( 1) OJ C 161 of 2.6.2001.
                                                                              Action brought on 17 February 2003 by the Commission
                                                                              of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                                                                Spain
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Case C-70/03)
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                (2003/C 124/04)
                           of 3 April 2003
in Case C-277/01 P: European Parliament v Ignacio
                              Samper ( 1)
                                                                              An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
(Appeals — Officials — Reconstruction of career — Con-                        the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 Febru-
                 sideration of comparative merits)                            ary 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                              represented by Isabel Martínez del Peral and Miguel França, of
                           (2003/C 124/03)                                    its Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                            1.    Declare that, by failing to transpose fully into its national
                                                                                law Articles 5 and 6(2) of Directive 93/12/EEC ( 1) of
                                                                                5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, the
In Case C-277/01 P, European Parliament (Agents: H. von                             Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Hertzen and D. Moore): Appeal against the judgment of the                           the Treaty and under that directive;


title: Judgment of the Court of 21 September 1999 in Case C-106/97 (reference for a preliminary-ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven): Dutch Antillian Dairy Industry Inc., Verenigde Douane-Agenten BV v Rijksdienst voor de keuring van Vee en Vlees (Association of the overseas countries and territories - Importation of butter originating in the Dutch Antilles - Health rules relating to milk-based products - Article 131 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 182 EC), Article 132 of the EC Treaty (now Article 183 EC), Articles 136 and 227 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 187 EC and 299 EC) - Directive 92/46/EEC - Decision 94/70/EC)

text:
C 366/8                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        18.12.1999
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      2. Consideration of the requirements laid down in Chapter III of
                                                                                Directive 92/46, particularly in Article 23 thereof, in the light
                                                                                of Article 132(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 183(1) EC) and
                      of 21 September 1999                                      Articles 102 and 103 of Council Decision 91/482/EEC of
                                                                                25 July 1991 on the association of the overseas countries and
                                                                                territories with the European Economic Community, has disclosed
in Case C-106/97 (reference for a preliminary-ruling from                       no factor affecting its validity.
the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven): Dutch
Antillian Dairy Industry Inc., Verenigde Douane-Agenten
   BV v Rijksdienst voor de keuring van Vee en Vlees (1)                    3. Article 23 of Directive 92/46 must be interpreted as applying
                                                                                to imports from the overseas countries and territories, even where
                                                                                the arrangements provided for by that Directive for trade between
(Association of the overseas countries and territories —                        Member States have not already been implemented and the lists
Importation of butter originating in the Dutch Antilles —                       of approved exporting countries and establishments have not
Health rules relating to milk-based products — Article 131                      been drawn up in accordance with the method laid down in that
of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 182 EC),                        provision; given that such lists have not been validly established
Article 132 of the EC Treaty (now Article 183 EC),                              in accordance with the method laid down in that provision,
Articles 136 and 227 of the EC Treaty (now, after amend-                        Commission Decision 94/70/EC of 31 January 1994 drawing
ment, Articles 187 EC and 299 EC) — Directive 92/46/EEC                         up a provisional list of third countries from which Member States
                      — Decision 94/70/EC)                                      authorise imports of raw milk, heat treated milk and milk based
                                                                                products is invalid.
                          (1999/C 366/12)
                                                                            (1) OJ No C 142 of 10.5.1997.
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
In Case C-106/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the College van
Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven, Netherlands, for a preliminary                                      of 21 September 1999
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Dutch Antillian Dairy Industry Inc., Verenigde Douane-
Agenten BV and Rijksdienst voor de keuring van Vee en Vlees,                in Case C-219/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
with Nederlandse Antillen — on the interpretation and validity              the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Maatschappij Drijvende
of Chapter III of Council Directive 92/46/EEC of 16 June 1992               Bokken BV v Stichting Pensioenfonds voor de Vervoer-
laying down the health rules for the production and placing                                        en Havenbedrijven (1)
on the market of raw milk, heat-treated milk and milk-based
products (OJ 1992 L 268, p. 1), in particular Article 23 thereof,           (Compulsory affiliation to a sectoral pension scheme —
and on the validity of Commission Decision 94/70/EC of                      Compatibility with competition rules — Classification of a
31 January 1994 drawing up a provisional list of third                                  sectoral pension fund as an undertaking)
countries from which Member States authorise imports of raw
milk, heat treated milk and milk-based products (OJ 1994
L 36, p. 5) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias,                                        (1999/C 366/13)
President, P.J.G. Kapteyn, President of Chamber, J.C. Moitinho
de Almeida, C. Gulmann, J.L. Murray, D.A.O. Edward, H. Rag-
nemalm, L. Sevón (Rapporteur) and M. Wathelet, Judges; A. La                                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
Pergola, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 21 Sep-
tember 1999, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
1. The provisions of Chapter III of Council Directive 92/46/EEC of
    16 June 1992 laying down the health rules for the production
    and placing on the market of raw milk, heat-treated milk and            In Case C-219/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
    milk-based products, which require that imports of milk-based           the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Hoge Raad der
    products from third countries comply with certain health rules,         Nederlanden, Netherlands, for a preliminary ruling in the
    must be interpreted as applying to the placing on the Community         proceedings pending before that court between Maatschappij
    market of such products, where these are exported from the              Drijvende Bokken BV and Stichting Pensioenfonds voor de
    overseas countries and territories, such as the Dutch Antilles.         Vervoer- en Havenbedrijven — on the interpretation of


