title: Case T-477/17: Action brought on 31 July 2017 — Haswani v Council

text:
               16.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/34

         Action brought on 31 July 2017 — Haswani v Council
   (Case T-477/17)
   (2017/C 347/43)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: George Haswani (Yabroud, Syria) (represented by: G. Karouni, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria;

               —

               Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/840 of 27 May 2016 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria;

               —

               Annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/917 of 29 May 2017 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria;

               —

               Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/907 of 29 May 2017 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria;

               —

               Annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2017/1245 of 10 July 2017 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria;

               —

               Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1241 of 10 July 2017 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria;

               —

               Consequently,

                           —

                           Order the removal of Mr George Haswani’s name from the annexes to the abovementioned acts;

                           —

                           Order the Council to pay the sum of EUR 10 000 in respect of the applicant’s non-pecuniary harm;

                           —

                           Order the Council to bear its own costs and to those incurred by the applicant, of which supporting evidence can be shown during the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons flowing from paragraph 2 of Article 296 TFEU. The applicant complains that the Council of the European Union merely set out vague and general considerations and failed to state specific and concrete reasons for its view, in the exercise of its discretionary assessment, that the applicant must be subjected to the restrictive measures at issue. Thus no specific and objective factor has been raised against the applicant which could justify the measures at issue.

               2.

               Second plea in law, based on the requirement for proportionality in the infringement of fundamental rights. The applicant is of the view that the disputed measures ought to be invalidated since they are disproportionate in the light of the objective stated and they constitute excessive interference in the freedom to conduct business and the right to property, enshrined in Articles 16 and 17 respectively of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The disproportion lies in the fact that the measures cover all influential economic activity without any other criterion.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and a lack of proof, in that the Council took as the basis for its successive reasoning in support of the restrictive measures elements which clearly lack any basis in fact, the facts relied on being without any serious foundation.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, concerning the claim for compensation, in that the imputation of certain serious unproven allegations places the applicant and his family in danger, which illustrates the extent of the loss suffered justifying his claim for compensation.


title: Case T-241/01: Action brought on 2 October 2001 by Scandinavia Airlines System AB against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 369/14                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       22.12.2001
Decision of the Board of       Dismissal of the Appeal intro-             —     It submits that the Commission has assessed the gravity
Appeal:                        duced by Alcon Universal Ltd.                    of the infringement, as it is required to do so under
                                                                                Article 12(2) of Council Regulation No 3975/87 (1),
Grounds of claim:              Failure by the Board of Appeal to                incorrectly and that the categorisation of the infringement
                               recognise the actions undertaken                 under the Commission Guidelines on Fines (2) as ‘very
                               by Alcon Universal Ltd. to restrain              serious’ rather than ‘serious’ is therefore incorrect.
                               the use of the trade mark by other               Although the nature of the infringement as ‘market
                               parties.                                         sharing’ is not disputed the Commission’s assessment of
                                                                                the actual impact and the geographic scope of that impact
                                                                                are contested. The Commission’s calculation and use of
                                                                                the term ‘affected turnover’ is also disputed.
                                                                          —     It argues that the Commission has not proved that the
                                                                                infringement covered the period from 5 September 1989
                                                                                until 15 February 2001.
Action brought on 2 October 2001 by Scandinavia
Airlines System AB against the Commission of the Euro-
                        pean Communities                                  —     In relation to co-operation and leniency, it maintains that
                                                                                a number of factors that should have been taken into
                                                                                consideration by the Commission have either not been
                         (Case T-241/01)                                        considered in the Decision or, if they have been con-
                                                                                sidered, the Commission’s assessment is incorrect.
                         (2001/C 369/23)
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                          (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3975/87 of 14 December 1987
                                                                              laying downthe procedure for the application of the rules on
                                                                              competition to undertaking in the air transport sector (OJ L 374,
                                                                              p. 1).
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          (2) Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                    Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 and Article 65(5) of the ECSC
European Communities on 2 October 2001 by Scandinavian                        Treaty (OJ C9 1998, p. 3).
Airlines System AB, represented by Mr Morten Kofmann of
Kromann Reumert, Copenhagen (Denmark).
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—      judicially review the calculation of the fine imposed on
       the applicant by the Commission.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          Action brought on 15 October 2001 by Pierre Eveillard
                                                                               against Commission of the European Communities
The subject of the application is the Commission Decision
C(2001) 1987 final of 18 July 2001, relating to proceedings
pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty ant Article 53 of the                                      (Case T-258/01)
Agreement on the European Economic Area (case COMP.D.2.
37.444 — SAS/Maersk Air and case COMP.D.2 37.386 —
Sun-Air vs. SAS and Maersk Air). In this Decision the                                              (2001/C 369/24)
Commission states that the applicant and Maesk Air A/S have
infringed the competition rules by agreeing to share markets
between them by Maersk Air withdrawing from the Copenha-                                      (Language of the case: French)
gen-Stockholm route and the applicant withdrawing from
the Copenhangen-Venice and Billund-Frankfurt routes, thus
leaving operation exclusively to the other party.
The applicant does not object to the Commission’s finding                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
that it has infringed the competition rules. It merely exercises          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
its right to subject the Commission’s calculation of the fine to          European Communities on 15 October 2001 by Pierre Eveil-
judicial review.                                                          lard, residing in Brussels, represented by Lucas Vogel, lawyer.


title: Case F-31/08: Action brought on 25 February 2008 — Tomas v Parliament

text:
               21.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 158/26

         Action brought on 25 February 2008 — Tomas v Parliament
   (Case F-31/08)
   (2008/C 158/46)
   Language of the case: Lithuanian
   Parties

      Applicant: Stanislovas Tomas (Pavlodar, Kazakhstan) (represented by: M. Michalauskas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament
   The subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Annulment of the decision of the Appointing Authority to dismiss the applicant and compensation for the material and non-material harm suffered.
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the Appointing Authority's decision to dismiss the applicant;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 125 000 by way of compensation for the material and non-material harm suffered;

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay the costs.


title: Case C-225/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven by order of that court of 17 May 2005 in B.J. van Middendorp v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

text:
               6.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/15

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven by order of that court of 17 May 2005 in B.J. van Middendorp v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit
   (Case C-225/05)
   (2005/C 193/24)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court for Trade and Industry) (Netherlands) of 17 May 2005, received at the Court Registry on 20 May 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between B.J. van Middendorp and Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit (Minister for Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality) on the following questions:

               1.

               Does Community law require the courts of their own motion to conduct an examination, that is to say an examination of grounds which are outside the terms of the dispute but are based on Directive 85/511/EEC? (1)

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is affirmative, does the obligation on Member States under the first indent of Article 11(1) of Directive 85/511/EEC, read in conjunction with the second indent of Article 13(1) thereof, to ensure that laboratory testing to detect the presence of FMD is carried out by a laboratory listed in Annex B to Directive 85/511/EEC have direct effect?