title: Case C-426/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte (Italy) lodged on 18 September 2014 — Heart Life Croce Amica Srl v Regione Piemonte

text:
               1.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 431/15

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte (Italy) lodged on 18 September 2014 — Heart Life Croce Amica Srl v Regione Piemonte
   (Case C-426/14)
   (2014/C 431/21)
   Language of the case: Italy

      Referring court

   Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Heart Life Croce Amica Srl

      Defendant: Regione Piemonte

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does European Union public procurement law — in the case under examination, concerning excluded contracts and the general principles of free competition, equal treatment, transparency and proportionality — preclude national legislation under which contracts for the provision of ambulance and health-related transport services may be awarded directly to voluntary organisations organised predominantly on the basis of unpaid work and in return for genuine reimbursement of costs?

               2.

               If such an award is regarded as compatible with Community law, can ‘the genuine reimbursement of costs’ also cover the ‘indirect and general’ costs relating to the activities carried out on a regular basis by the voluntary organisation, such as the special maintenance of the vehicles used to provide the service, meals for personnel, remuneration for the administrative staff and the services coordinator, and the necessary telephonic and radio links between the ambulance despatch centre and the voluntary organisation’s communications points?


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 June 2003 in Case C-438/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation): Design Concept SA v Flanders Expo SA (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 9(2)(e) — Place of taxable transactions — Fiscal connection — Advertising services)