               3.

                           (a)

                           Must Article 11(1) of Directive 85/511/EEC be interpreted as meaning that legal consequences must be attached to the fact that the presence of FMD is found by a laboratory which is not listed in Annex B to Directive 85/511/EEC?

                           (b)

                           If the answer to Question 3(a) is in the affirmative:
                           Is the purpose of Article 11(1) of Directive 85/511/EEC to protect the interests of individuals, such as the appellants in the main proceedings? If not, can individuals, such as the appellants in the main proceedings, plead possible failure to fulfil the obligations which this provision places on the authorities of the Member States?

                           (c)

                           If the answer to Question 3(b) means that individuals can rely on Article 11(1) of Directive 85/511/EEC:
                           What legal consequences must be attached to a finding of the presence of FMD by a laboratory which is not listed in Annex B to Directive 85/511/EEC?

               4.

               Must Annex B to Directive 85/511/EEC be interpreted, having regard to Articles 11 and 13 thereof, as meaning that the mention in Annex B to Directive 85/511/EEC of ‘Centraal Diergeneeskundig Instituut, Lelystad’ can or must refer also to ID-Lelystad B.V.?

               5.

               If it follows from the above answers that the presence of FMD can be found by a laboratory which is not listed in Annex B to Directive 85/511/EEC or that Annex B to Directive 85/511/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that the mention of the ‘Centraal Diergeneeskundig Instituut, Lelystad’ can or must refer also to ID-Lelystad B.V.:
               Must Directive 85/511/EEC be interpreted as providing that the national administrative authority authorised to adopt decisions is bound by the outcome of an examination by a laboratory which is listed in Annex B to Directive 85/551/EEC or — if the answer to Question 2a means that the administrative authority may base its FMD control measures also on results obtained by a laboratory which is not listed in Annex B to Directive 85/511/EEC — by the results of the latter laboratory, or does the determination of final authority in that regard fall within the procedural autonomy of the Member State and must the court before which the main proceedings are pending examine whether the rules in that respect apply irrespective of whether the laboratory examination is carried out by virtue of a Community or national legal obligation and of whether or not the application of the provisions of national procedural law renders the implementation of the Community rules extremely difficult or practically impossible?

               6.

               If the answer to Question 5 means that the issue of whether national authorities are bound by the laboratory result is governed by Directive 85/511/EEC:
               Are the national authorities bound unconditionally by the result of an FMD examination carried out by a laboratory? If not, what margin of discretion does Directive 85/511/EEC leave these national authorities?

      (1)  Council Directive 85/511/EEC of 18 November 1985 introducing Community measures for the control of foot-and-mouth disease (OJ 1985 L 315, p. 11).


title: Case C-109/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van Beroep voor het bedrĳfsleven by judgment of that Court of 8 January 2003 in the case of KPN Telecom B.V. against Onafhankelĳke Post en Telecommunicatie Autoriteit; Interested parties: Denda Multimedia B.V. and Denda Directory Services B.V.

text:
C 124/6                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         24.5.2003
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                      issue, the public will perceive above all or primarily a sign
                                                                                that fulfils a technical or ornamental function that the
                                                                                performance of its function as an individual trade mark
—     set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of                   would be precluded or even reduced.
      12 December 2002 in Case T-63/01 and, in consequence
      thereof,
      —     primarily: apply Article 54 of the Statute of the
            Court of Justice and give final judgment in the
            matter, upholding the form of order sought by the
            appellant before the Court of First Instance;                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van
                                                                           Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven by judgment of that Court
      —     in the alternative: refer the case back to the Court of        of 8 January 2003 in the case of KPN Telecom B.V. against
                                                                           Onafhankelijke Post en Telecommunicatie Autoriteit;
            First Instance for judgment;
                                                                           Interested parties: Denda Multimedia B.V. and Denda
                                                                                Directory Services B.V.
—     in any event: order OHIM to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Case C-109/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 124/10)
Pleas in law and main arguments
—     Plea alleging breach of the presumption that documents               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      may be relied on or inconsistency in the grounds of the              European Communities by order of the College van Beroep
      judgment:                                                            voor het bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court for Trade and
                                                                           Industry) of 8 January 2003, received at the Court Registry on
      Contrary to what the Court of First Instance states, the             10 March 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of KPN
      sign reproduced does not present any of the 24 rectangles            Telecom B.V. against Onafhankelijke Post en Telecommunica-
      or any of the six parallelograms of which a rectangular              tie Autoriteit; Interested parties: Denda Multimedia B.V. and
      parallelepiped consists.                                             Denda Directory Services B.V. on the following questions:
                                                                           1.    Is ‘relevant information’ in Article 6(3) of Directive 98/
—     Plea alleging misconstruction of the concept of distinctive                10/EC ( 1) to be interpreted as meaning only the numbers
      character:                                                                 together with the name, address, town/city and postcode
                                                                                of the person to whom the number has been issued and
      When it is necessary to determine whether a sign is                        any entry as to whether the number is used (exclusively)
      capable of fulfilling its function as an individual mark                   as a fax line published by the organisations concerned or
      for specific goods or services, when the merits of an                      does ‘relevant information’ also cover other data at the
      application for registration as an individual mark for                     disposal of the organisations such as an additional
      those goods and services are being examined, it is                         entry relating to a profession, another name, another
      necessary to reason in terms of the presumed perception                    municipality or mobile telephone numbers?
      of the use which might be made of the sign and not in
      terms of the actual perception of any actual use already             2.    Is ‘meet (...) reasonable requests (...) on terms which
      made of the sign. The Court of First Instance maintains                    are fair, cost oriented and non-discriminatory’ in the
      that the distinctive character of the sign must be assessed                provision referred in Question 1 to be interpreted as
      in relation ‘to the perception of the relevant public’. In                 meaning that:
      that regard, the relevant public consists of all persons
      likely to find themselves in the presence of the sign and                  a)    numbers together with the name, address, town/city
      cannot therefore be reduced to the much more restricted                          and postcode of the person to whom the number
      circle of consumers likely to acquire the goods or services                      has been issued must be made available for a
      which the sign is supposed to designate.                                         remuneration of only the marginal costs involved in
                                                                                actually making them available, and
      Furthermore, the Court of First Instance indirectly but
      definitely misconstrued the concept of distinctive charac-                 b)    data other than those referred to in paragraph (a)
      ter when it failed to rule on whether or not the sign was                        must be made available for a remuneration intended
      incapable of distinguishing one bar of soap from another                         to cover the costs of what the provider of these data
      as coming from a specific undertaking, but rather whether                        shows he has incurred in obtaining or providing
      the imperfect picture of that sign had such capacity.                            these data?
      Last, the Court of First Instance misunderstood the
      concept of distinctive character by completely disre-                (1 ) OJ L 101 [1998], p. 24.
      garding the multifunctionality of signs. It is not because
      it might be presumed that, in the presence of the sign in


title: Case T-33/10: Action brought on 28 January 2010 — ING Groep v Commission

text:
               27.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/40

         Action brought on 28 January 2010 — ING Groep v Commission
   (Case T-33/10)
   2010/C 80/66
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ING Groep NV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: O. Brouwer, M. Knapen and J. Blockx, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the contested decision, including for lack of or inadequate reasoning, insofar as the decision qualifies the amendment to the CTI transaction as additional aid in the amount of EUR 2 billion;

               —

               annul the contested decision, including for lack of or inadequate reasoning, insofar as the Commission has subjected the approval of the aid to the acceptance of price leadership bans as set out in the decision and Annex II thereof;

               —

               annul the contested decision, including for lack of or inadequate reasoning, insofar as the Commission has subjected the approval of the aid restructuring requirements that go beyond what is appropriate and required under the Restructuring Communication;

               —

               order the Commission to bear the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In the context of the turmoil on the financial markets in September/October 2008, the Dutch State injected, on 11 November 2008, EUR 10 billion of Core Tier 1 capital (hereinafter: ‘CTI Transaction’) in ING (referred to also as ‘the applicant’). This aid measure was provisionally approved by the European Commission on 12 November 2008 for a period of six months.
   In January 2009, the Dutch State agreed to take over the economic risk relating to a part of some of the applicant’s impaired assets. This measure was provisionally approved by the European Commission on 31 March 2009, whereby the Dutch State committed itself to submit a restructuring plan concerning the applicant. In October 2009, the applicant and the Dutch State concluded an amendment to the original CTI transaction in order to allow an early repayment of half of the CTI capital injection. A final version of the applicant’s restructuring plan was submitted to the Commission on 22 October 2009.
   On 18 November 2009, the Commission adopted the contested decision in which it approved the aid measure subject to the restructuring commitments listed in Annex I and II of the decision.
   By means of its application, the applicant seeks partial annulment of the decision of 18 November 2009 on the state aid No C 10/2009 (ex N 138/2009) implemented by the Netherlands for the applicant’s Illiquid Assets Back-Up facility and Restructuring Plan insofar as it allegedly (i) qualifies the amendment to the CTI transaction as additional aid in the amount of EUR 2 billion, (ii) has subjected the approval of the aid to the acceptance of price leadership bans and (iii) subjected the approval of the aid to restructuring requirements that go beyond what is proportionate and required under the Restructuring Communication.
   The applicant submits that the contested decision should be partially annulled on the following grounds:

               On the basis of its first plea, relating to the amendment to the CTI transaction, the applicant claims that the Commission:

                           (a)

                           infringed Article 107 TFEU, in finding that the amendment to the Core Tier transaction between the applicant and the Dutch State constituted State aid; and that it

                           (b)

                           infringed the principle of care and Article 296 TFEU resulting from a failure to carefully and impartially examine all the relevant aspects of the individual case, to hear the persons concerned and to provide adequate reasoning for the contested decision.

               On the basis of its second plea, relating to the price leadership ban for ING and ING Direct, the applicant submits that the Commission:

                           (a)

                           infringed the principle of sound administration as a result of not having carefully and impartially examined all relevant aspects of the individual case and that it moreover violated the duty to provide adequate reasoning for the decision;

                           (b)

                           infringed the principle of proportionality by making the approval of the aid measure conditional upon price leadership bans which are not adequate, necessary or proportionate;

                           (c)

                           infringed Article 107(3)(b) TFEU and misapplied the principles and guidelines set out in the Restructuring Communication.

               On the basis of its third plea, relating to disproportionate restructuring requirements, the applicant contends that the decision is vitiated by:

                           (a)

                           an error of assessment, since the Commission wrongly calculated the absolute and relative aid amount and violated principle of proportionality and sound administration by requiring excessive restructuring without having carefully and impartially examined all the relevant facts provided to it; and

                           (b)

                           an error of assessment and inadequate reasoning by deviating from the Restructuring Communication when assessing the required restructuring.


title: Case F-47/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 4 May 2016 — Leon-Gonzalez and Vander Velde v Commission

text:
               20.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 222/48

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 4 May 2016 — Leon-Gonzalez and Vander Velde v Commission
   (Case F-47/14) (1)

   (2016/C 222/73)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 212, 7/7/2014, p. 47.


title: Case T-9/15: Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2017 — Ball Beverage Packaging Europe v EUIPO — Crown Hellas Can (Cans) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing three cans — Earlier design — Ground for invalidity — Individual character — Different overall impression — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Group of articles constituting a single unit — Scope of the description of the registered Community design — Obligation to state reasons — Replacement of a party to the proceedings)

text:
               31.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2017 — Ball Beverage Packaging Europe v EUIPO — Crown Hellas Can (Cans)
   (Case T-9/15) (1)

   ((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing three cans - Earlier design - Ground for invalidity - Individual character - Different overall impression - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Group of articles constituting a single unit - Scope of the description of the registered Community design - Obligation to state reasons - Replacement of a party to the proceedings))
   (2017/C 249/34)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Ball Beverage Packaging Europe Ltd (Luton, United Kingdom), authorised to replace Ball Europe GmbH (represented by: A. Renck, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Hanne, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Crown Hellas Can SA (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Coulson and J. Koepp, Solicitors)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 September 2014 (Case R 1408/2012-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Crown Hellas Can and Ball Europe.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Grants Ball Beverage Packaging Europe Ltd leave to substitute itself for Ball Europe GmbH as applicant.

               2.

               Dismisses the action.

               3.

               Orders Ball Beverage Packaging Europe to pay the costs, including the costs necessarily incurred by Crown Hellas Can SA for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

      (1)  OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.


title: Case T-457/10: Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2013 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v European Commission (Public service contracts — Tender procedure — External service provision for development, studies and support for information systems (ESP DESIS II) — Classification of a tenderer — Award of the contract — Tendering consortium — Admissibility — Obligation to state reasons — Transparency — Equal treatment — Manifest error of assessment — Non-contractual liability)

text:
               30.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/12

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2013 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v European Commission
   (Case T-457/10) (1)

   (Public service contracts - Tender procedure - External service provision for development, studies and support for information systems (ESP DESIS II) - Classification of a tenderer - Award of the contract - Tendering consortium - Admissibility - Obligation to state reasons - Transparency - Equal treatment - Manifest error of assessment - Non-contractual liability)
   2013/C 352/21
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: S. Delaude and N. Bambara, and subsequently by S. Delaude, acting as Agents, and initially by P. Wytinck, and subsequently by B. Hoorelbeke, lawyers,)

      Re:

   Application, first, for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 16 July 2010 to classify the applicant’s tender submitted in the context of the call for tenders DIGIT/R2/PO/2009/045, concerning ‘External service provision for development, studies and support for information systems’ (ESP DESIS II) (OJ 2009/S 198-283663), for Lot 2 ‘Off site development projects’, in third, and not first, place and to award the first and second places to other tenderers, and also of all the related decisions of the Commission’s Directorate General for Informatics, including the decisions to award the respective contracts to the tenderers classified in first and second places; and, second, for damages,