text:
2.8.2003                 EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                C 184/13
2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
(1) OJ C 31 of 2.2.2002.
                                                                                of 12 June 2003
                                                                              in Case C-425/01: Commission of the European Commu-
                                                                                nities v Portuguese Republic (1)
                                                                              (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Incom-
                                                                              plete transposition of Directive 89/391/EEC — Safety and
                                                                                health of workers)
                                                                                (2003/C 184/24)
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                            (Fifth Chamber)                                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
                                                                                the European Court Reports)
                           of 26 June 2003
                                                                              In Case C-425/01, Commission of the European Communities
                                                                              (Agents: H. Kreppel and M. França) v Portuguese Republic
in Case C-422/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                     (Agents: L. Fernandes and F. Ribeiro Lopes): Application for a
the Regeringsrätten): Försäkringsaktiebolaget Skandia                         declaration that the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its
          (publ), Ola Ramstedt v Riksskatteverket (1)                         obligations under Articles 4 and 10 to 12 of Council Directive
                                                                              89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures
                                                                              to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers
(Occupational endowment pension insurance — Policy taken                      at work (OJ 1989 L 183, p. 1), the Court (Fifth Chamber),
out with a company in another Member State — Difference                       composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, C.W.
    in tax treatment — Compatibility with Article 49 EC)                      A. Timmermans, P. Jann, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur) and
                                                                              A. Rosas, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass,
                                                                              Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 June 2003, in which it:
                            (2003/C 184/23)
                                                                              1.    Dismisses the action;
                     (Language of the case: Swedish)                          2.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay
                                                                                the costs.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
                                                                              (1) OJ C 348 of 8.12.2001.
                       the European Court Reports)
In Case C-422/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Regeringsrätten (Sweden) for a preliminary ruling in                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
the proceedings pending before that court between Försäk-
ringsaktiebolaget Skandia (publ), Ola Ramstedt and Riksskatte-                                           (Fifth Chamber)
verket, on the interpretation of the EC Treaty and Article 49
EC in particular, the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:                                                of 5 June 2003
M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber,
C.W.A. Timmermans, A. La Pergola, P. Jann and A. Rosas,                       in Case C-438/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has                  the Cour de cassation): Design Concept SA v Flanders
given a judgment on 26 June 2003, in which it has ruled:                                                    Expo SA (1)
                                                                              (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 9(2)(e) — Place of taxable
Article 49 EC precludes an insurance policy issued by an insurance               transactions — Fiscal connection — Advertising services)
company established in another Member State which meets the
conditions laid down in national law for occupational pension insur-                                     (2003/C 184/25)
ance, apart from the condition that the policy must be issued by an
insurance company operating in the national territory, from being                                  (Language of the case: French)
treated differently in terms of taxation, with income tax effects which,
depending on the circumstances in the individual case, may be less            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
favourable.                                                                                the European Court Reports)
(1) OJ C 84 of 6.4.2002.                                                      In Case C-438/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
                                                                              EC by the Cour de cassation (Luxembourg) for a preliminary
                                                                              ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
 ---pagebreak--- C 184/14                EN                            Official Journal of the European Union                                                 2.8.2003
Design Concept SA and Flanders Expo SA, on the interpretation                 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member
of Article 9(2)(e) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of                   States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value
17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member                    added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1),
States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value                    the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, Presi-
added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1),                 dent of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, F. Macken, N. Colneric and
the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President                J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo
of the Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans, D.A.O. Edward, A. La                       Colomer, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator,
Pergola and S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs,                    for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 26 June 2003, in
Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the              which it has ruled:
Registrar, has given a judgment on 5 June 2003, in which it has
ruled:
                                                                              A partnership which admits a partner in consideration of payment of a
                                                                              contribution in cash does not effect towards that person a supply of
Article 9(2)(e) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May               services for consideration within the meaning of Article 2(1) of Sixth
1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating           Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisa-
to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform                 tion of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —
basis of assessment must be interpreted as applying to advertising            Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment.
services supplied indirectly to the advertiser and invoiced to an inter-
mediate customer who in turn invoices them to the advertiser. The fact
that the advertiser does not produce goods or services in the price of        (1) OJ C 56 of 2.3.2002.
which the cost of the advertising services may be included is not
relevant for the purpose of determining the place where the services are
supplied to the intermediate customer.
(1) OJ C 84 of 6.04.2002.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                                  of 12 June 2003
                           (Sixth Chamber)                                    in Case C-446/01: Commission of the European Commu-
                                                                                nities v Kingdom of Spain (1)
                           of 26 June 2003
                                                                              (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
                                                                                75/442/EEC — Environment — Waste management)
in Case C-442/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Bundesfinanzhof): KapHag Renditefonds 35 Spree-
center Berlin-Hellersdorf 3. Tranche GbR v Finanzamt                                                      (2003/C 184/27)
                           Charlottenburg (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
(Sixth VAT Directive — Scope — Supply of services for
consideration — Admission of a member to a partnership
    in consideration of payment of a contribution in cash)                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
                                                                                the European Court Reports)
                            (2003/C 184/26)
                    (Language of the case: German)                            In Case C-446/01, Commission of the European Communities
                                                                              (Agent: G. Valero Jordana) v Kingdom of Spain (Agent:
                                                                              L. Fraguas Gadea): Application for a declaration that, by failing
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in     to adopt the measures necessary to ensure, as regards certain
                      the European Court Reports)                             waste-disposal sites, the implementation of Articles 4, 9 and,
                                                                              where relevant, 13 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July
                                                                              1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39), as amended by Council
                                                                              Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32),
In Case C-442/01: Reference to the Court under                                the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Article 234 EC by the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) for a                         that directive, the Court (Third Chamber), composed of:
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                     J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann and
court between KapHag Renditefonds 35 Spreecenter Berlin-                      J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed,
Hellersdorf 3. Tranche GbR and Finanzamt Charlottenburg, on                   Advocate General, R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
the interpretation of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of                   on 12 June 2003, in which it:


               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/2

         Decisions adopted by the Court of Justice at its general meeting on 15 January 2008
   (2008/C 51/03)
   At its meeting on 15 January 2008, the Court of Justice of the European Communities decided to assign Mr Kasel to the First and Fifth Chambers.
   Accordingly, the composition of the First and Fifth Chambers is as set out below:
   First Chamber
   Mr Jann, President of Chamber
   Mr Tizzano, Mr Borg Barthet, Mr Ilešič, Mr Levits and Mr Kasel.
   Fifth Chamber
   Mr Tizzano, President of Chamber
   Mr Borg Barthet, Mr Ilešič, Mr Levits and Mr Kasel.


C 289/20              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 13.10.2001
       Removal from the register of Case C-132/00 (1)               ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria)): Kraft Jacobs
                                                                    Suchard Österreich GmbH v Eduard Mitsche and Others.
                       (2001/C 289/44)
                                                                    (1) OJ C 302 of 21.10.2000.
By order of 10 July 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-132/00: Commission of the European
Communities v Hellenic Republic.
(1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case C-382/00 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 289/48)
                                                                    By order of 27 July 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                    of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
       Removal from the register of Case C-191/00 (1)               the register of Case C-382/00: (reference for a preliminary
                                                                    ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 1 de Pontevedra):
                                                                    Gardenia Abal Pombo v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad
                       (2001/C 289/45)                              Social and Tesoreria General de la Seguridad Social.
By order of 8 June 2001 the President of the Court of Justice       (1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-191/00: Commission of the European
Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 211 of 22.7.2000.
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case C-397/00 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 289/49)
                                                                    By order of 11 July 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
       Removal from the register of Case C-306/00 (1)               of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                    the register of Case C-397/00: Commission of the European
                       (2001/C 289/46)                              Communities v Hellenic Republic.
By order of 30 May 2001 the President of the Court of Justice       (1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-306/00: Commission of the European
Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands.
(1) OJ C 285 of 7.10.2000.
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case C-401/00 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 289/50)
                                                                    By order of 13 June 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
       Removal from the register of Case C-314/00 (1)               of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                    the register of Case C-401/00: Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
                       (2001/C 289/47)
By order of 12 June 2001 the President of the Court of Justice      (1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-314/00: (reference for a preliminary


title: Case T-382/09: Action brought on 30 September 2009 — ERGO Versicherungsgruppe v OHIM — DeguDent (ERGO)

text:
               5.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/23

         Action brought on 30 September 2009 — ERGO Versicherungsgruppe v OHIM — DeguDent (ERGO)
   (Case T-382/09)
   2009/C 297/34
   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: DeguDent GmbH (Hanau on Main, Germany)

      Forms of order sought

               —

               Annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 23 July 2009 in Case R 44/2008-4;

               —

               Order the defendant or, in the case of an intervention by the other party to the proceedings before the defendant, the intervener to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: ERGO Versicherungsgruppe AG

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ERGO’ for goods and services in Classes 1 to 45 (Application No 3 292 638)

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: DeguDent GmbH

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The German word mark No 39 832 880 and the Community trade mark No 1 064 674‘CERGO’ for goods in Class 10, the opposition being brought only against the registration for goods in Classes 5 and 10

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of the first sentence of Article 42(5) in conjunction with the first sentence of Article 64(1) and Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1), since the Board of Appeal did not fully decide on the appeal;
   Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, since 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 T-181/10: Action brought on 23 April 2010 — Reagens v Commission

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/42

         Action brought on 23 April 2010 — Reagens v Commission
   (Case T-181/10)
   2010/C 179/74
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Reagens SpA (San Giorgio di Piano, Italy) (represented by: B. O'Connor, Solicitor and L. Toffoletti, D. Gullo and E. De Giorgi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Decision of 23 February 2010 rendered in the framework of the confirmatory application for access to documents GESTDEM 2009/5145 (SG.E.3/HP/cr-Ares (2010)95823);

               —

               Require the Commission to make the documents listed on page 3 of the contested decision publicly available (in their non confidential form); and