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

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

      (1)  OJ C 346, 18.12.2010.


title: Case T-245/08: Order of the Court of First Instance of 3 December 2009 — Iranian Tobacco v OHIM — AD Bulgartabac (TIR 20 FILTER CIGARETTES) (Community trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Figurative Community trade mark TIR 20 FILTER CIGARETTES — Interest in bringing proceedings not required — Article 55(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 56(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/49

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 3 December 2009 — Iranian Tobacco v OHIM — AD Bulgartabac (TIR 20 FILTER CIGARETTES)
   (Case T-245/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Figurative Community trade mark TIR 20 FILTER CIGARETTES - Interest in bringing proceedings not required - Article 55(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 56(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2010/C 24/85
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Iranian Tobacco Co. (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: A. Beckensträter, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: AD Bulgartabac Holding Sofia (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: M. Maček, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 April 2008 in Case R 708/2007-1 concerning revocation proceedings between AD Bulgartabac Holding Sofia and Iranian Tobacco Co

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders Iranian Tobacco to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 223 of 30.8.2008


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 9 June 1997 in Case T-9/97: Elf Atochem SA v. Commission of the European Communities (Competition - Administrative procedure - Investigations - Drawing-up of reports following an investigation - Actions for annulment of measures - Actionable measures - Inadmissibility)

text:
No C 252/32           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    16 . 8 . 97
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
          (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition )                                             of 9 June 1997
                                                                    in Case T-9/97: Elf Atochem SA v. Commission of the
                         of 3 June 1997
                                                                                European Communities (')
in Case T-60/96: Merck & Co. Inc. and Others, v.                    (Competition        —       Administrative   procedure        —
        Commission of the European Communities (')                  Investigations — Drawing-up of reports following an
(Free Movement of goods — Transitional measures — Act               investigation — Actions for annulment of measures —
of accession — Protective measures — Pharmaceutical                             Actionable measures — Inadmissibility)
    products — Action for annulment — Inadmissibility)                                       ( 97/C 252/71 )
                         ( 97/C 252/70 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                (Language of the case: English)                     In Case T-9/97: Elf Atochem SA, established at Puteaux
                                                                    ( France ), represented by Xavier de Roux, of the Paris Bar,
                                                                    with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                    Chambers of Jacques Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe, v.
In Case , T-60/96 : Merck & Co. Inc., established at                Commission of the European Communities ( Agent:
Whitehouse Station, New Jersey (United States of                    Wouter Wils ) — application for annulment of the reports
America ), NV Organon, established at Oss (Netherlands ),           and annexes thereto drawn up by the Commission on 18 ,
Glaxo Wellcome pic, established at Greenford (United                19 and 20 November 1996 following an investigation
Kingdom ), represented by Romano Subiotto, Solicitor, and           carried out pursuant to Article 14 (2 ) of Council
Mario Siragusa, of the Rome Bar, with an address for                Regulation No 17, First regulation implementing
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger &                 Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty, of 6 February 1962 ( OJ,
Hoss, 15 Cote d'Eich, against Commission of the                     English Special Edition 1959-1962, p. 87) at the
European Communities ( Agents : Richard Wainwright and              applicant's registered office in the context of an inquiry
Fernando Castillo de la Torre ) — application for                   concerning the existence of certain agreements or
annulment of Commission Decisions C(95)3316 final/1 ,               concerted practices contrary to Article 85 ( 1 ) of the Treaty
C(95)3316 final/2 and C(95)3316 def./2, K(95)3316                   in the olefins and polyolefins sector ( Case No IV/E-2/
endg./3 , K(95)3316 endg./4, K(95)3316 endelig. udg./5 ,            35.765 ) — the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber),
C(95)3316 final/6 and C(95)3316 final/7 of 20 December              composed of: A. Saggio, President; V. Tiili and R. M.
1995 refusing the authorization sought, respectively, by            Moura-Ramos, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order
France, Belgium, Germany, Austria, Denmark, Ireland and             on 9 June 1997, the operative part of which is as follows:
the United Kingdom to take protective measures with
regard to pharmaceutical products coming from Spain —
the Court of First Instance ( Fifth Chamber, Extended               1 . The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
Composition), composed of R. García-Valdecasas,
President, and V. Tiili, J. Azizi, R. M. Moura Ramos and            2 . The applicant is ordered to pay all the costs.
M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
3 June 1997, the operative part of which is as follows :            o OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997.
1 . The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
                                                                                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
2 . The applicants are ordered jointly and severally to pay                    OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     the costs.
                                                                                of 19 June 1997
                                                                    in Case T-159/97 R: Luis Manuel Chaves Fonseca Ferrão
3 . The applications to intervene need not be considered.           v. Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (trade
                                                                                marks and designs )
                                                                     (Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (trade
4 . The Bundesverband der Arzneimittel-Importeure e.V. ,            marks and designs) — Decision of the President of the
     the Asociación de Exportadores Españoles de                     Office relating to the organization of Boards of Appeal —
     Productos Farmacéuticos and the Vereniging Euro                                  Periculum in mora — None )
     Specialités are to bear their own costs.                                                 ( 97/C 252/72 )
(') OJ No C 197, 6 . 7. 1996 .                                                       (Language of the case: French)
                                                                    In Case T-159/97: Luis Manuel Chaves Fonseca Ferrão, a
                                                                    member of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for the


title: Case C-545/14 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 1 December 2015 — Aguy Clement Georgias, Trinity Engineering (Private) Ltd, Georgiadis Trucking (Private) Ltd v Council of the European Union, European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Action for damages — Restrictive measures against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Zimbabwe — Removal of the person in question from the list of persons and entities concerned — Compensation for the damage allegedly suffered)

text:
               1.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/16

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 1 December 2015 — Aguy Clement Georgias, Trinity Engineering (Private) Ltd, Georgiadis Trucking (Private) Ltd v Council of the European Union, European Commission
   (Case C-545/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Action for damages - Restrictive measures against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Zimbabwe - Removal of the person in question from the list of persons and entities concerned - Compensation for the damage allegedly suffered))
   (2016/C 038/22)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Aguy Clement Georgias, Trinity Engineering (Private) Ltd, Georgiadis Trucking (Private) Ltd (represented by: H. Mercer QC, and I. Quirk, Barrister)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: G. Étienne and B. Driessen, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: S. Bartelt and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Aguy Clement Georgias, Trinity Engineering (Private) Ltd and Georgiadis Trucking (Private) Ltd are ordered to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union and by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 46, 9.2.2015.


title: Case C-90/06: Action brought on  14 February 2006  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic

text:
               8.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/19

         Action brought on 14 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-90/06)
   (2006/C 86/35)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by António Caeiros and Amparo Alcover, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare, principally, that, in having failed to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions needed in order to comply with Directive 2002/49/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14(1) of that directive;

               —

               declare, in the alternative, that, in having omitted to inform the Commission immediately of any such provisions, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14(1) of Directive 2002/49/EC;

               —

               order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposition of the Directive 2002/49 expired on 18 July 2004.