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By means of its application, the applicant seeks, pursuant to Article 263 TFUE, the annulment of Commission Decision of 23 February 2010 rendered in the framework of the confirmatory application for access to documents GESTDEM 2009/5145 (SG.E.3/HP/cr-Ares (2010)95823), relating to a proceeding under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1). The decision concerned the request for access to documents relating to applications for inability to pay a fine imposed on the applicant for an infringement of Articles 81 EC and 53 EEA (Case COMP/38589 — Heat Stabilisers).
   In support of its submissions, the applicant puts forward the following pleas in law:

               The Commission made a manifest error in law applying in an extensive manner the exceptions under Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001.

               In addition, the Commission made a manifest error in law rejecting the request of access to documents on the basis of a defence of the commercial interests of the undertakings and to protect the purpose of the investigation.

               Furthermore, the Commission breached the right of the applicant to have access to the non confidential versions of the documents under Regulation No 1049/2001, by the denial of granting partial access.

               Finally, the Commission breached the principles of sound administration, legitimate expectations, as well as the principle that the administration should be lawful, by denying access to the information needed in order to establish how the Commission applies paragraph 35 of the Guidelines on the method of setting fines (2).

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, OJ L 145, p. 43.

      (2)  Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003, OJ C 210, p. 2.


title: Case T-313/14: Order of the General Court of 12 December 2014  — Christian Dior Couture v OHIM (Representation of a pattern of squares with a honeycomb effect) (Community trade mark — Registration refused in part — Application for registration withdrawn in part — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               16.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/21

         Order of the General Court of 12 December 2014 — Christian Dior Couture v OHIM (Representation of a pattern of squares with a honeycomb effect)
   (Case T-313/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Registration refused in part - Application for registration withdrawn in part - No need to adjudicate))
   (2015/C 056/29)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Christian Dior Couture SA (Paris, France) (represented by: M. Sabatier, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Pétrequin and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 March 2014 (Case R 459/2013-4), in relation to an application for international registration designating the European Union.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.


title: Case T-426/08: Action brought on 22 September 2008 — Italy v Commission

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/56

         Action brought on 22 September 2008 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-426/08)
   (2008/C 301/94)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul decision 8/VII/2008 No C(2008) 3411 final, notified on 11 July 2008, excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) in so far as it makes certain financial corrections to be borne by Italy.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the contested decision the Commission excluded from Community financing chargeable to the EAGGF four categories of expenditure incurred by the Italian State from 2001 to 2006. They were corrections relating to certain export refunds of fruit and vegetables and sugar, aid for citrus processing in respect of the financial years 2004 and 2005, the amount of the additional levy to be applied to milk products which in production and marketing exceed the milk quotas allocated to them in relation to the 2002-2003 marketing campaign and area/arable crops aid in respect of 2004, 2005 and 2006.
   In support of its claims the applicant submits that the controls carried out were correct and fair.
   In this case the applicant relies on infringement of the duty to state reasons, the principle of proportionality, Articles 11, 12 and 14 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1392/2001 of 9 July 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 establishing an additional levy on milk and milk products (1), Article 7(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy, Article 31 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (2), Article 31 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (3), Articles 22 and 30 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 of 11 December 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes established by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 (4), and Articles 50, 51 and 30 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system provided for in of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers (5).

      (1)  OJ L 187 of 10.7.2001, p. 19.

      (2)  OJ L 160 of 26.6.1999, p. 103.

      (3)  OJ L 209 of 11.8.2005, p. 1.

      (4)  OJ L 327 of 12.12.2001, p. 11.

      (5)  OJ L 141 of 30.4.2004, p. 18.


title: Case C-179/06: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 4 October 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Environmental impact assessment)

text:
               8.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/11

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 4 October 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-179/06) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 92/43/EEC - Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora - Environmental impact assessment)
   (2007/C 297/15)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Recchia, Agent)

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: I. Braguglia and G. Fiengo, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 6(3) and 7 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7) — Failure to carry out an assessment of the impact of a series of industrial construction operations on special protection area IT 9120007 Murgia Alta.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 143, 17.6.2006.


title: Case C-361/09 P: Appeal brought on 10 September 2009 by Mr Hans Molter against the order of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 12 August 2009 in Case T-141/09 Hans Molter v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/15

         Appeal brought on 10 September 2009 by Mr Hans Molter against the order of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 12 August 2009 in Case T-141/09 Hans Molter v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
   (Case C-361/09 P)
   2010/C 113/21
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Hans Molter (represented by: T. Damerau, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: Bundesrepublik Deutschland
   The Court of Justice of the European Union (Fifth Chamber) dismissed the appeal by order of 5 February 2010 and ordered the appellant to bear his own costs.


title: Case C-81/08 P: Appeal brought on 25 February 2008 by Miguel Cabrera Sánchez against the judgment delivered on 13 December 2007 in Case T-242/06 Miguel Cabrera Sánchez v OHIM and Industrias Cárnicas Valle, S.A.

text:
               24.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 128/20

         Appeal brought on 25 February 2008 by Miguel Cabrera Sánchez against the judgment delivered on 13 December 2007 in Case T-242/06 Miguel Cabrera Sánchez v OHIM and Industrias Cárnicas Valle, S.A.

   (Case C-81/08 P)
   (2008/C 128/34)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Appellant: Miguel Cabrera Sánchez (represented by: J.A. Calderón Chavero and T. Villate Consonni, abogados)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Industrias Cárnicas Valle, S.A.
   Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) delivered on 13 December 2007 in case T-242/06 seeking annulment of the decision in question since the appellant claims that the marks EL CHARCUTERO (appellant) and EL CHARCUTERO ARTESANO (respondent) are clearly incompatible;

               —

               Make an order for costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appellant claims, contrary to the judgment under appeal, that the Community trade mark ‘El chacutero Artesano’ falls under the prohibition in Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 40/94 (1) since, upon opposition by the proprietor of an earlier trade mark, in this case, the Spanish mark ‘El Charcutero’, the trade mark applied for is not to be registered if, because of its identity with or similarity to the earlier trade mark and the identity or similarity of the goods or services covered by the trade marks, there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public in the territory in which the earlier trade mark is protected, in this case, Spain. The likelihood of confusion includes the likelihood of association with the earlier trade mark.

      (1)  Council Regulation of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1993 L 11, p. 1).


title: Case C-357/15: Action brought on 10 July 2015 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia

text:
               22.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 68/20

         Action brought on 10 July 2015 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia
   (Case C-357/15)
   (2016/C 068/26)
   Language of the case: Slovene

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Sanfrutos Cano, M. Heller, D. Kukovec, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Slovenia

      Form of order sought

   By order of 29 October 2015, the President of the Court decided:

               —

               Case C–357/15 is removed from the Register of the Court.

               —

               The Republic of Slovenia is ordered to pay the costs.


title: Case T-127/13: Judgment of the General Court of 11 September 2014  — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Baumarkt Praktiker Deutschland (PRO OUTDOOR) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark PRO OUTDOOR — Earlier Community figurative mark OUTDOOR garden barbecue camping — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Subject-matter of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal — Articles 60 and 64(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               27.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 380/9

         Judgment of the General Court of 11 September 2014 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Baumarkt Praktiker Deutschland (PRO OUTDOOR)
   (Case T-127/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark PRO OUTDOOR - Earlier Community figurative mark OUTDOOR garden barbecue camping - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Subject-matter of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal - Articles 60 and 64(1) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   2014/C 380/11
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Seijo Veiguela and J.L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Baumarkt Praktiker Deutschland GmbH (Hamburg, Germany)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 December 2012 (Case R 1900/2011-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Baumarkt Praktiker Deutschland GmbH and El Corte Inglés, SA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 11 December 2012 (Case R 1900/2011-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Baumarkt Praktiker Deutschland GmbH and El Corte Inglés, SA, in so far as the Board of Appeal did not rule on the claims of El Corte Inglés, SA regarding the likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue in relation to the goods at issue other than ‘data processing equipment and computers’ in Class 9;

               2.

               dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               orders OHIM and El Corte Inglés, SA to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 129, 4.5.2013.


title: Case T-217/13: Action brought on 15 April 2013 — Saf-Holland v OHIM (INTEGRAL)

text:
               29.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 189/25