      (1)  OJ L 189 of 18.7.2002, p. 12.


title: Case C-479/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Sicilia (Italy) lodged on 6 November 2008 — Dow Italia Divisione Commerciale srl v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico and Others

text:
               24.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/15

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Sicilia (Italy) lodged on 6 November 2008 — Dow Italia Divisione Commerciale srl v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico and Others
   (Case C-479/08)
   (2009/C 19/25)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Sicilia
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Dow Italia Divisione Commerciale srl

      Defendant: Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico and Others
   Questions referred

               1.

               Does the ‘polluter pays’ principle preclude national legislation, and in particular Article 2050 of the [Italian] Civil Code, which allows the Public Authority, where a number of industrial operators operate within the contaminated site, to impose on them the burdens of the decontamination of that site, without prior ascertainment on an individual basis of their respective responsibility for the pollution, or in any event merely because they are deemed accountable by virtue of their ownership of the means of production and are therefore subject to strict liability for the damage they cause to the environment or may they in any event be required to reinstate the area around the widespread pollution identified there even where no material causation has been established for the pollution and there is no proportional basis for it?

               2.

               In accordance with the ‘polluter pays’ principle, may the Administration require the costs of safety measures, decontamination and environmental reinstatement to be borne by persons established in contaminated areas, without there having been any prior ascertainment of the existence of a causal link between the conduct and the pollution identified?

               3.

               In accordance with the ‘polluter pays’ principle and the principle of proportionality, may persons within contaminated areas be required to undertake action that does not directly reflect their individual contributions and is not proportionate to such contributions?

               4.

               In accordance with the ‘polluter pays’ principle and the principle of proportionality, may persons who have not contributed to the release of substances polluting the environment be made subject to obligations involving safety, decontamination and environmental-reinstatement measures, the costs and actions involved being equivalent, if not identical, to those imposed on persons who, in contrast, have in fact contributed to the release of substances polluting the environment?

               5.

               In accordance with the ‘polluter pays’ principle and the principle of proportionality, may the Administration require action to be taken where there has been no assessment of the appropriateness of the solutions imposed in the light of the sacrifice required of the private individual concerned, thereby prescribing measures that are wider or go further than those strictly necessary for attainment of the aim which that authority is required to achieve?


title: Case T-487/09: Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2011 — ReValue Immobilienberatung v OHIM (ReValue) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community figurative mark ReValue — Application refused in part — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               6.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/29

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2011 — ReValue Immobilienberatung v OHIM (ReValue)
   (Case T-487/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for the Community figurative mark ReValue - Application refused in part - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)
   2011/C 232/51
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: ReValue Immobilienberatung GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: initially, S. Fischoeder and M. Schork and, subsequently, S. Fischoeder (lawyers))

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 October 2009 (Case R 531/2009-4) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign ReValue as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders ReValue Immobilienberatung GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 37, 13.2.2010.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 3 July 2003 in Case T-122/01: Best Buy Concepts Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Figurative mark containing the word mark "best buy" — Absolute ground for refusal — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
C 213/30                 EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                       6.9.2003
       as it charges to the applicant, for the mission to the Hague of       President, and P. Mengozzi and M. Vilaras, Judges; J. Plingers,
       12 to 18 August 1999, a sum overclaimed in respect of air             Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
       travel costs of BEF 1 921 instead of BEF 1 291;                       25 June 2003, in which it:
2.     Orders the defendant to repay to the applicant the sum of             1.     Dismisses the application;
       EUR 15,62 together with interest to run from 26 June 2000,
       at the rate fixed by the European Central Bank for principal
       refinancing operations applicable for the period in question,         2.     Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
       increased by two points;
3.     Dismisses the remainder of the application;                           (1 ) OJ No C 150 of 19 May 2001.
4.     Orders the defendant to bear its own costs and to pay one-sixth
       of those incurred by the applicant.
( 1) OJ No C 79 of 10 March 2001.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 3 July 2003
                                                                             in Case T-122/01: Best Buy Concepts Inc. v Office for
                                                                             Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                         Designs) (OHIM) ( 1)
                                                                             (Community trade mark — Figurative mark containing the
                           of 25 June 2003                                   word mark ‘best buy’ — Absolute ground for refusal —
                                                                             Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)
                                                                                No 40/94)
in Case T-72/01 Norman Pyres v Commission of the
                     European Communities ( 1)
                                                                                (2003/C 213/58)
(Officials — Internal competition — Exclusion from the oral
                                  test)                                                         (Language of the case: German)
                           (2003/C 213/57)
                                                                             In Case T-122/01, Best Buy Concepts Inc., established in Eden
                                                                             Prairie, Minnesota (United States), represented by S. Rojahn,
                      (Language of the case: French)
                                                                             lawyer, v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
                                                                             (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: G. Schneider):
                                                                             Application for annulment of the decision of the Third Board
                                                                             of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                             Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 March 2001 (Case
In Case T-72/01 Norman Pyres, a former member of the                         R 44/2000-3) concerning an application for registration of a
temporary staff, residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented by              figurative mark containing the word mark ‘best buy’ as a
G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, avocats, against the Commission                 Community trade mark, the Court of First Instance (Second
of the European Communities (Agent: J. Currall) — application                Chamber), composed of: N.J. Forwood, President, J. Pirrung
for annulment of the decision of the Selection Board in                      and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for
competition COM/TA/99 excluding the applicant from the                       the Registrar, has given a judgment on 3 July 2003, in which
oral test in the competition and of all subsequent operations                it:
and acts in the competition and, additionally, a claim for
damages for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant — the
Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of V. Tiili,              1.     Dismisses the application;
 ---pagebreak--- 6.9.2003                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 213/31
2.     Orders the applicant to pay the costs.                              2.     Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                                                                           (1 ) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.
( 1) OJ C 227 of 11.8.2001.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                          of 9 July 2003
                                                                           in Case T-156/01: Laboratorios RTB, SL v Office for
                           of 3 July 2003                                  Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                                                                                Designs) (OHIM) ( 1)
in Case T-129/01: José Alejandro, SL v Office for Harmon-
isation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)                   (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings —
                              (OHIM) (1)                                   Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Earlier
                                                                           figurative and word marks containing the word GIORGI —
                                                                           Application for Community word mark GIORGIO AIRE —
                                                                           Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation
(Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Earlier                     No 40/94 — Proof of use — Article 56(2) and (3) of
national word marks BUD — Application for Community                                               Regulation No 40/94)
word mark BUDMEN — Relative ground for refusal —
            Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94)
                                                                                (2003/C 213/60)
                          (2003/C 213/59)                                                     (Language of the case: Spanish)
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                           In Case T-156/01, Laboratorios RTB, SL, established in Bigues
                                                                           i Riells (Spain), represented by A. Canela Giménez, lawyer, v
                                                                           Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
                                                                           and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: O. Montalto and J.F. Crespo
In Case T-129/01, José Alejandro SL, established in Alicante               Carrillo): Action brought against the decision of the First Board
(Spain), represented by I. Temiño Ceniceros, lawyer, v Office              of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and                  Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 April 2001 (Case
Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: F. López de Rego and J.F. Crespo                  R 258/2000-1), the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),
Carrillo); Intervener, Anheuser-Busch Inc., established in Saint           composed of: V. Tiili, President, P. Mengozzi, and M. Vilaras,
Louis, Missouri (United States), represented by V. von                     Judges; B. Pastor, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on
Bomhard, lawyer: Action brought against the decision of the                9 July 2003, in which it:
First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 March 2001
(Case R 230/2000-1), concerning an opposition procedure                    1.     Dismisses the application;
between Anheuser-Busch Inc. and José Alejandro SL, the
Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of:                     2.     Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
N.J. Forwood, President, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges;
J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
has given a judgment on 3 July 2003, in which it:
                                                                           (1 ) OJ C 259 of 15.9.2001.
1.     Dismisses the action;


title: Case C-155/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden lodged on 16 April 2008 — X v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

text:
               21.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 158/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden lodged on 16 April 2008 — X v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-155/08)
   (2008/C 158/18)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: X

      Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   Questions referred

               1.

               Must Articles 49 EC and 56 EC be interpreted as meaning that, in cases where foreign savings balances, or income therefrom, are not disclosed to the tax authorities of a Member State, those articles do not prevent that Member State from applying a statutory rule which, in order to compensate for the lack of effective means of monitoring foreign credit balances, provides for a recovery period of twelve years, whereas a recovery period of five years applies in the case of savings balances, or income therefrom, held in that Member State, in which such effective means do exist?

               2.

               Does it make a difference to the answer to Question 1 whether the credit balances are held in a Member State in which banking secrecy applies?

               3.

               If the answer to Question 1 is affirmative, do Articles 49 EC and 56 EC similarly not preclude a fine for failure to disclose income or capital on which tax has been subsequently recovered from being determined as a proportion of the amount recovered over that longer period?


title: Case F-106/09: Action brought on 30 December 2009 — Pascual García v Commission

text:
               13.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/52

         Action brought on 30 December 2009 — Pascual García v Commission
   (Case F-106/09)
   2010/C 37/83
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: César Pascual García (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: B. Cortese and C. Cortese, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Claim for compensation for the damage arising as a result of the failure to pay the applicant remuneration and related emoluments for the period 1 April 2006 — 1 March 2009 and for interest on the sum due.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Order the Commission to pay compensation for the damage arising as a result of the failure to pay the applicant remuneration and related emoluments for the period 1 April 2006 — 1 March 2009 and interest on the sum due.

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-561/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil de Alicante (Spain) lodged on 8 November 2011 — Fédération Cynologique Internationale v Federación Canina Internacional de Perros de Pura Raza

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/34

      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil de Alicante (Spain) lodged on 8 November 2011 — Fédération Cynologique Internationale v Federación Canina Internacional de Perros de Pura Raza
      (Case C-561/11)
      (2012/C 25/65)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Referring court

      Juzgado de lo Mercantil de Alicante

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Fédération Cynologique Internationale

         Defendant: Federación Canina Internacional de Perros de Pura Raza

         Question referred

      In proceedings for infringement of the exclusive right conferred by a Community trade mark, does the right to prevent the use thereof by third parties in the course of trade provided for in Article 9(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark extend to any third party who uses a sign that involves a likelihood of confusion (because it is similar to the Community trade mark and the services or goods are similar) or, on the contrary, is the third party who uses that sign (capable of being confused) which has been registered in his name as a Community trade mark excluded until such time as that subsequent trade mark registration has been declared invalid?

         (1)  OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1.


title: Case C-150/08: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 May 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden Den Haag (Netherlands)) — Siebrand BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Combined Nomenclature — Tariff headings 2206 and 2208 — Fermented beverage containing distilled alcohol — Beverage produced from fruit or from a natural product — Addition of substances — Effects — Loss of the taste, smell and appearance of the original beverage)

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/13

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 May 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden Den Haag (Netherlands)) — Siebrand BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-150/08) (1)

   (Combined Nomenclature - Tariff headings 2206 and 2208 - Fermented beverage containing distilled alcohol - Beverage produced from fruit or from a natural product - Addition of substances - Effects - Loss of the taste, smell and appearance of the original beverage)
   2009/C 153/24
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden Den Haag

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Siebrand BV

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden Den Haag –Interpretation of tariff headings 2206 and 2208 of the Combined Nomenclature — Fermented beverage containing distilled alcohol — Addition of water and ingredients resulting in a loss of the taste, smell and/or appearance of a beverage produced from fruit or from a natural product

      Operative part of the judgment

   Fermented alcohol-based beverages corresponding originally to heading 2206 of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2587/91 of 26 July 1991, to which a certain proportion of distilled alcohol, water, sugar syrup, aromas, colourings and, in some cases, a cream base have been added, resulting in the loss of the taste, smell and/or appearance of a beverage produced from a particular fruit or natural product, do not come under heading 2206 of the Combined Nomenclature but rather under heading 2208 thereof.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 5.7.2008.


title: Case C-1/11 SA: Application for authorisation to serve a garnishee order brought on 19 December 2011 — Luigi Marcuccio v European Commission

text:
               24.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/2

         Application for authorisation to serve a garnishee order brought on 19 December 2011 — Luigi Marcuccio v European Commission
   (Case C-1/11 SA)
   2012/C 89/02
   Language of the case: Italian.

      Parties

      Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (represented by G. Cipressa, avvocato)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               lift the immunity enjoyed by the Commission and authorise him to serve a garnishee order, which may also be in the form, in so far as is legally possible, of an order for the attachment of the assets necessary to cover the claim relating to the debt owed to him by the European Commission, in accordance with the summary payment order issued by the Giudice di pace di Tricase on 1 February 2010;