         Action brought on 15 April 2013 — Saf-Holland v OHIM (INTEGRAL)
   (Case T-217/13)
   2013/C 189/53
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Saf-Holland GmbH (Bessenbach, Germany) (represented by M.-C. Seiler, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 31 January 2013 in Case R 2087/2011-1;

               —

               Amend the contested decision in such a way that the preceding refusal decision of OHIM of 14 September 2011 is annulled;

               —

               In the alternative, amend the contested decision in such a way that the registration procedure is continued;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs including those incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark INTEGRAL for goods and services in Classes 9, 12, 35 and 37 — Community trade mark application No 9 508 466

      Decision of the Examiner: the application was rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

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


title: Case T-304/10: Action brought on 14 July 2010 — dm drogeriemarkt GmbH & Co. KG v OHIM — S.E.M.T.E.E. (caldea)

text:
               25.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/20

         Action brought on 14 July 2010 — dm drogeriemarkt GmbH & Co. KG v OHIM — S.E.M.T.E.E. (caldea)
   (Case T-304/10)
   ()
   2010/C 260/27
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: dm drogeriemarkt GmbH & Co. KG (Karlsruhe, Germany) (represented by: O. Bludovsky and P. Hiller, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: S.E.M.T.E.E. (Escaldes Engornay, Andorra)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office For Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 April 2010 in case R 899/2009-1 and, by the way of correction, delete the applicant’s trademark;

               —

               Alternatively, annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office For Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 April 2010 in case R 899/2009-1 and remit the case to the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs);

               —

               Alternatively, annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office For Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 April 2010 in case R 899/2009-1.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark in orange, blue and white ‘caldea’, for goods and services in classes 3, 35, 37, 42, 44 and 45 — Community trade mark application No 5691845

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

      Mark or sign cited: International trade mark registration No 894004 of the word mark ‘BALEA’, for goods and services in classes 3, 5 and 8

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly assessed that there was not a likelihood of confusion between the concerned trade marks.


title: Case C-449/15: Order of the President of the Court of 13 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Regione autonoma della Sardegna v Comune di Portoscuso, interveners: Saromar Gestioni Srl, Giulio Pistis

text:
               19.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 475/15

         Order of the President of the Court of 13 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Regione autonoma della Sardegna v Comune di Portoscuso, interveners: Saromar Gestioni Srl, Giulio Pistis
   (Case C-449/15) (1)

   (2016/C 475/24)
   Language of the case: Italian
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 381, 16.11.2015.


title: Case T-312/03: Action brought on 12 September 2003 by Wassen International Limited against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

text:
1.11.2003              EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 264/39
Action brought on 12 September 2003 by Wassen Inter-                    Proprietor of mark or         Stroschein Gesundkost GmbH
national Limited against the Office for Harmonisation in                sign cited in the oppo-
                      the Internal Market                               sition proceedings:
                                                                        Mark or sign cited in         The national figurative mark Sel-
                         (Case T-312/03)                                opposition:                   enium Spezial A-C-E and device
                                                                                for goods in class 5 and 30 (Non-
                                                                                medical and non-pharmaceutical
                         (2003/C 264/68)                                                              preparations on the basis of
                                                                                starch, calcium salts, magnesium
                                                                                stearate and yeast as nutritional
(Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)                                     additives)
of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was
                        submitted: English)                             Decision of the Oppo-         Rejection of the Community trade
                                                                        sition Division:              mark application and upholding
                                                                                of the opposition
                                                                        Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of the appeal lodged by
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal          Appeal:                       the applicant for the community
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                                          trade mark, Wassen International
European Communities on 12 September 2003 by Wassen
                                                                                Limited
International Limited, Leatherhead (United Kingdom), rep-
resented by M. Edenborough, Barrister. Stroschein Gesundkost
GmbH was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of            Pleas in law:                 The applicant invokes an infringe-
Appeal.                                                                                ment of regulation No 40/94 (1)
                                                                                in that the contested decision
                                                                                determined that there existed a
                                                                                likelihood of confusion between
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                           the marks.
—     allow the appeal by the applicant to the Court of First
      Instance;                                                         (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
                                                                            Community trade mark (OJ L 11, p. 1).
—     remit the Community trade mark application
      No 1083567 to the Office so as to allow it to proceed to
      registration;
—     annul the decision of the Opposition Division No 2920/
      2001;
—     annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal No                      Removal from the register of Case T-250/99 (1)
      R 0121/2002-4;
                                                                                (2003/C 264/69)
—     order the opponent to pay to the applicant the costs
      incurred by the applicant in connection with this appeal
      and the appeal before the Board of Appeal and the                                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
      opposition before the Opposition Division.
                                                                        By order of 2 September 2003 the President of the Second
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                        Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                        T-250/99: Shell Nederland Verkoopmaatschappij B.V. v Com-
Applicant for the Com-        Wassen International Limited              mission of the European Communities.
munity trade mark:
The Community trade           The word mark ‘SELENIUM-ACE’              (1) OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.
mark sought:                  for goods in class 3 and 5 (cos-
                              metics, soaps, lotions, nutritional
                              supplements, vitamins, ...)