               —

               serve on the European Commission all necessary documents and, in general, do all this is required by law for the enforcement of the summary payment order and, in general, for the settlement of the claim;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   According to the applicant, the Commission owes him a sum by way of court expenses. The Commission has not yet paid that debt.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 12 March 1996 in Case C-441/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Polymeles Protodikeio Athinon): Panagis Pafitis and Others v. Trapeza Kentrikis Ellados AE and Others (Company law - Directive 77/91/EEC - Alteration of capital of a bank constituted in the form of a public limited liability company - Direct effect of Articles 25 (1) and 29 (3) of the Directive - Abuse of rights)

text:
22 . 6 . 96           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 180/3
Directive itself against a lender who is a private person, on               which, for the protection of the interests of members
account of inadequacies in the supply ofgoods or provision                  and others, are required by Member States of companies
ofservices by the supplier or provider with whom the lender                 within the meaning of the second paragraph of
concluded an exclusive agreement with regard to the grant                   Article 58 of the Treaty, in respect of the formation of
of credit and assert that right before a national court.                    public limited liability companies and the maintenance
                                                                            and alteration of their capital, with a view to making
                                                                            such safeguards equivalent precludes national
(>) OJ No C 275 , 1 . 10 . 1994 .                                           legislation under which the capital ofa bank constituted
                                                                            in the form of a public limited liability company which,
                                                                            as a result of its debt burden, is in exceptional
                                                                            circumstances may be increased by an administrative
                                                                            measure, without a resolution of the general meeting.
                                                                      2 . Publication of an offer of subscription in daily
                                                                            newspapers does not constitute information given in
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                        writing to the holders of registered shares within the
                      of 12 March 1996                                      meaning of third sentence of Article 29 (3) of Directive
                                                                            77/9 1 /EEC.
in Case C-441 /93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Polymeles Protodikeio Athinon ): Panagis Pafitis and
    Others v. Trapeza Kentrikis Ellados AE and Others ( l )           ( ] ) OJ No C 1 , 4 . 1 . 1994 .
(Company law — Directive 77/91/EEC — Alteration of
capital ofa bank constituted in the form ofa public limited
liability company — Direct effect of Articles 25 (1) and
          29 (3) of the Directive — Abuse of rights)
                          ( 96/C 180/05 )
                 (Language of the case: Greek)                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 14 March 1996
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                    in Case C-275/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                      from the Hof van Cassatie van Belgïe ): Roger Van der
                                                                      Linden v. Berufsgenossenschaft der Feinmechanik und
In Case C-441 /93 : reference to the Court under Article 177                                     Elektrotechnik (1 )
of the EC Treaty from the Polymeles Protodikeio Athinon                (Brussels Convention — Interpretation of Article 47 (1) —
( Court of First Instance, Athens ) for a preliminary ruling in       Documents to be produced by a party applying for
the proceedings pending before that court between Panagis             enforcement — Obligation to produce proof of service of
Pafitis and Others, supported by Investment and Shipping              the judgment delivered — Possibility ofproducing proof of
Enterprises Est and Others, and Trapeza Kentrikis Ellados                       service after the application has been made)
AE and Others , supported by Trapeza tis Ellados AE and                                            ( 96/C 180/06 )
Others — on the interpretation of Article 25 et seq. and
Article 29 of the Second Council Directive, Directive
77/91 /EEC of 13 December 1976 on coordination of
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of
members and others, are required by Member States of
companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Article 5 8 of the Treaty, in respect of the formation of public                 published in the European Court Reports)
limited liability companies and the maintenance and
alteration of their capital , with a view to making such
safeguards equivalent ( OJ No L 26 , 1 977, p . 1 ) — the Court,      In Case C-275/94 : reference to the Court under the Protocol
composed of C. N. Kakouris, President of Chamber, acting              of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice
for the President, D. A. O. Edward and G. Hirsch                      of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction
( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, F. A.                      and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial
Schockweiler, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn             Matters, by the Hof van Cassatie van Belgïe ( Belgian Court
( Rapporteur ), C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, H. Ragnemalm                of Cassation ) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
and L. Sevón, Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate-General; H.                pending before that court between Roger Van der Linden
von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given          and Berufsgenossenschaft der Feinmechanik und
a judgment on 12 March 1 996 , in which it rules:                     Elektrotechnik on the interpretation of Article 47 ( 1 ) of the
                                                                      Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the
                                                                      Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial
 1 . Article 25 of the Second Council Directive (77/91 /EEC)          Matters ( OJ No L 304, 1978 , p . 17 ), as amended by the
      of 13 December 1976 on coordination of safeguards               Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the


title: Case T-296/04: Action brought on 22 July 2004 by Salvador Contreras Gila, José Ramiro Lopez and Antonio Ramiro Lopez against the Council of the European Union

text:
               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/38

         Action brought on 22 July 2004 by Salvador Contreras Gila, José Ramiro Lopez and Antonio Ramiro Lopez against the Council of the European Union
   (Case T-296/04)
   (2004/C 262/72)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   An action against the Council of the European Union was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 22 July 2004 by Salvador Contreras Gila, José Ramiro Lopez and Antonio Ramiro Lopez, residing in Jaen (Spain), represented by José Francisco Vasquez Medina, of the Jaén Bar.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul – ipso iure – Article 1(7) of Council Regulation (EC) No 864/04;

               —

               Reserve the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   In support of their arguments the applicants allege breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and, therefore, of the principle of legal certainty and infringement of the rule that the administration is bound by its own acts, because, as a result of the fact that the contested measure uses as the reference period for the calculation of the direct aid for the producers of olive oil only for marketing years 1999/2000, 2000/2001, 2001/2002 and 2002/2003 those producers who, in accordance with the provisions of Regulation No 2366/98, planted olive trees in the years 1997 or 1998 will be entitled to hardly any of the aid provided for, since it would appear that in those marketing years there was hardly any production, given that at least eight years must elapse in order for an olive tree to become fully productive.
   They also allege infringement of the principle of non-discrimination in so far as other Member States, such as Portugal, are allowed funds intended to finance an increase in the production of young olive groves.


title: Case C-250/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 7 May 2013 — Birgit Wagener v Bundesagentur für Arbeit — Familienkasse Villingen-Schwenningen

text:
               7.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/19

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 7 May 2013 — Birgit Wagener v Bundesagentur für Arbeit — Familienkasse Villingen-Schwenningen
   (Case C-250/13)
   2013/C 260/33
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Birgit Wagener

      Defendant: Bundesagentur für Arbeit — Familienkasse Villingen-Schwenningen

      Questions referred

               1.

               In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, in which, on 17 October 2012, a German family benefits office granted and paid (by way of set-off) the child benefit due for the period from October 2006 to November 2011 in the amount of the difference between the family allowances payable in the Swiss Confederation and the corresponding German benefits, in accordance with Article 10(1)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 574/2, (1) is the conversion of Swiss family allowances from Swiss francs into euros to be carried out in accordance with Article 107(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72, Article 107(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 or Article 90 of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009, (2) in conjunction with Decision No H3 of 15 October 2009 (3) concerning the date to be taken into consideration for determining the rates of conversion referred to in Article 90 of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is that the conversion must be carried out wholly or in part in accordance with Article 107(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72: in the circumstances set out in Question 1, is the relevant date for the purposes of conversion the date on which the foreign benefit to be set off was paid or the date on which the domestic benefit against which the foreign benefit is set off is paid?

               3.

               If the answer to Question 1 is that the conversion must be carried out wholly or in part in accordance with Article 107(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72: in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, how must the reference period provided for in Article 107(2) and (4) of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 be determined? Is the relevant date for the purposes of conversion the date on which the Swiss institution granted or paid the family benefit to be set off?