title: Case C-569/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 22 December 2008 — Internetportal und Marketing GmbH v Richard Schlicht

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/22

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 22 December 2008 — Internetportal und Marketing GmbH v Richard Schlicht
   (Case C-569/08)
   (2009/C 69/40)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Oberster Gerichtshof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Internetportal und Marketing GmbH

      Defendant: Richard Schlicht
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 21(1)(a) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 874/2004 of 28 April 2004 laying down public policy rules concerning the implementation and functions of the .eu Top Level Domain and the principles governing registration (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a right within the meaning of that provision exists,

                           (a)

                           if, without any intention to use it for goods or services, a trade mark is acquired only for the purpose of being able to register in the first phase of phased registration a domain corresponding to a German-language generic term?

                           (b)

                           if the trade mark underlying the domain registration and coinciding with a German-language generic term deviates from the domain in so far as the trade mark contains special characters which were eliminated from the domain name although the special characters were capable of being rewritten and their elimination has the effect that the domain differs from the trade mark in a way which excludes any likelihood of confusion?

               2.

               Is Article 21(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 874/2004 to be interpreted as meaning that a legitimate interest exists only in the cases mentioned in Article 21(2)(a) to (c)?

         If that question is answered in the negative:

               3.

               Does a legitimate interest within the meaning of Article 21(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 874/2004 exist if the domain holder intends to use the domain — coinciding with a German-language generic term — for a thematic internet portal?

         If questions (1) and (3) are answered in the affirmative:

               4.

               Is Article 21(3) of Regulation (EC) No 874/2004 to be interpreted as meaning that only the circumstances mentioned in subparagraphs (a) to (e) are capable of establishing bad faith within the meaning of Article 21(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 874/2004?

         If that question is answered in the negative:

               5.

               Does bad faith within the meaning of Article 21(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 874/2004 exist if a domain was registered in the first phase of phased registration on the basis of a trade mark, coinciding with a German-language generic term, which the domain holder acquired only for the purpose of being able to register the domain in the first phase of phased registration and thereby to pre-empt other interested parties, including the holders of rights to the mark?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 162, p. 40.


title: Case T-803/16: Action brought on 15 November 2016 — Glaxo Group v EUIPO — Celon Pharma (SALMEX)

text:
               23.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/46

         Action brought on 15 November 2016 — Glaxo Group v EUIPO — Celon Pharma (SALMEX)
   (Case T-803/16)
   (2017/C 022/62)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Glaxo Group Ltd (Brentford, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Baran, S. Wickenden, Barristers, R. Jacob, E. Morris, Solicitors,)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Celon Pharma S.A. (Łomianki, Poland)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark in colours light brown/coffee and white containing the word element ‘SALMEX’ — EU trade mark No 9 849 191

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 August 2016 in Case R 2108/2015-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO and Other Party to bear their own costs and pay those costs of the Applicant for Annulment at every stage of the opposition and appeal process, including the costs of these proceedings.

      Plea in law

               —

               The Board of Appeal erred in law in reaching a decision contrary to Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 in that, first, it incorrectly held that the Cancellation Applicant’s genuine use of the French mark was not an acceptable form of use under Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 and, second, it incorrectly held that Cancellation Applicant’s genuine use of the French mark was not use of the French mark in relation to the goods ‘inhalers’.