               4.

               If the answer to Question 1 is that the conversion must be carried out wholly or in part in accordance with Article 90 of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009, in conjunction with Decision No H3 of 15 October 2009: in accordance with which provision (paragraph 2, paragraph 3(a) or paragraph 3(b)) of Decision No H3 of 15 October 2009 and in what manner must the conversion of family benefits be carried out if the national law relating to the domestic family benefit itself provides for an exclusion of benefits (Paragraph 65(1), point 2, of the German Law on Income Tax) and the benefit is granted on the basis of European Union law alone? Is the relevant date for the purposes of conversion the date on which the Swiss institution granted or paid the family benefits?

      (1)  Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of the Council of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1972(I), p. 160) (updated version).

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2009 L 284, p. 1).

      (3)  Decision No H3 of 15 October 2009 concerning the date to be taken into consideration for determining the rates of conversion referred to in Article 90 of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2010 C 106, p. 56).


title: Case C-441/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Republic of Poland) lodged on 7 October 2008 — Elektrownia Pątnów II sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Poznaniu

text:
               20.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 327/15

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Republic of Poland) lodged on 7 October 2008 — Elektrownia Pątnów II sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Poznaniu
   (Case C-441/08)
   (2008/C 327/25)
   Language of the case: Polish
   Referring court
   Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Elektrownia Pątnów II sp. z o.o.

      Respondent: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Poznaniu
   Questions referred
   In the light of Community law (in particular the provisions of Directive 69/335/EEC) (1), are tax authorities obliged when charging capital duty on an increase in capital to take into account transactions relating to the same component of capital which were liable to a capital duty before the date of Poland's accession to the European Union?
   In particular, does the mechanism provided for in the second indent of Article 5(3) of Directive 69/335/EEC apply to situations in which the conversion of loans granted to a capital company that are referred to in Article 4(2)(c) of the directive takes place after accession, but those loans have, on the basis of the national legislation in force until the date of accession, previously been taxed in accordance with the principles set out in the Polish Law on civil law transactions tax?

      (1)  Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412).


title: Case T-101/15: Action brought on 26 February 2015 — Red Bull v OHIM — Optimum Mark (Representation of the colours blue and silver)

text:
               27.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/61

         Action brought on 26 February 2015 — Red Bull v OHIM — Optimum Mark (Representation of the colours blue and silver)
   (Case T-101/15)
   (2015/C 138/79)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Red Bull GmbH (Fuschl am See, Austria) (represented by: A. Renck, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Optimum Mark (Warsaw, Poland)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Representation of the colours blue and silver — Community trade mark registration No 2 5 34  774

      Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 December 2014 in Case R 2037/2013-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the contested decision;

               —

               Order OHIM and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, should it intervene, to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 4, 7(1)(a) and 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations established by the Court of Justice under Community law.


title: Case T-56/13: Action brought on 30 January 2013 — ClientEarth and Stichting BirdLife Europe v Commission

text:
               6.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 101/23

         Action brought on 30 January 2013 — ClientEarth and Stichting BirdLife Europe v Commission
   (Case T-56/13)
   2013/C 101/50
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom); and Stichting BirdLife Europe (Zeist, Netherlands) (represented by: O. Brouwer, lawyer)

      Defendants: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the defendant’s refusal of their request for access to the latest draft of a literature review, on the so-called ‘carbon-debt’ of bioenergy derived from biomass, pursuant to 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, and Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 on the application of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community Institutions and Bodies; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay applicants’ costs for conducting these proceedings including the costs of any intervening parties.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on a single plea in law.
   The applicants contend that as a result of its failure to address them with an express decision regarding their request for access within the time-limits for the processing of confirmatory applications contained in Articles 8(1) and 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, the defendant impliedly refused access within the meaning of Article 8(3). Further, the applicants state that this implied refusal decision was unmotivated and therefore they submit that it should be annulled for the reason of the Commission’s breach of its obligation to state reasons under Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, Article 41(2), 3rd indent of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 296 TFEU.


title: Case C-81/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București (Romania) lodged on 14 February 2012 — Asociația ACCEPT v Consiliul Național pentru Combaterea Discriminării

text:
               28.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 126/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București (Romania) lodged on 14 February 2012 — Asociația ACCEPT v Consiliul Național pentru Combaterea Discriminării
   (Case C-81/12)
   2012/C 126/12
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel București

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Asociația ACCEPT

      Defendant: Consiliul Național pentru Combaterea Discriminării

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do the provisions of Article 2(2)(a) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (1) apply when a shareholder of a football club who presents himself as, and is considered in the mass media as, the principal director (or ‘manager’) of that football club makes a statement to the mass media in the following terms:
               ‘Not even if I had to close Steaua down would I accept a homosexual on the team. Obviously people will talk, but how could anyone write something like that if it’s not true and, what’s more, put it on the front page… Perhaps he’s not a homosexual [X, a Bulgarian footballer] … But what if he is? … I said to an uncle of mine who didn’t believe in Satan or in Christ. I said to him: “Let’s say God doesn’t exist. But suppose he does? What do you lose by taking communion? Wouldn’t it be good to go to Heaven?” He said I was right. A month before he died he took communion. May God forgive him. There’s no room for gays in my family, and Steaua is my family. It would be better to play with a junior rather than someone who was gay. That’s not discrimination. No one can force me to work with anyone. I have rights just as they do and I have the right to work with whoever I choose.
               Not even if I had to close Steaua down would I accept a homosexual on the team. … Perhaps he’s not a homosexual, but what if he is? There’s no room for gays in my family, and Steaua is my family. Rather than having a homosexual on the team, it would be better to play a junior. That’s not discrimination. No one can force me to work with anyone. I have rights just as they do and I have the right to work with whoever I choose. Even if God told me in a dream that it was 100 percent certain that X wasn’t a homosexual I still wouldn’t take him! Too much has been written in the papers about his being a homosexual. Even if ȚSKA gave him to me for free I wouldn’t have him! He could be the biggest troublemaker, the biggest drunk … but if he’s a homosexual I don’t want to know about him’?

               2.

               To what extent may the abovementioned statements be regarded as ‘facts from which it may be presumed that there has been direct or indirect discrimination’ within the meaning of Article 10(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, as regards the defendant S.C. Fotbal Club Steaua București S.A.?

               3.

               To what extent would there be probatio diabolica if the burden of proof referred to in Article 10(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation were to be reversed in this case and the defendant S.C. Fotbal Club Steaua București S.A. were required to demonstrate that there has been no breach of the principle of equal treatment and, in particular, that recruitment is unconnected with sexual orientation?

               4.

               Does the fact that it is not possible to impose a fine in cases of discrimination after the expiry of the limitation period of six months from the date of the relevant fact, laid down in Article 13(1) of Government Decree No 2/2001 on the legal regime for sanctions, conflict with Article 17 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation given that sanctions, in cases of discrimination, must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive?

      (1)  OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.