title: Case T-101/14: Action brought on 10 February 2014 — British Aggregates v Commission

text:
               14.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/52

         Action brought on 10 February 2014 — British Aggregates v Commission
   (Case T-101/14)
   2014/C 112/67
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: British Aggregates Association (Lanark, United Kingdom) (represented by: L. Van den Hende, lawyer, and L. Geary, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Order the annulment pursuant to Article 263 TFEU of the Commission Decision of 31 July 2013 C(2013) 4901 final published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 28 November 2013 in Case SA.34775 (ex N863/2001) — Aggregates Levy;

               —

               Order that the defendant pay the applicant's costs in these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission has made a manifest error of assessment in deciding that three exemptions under the Finance Act 2001 do not result in selectivity and therefore do not result in State aid under Article 107(1) TFEU.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission has failed to state reasons for the contested decision as required by Article 296 TFEU because the Commission has not explained why the different treatment of similar situations does not constitute State aid. Further, the reasoning put forward by the Commission is contradictory on the face of the contested decision.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission has infringed its duty to initiate the formal investigation procedure in accordance with Article 108(3) TFEU, as this is not a case where the Commission can reach a firm view that a measure does not result in aid, without necessitating a detailed examination of the matter.


title: Case T-61/12: Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2013 — ABC-One v OHMI (SLIM BELLY) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark SLIM BELLY — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               15.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/27

         Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2013 — ABC-One v OHMI (SLIM BELLY)
   (Case T-61/12) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark SLIM BELLY - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 171/53
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: ABC-One Produktions- und Vertriebs GmbH (Villach St Magdalen, Austria) (represented by: S. Merz, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 November 2011 (Case R 1077/2011-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign SLIM BELLY as a Community trade mark

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders ABC-One Produktions- und Vertriebs GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 98, 31.3.2012.


title: Case F-49/05: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 June 2009 — Bethuyne and Others v Commission

text:
               15.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/37

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 June 2009 — Bethuyne and Others v Commission
   (Case F-49/05) (1)

   2009/C 193/65

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 205, 20.8.2005, p. 31.


title: Case T-406/10: Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — Emesa-Trefilería and Industrias Galycas v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European prestressing steel market — Price fixing, market sharing and exchanging of sensitive commercial information — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Cooperation during the administrative procedure — Article 139(a) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court)

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/36

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — Emesa-Trefilería and Industrias Galycas v Commission
   (Case T-406/10) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European prestressing steel market - Price fixing, market sharing and exchanging of sensitive commercial information - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Cooperation during the administrative procedure - Article 139(a) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court))
   (2015/C 302/45)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Emesa-Trefilería SA (Arteixo, Spain); and Industrias Galycas SA (Vitoria, Spain) (represented by: A. Creus Carreras and A. Valiente Martin, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by V. Bottka and F. Castilla Contreras, and subsequently by V. Bottka and A. Biolan, Agents, and by M. Gray, Barrister)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: F. Florindo Gijón and R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment and alteration of Commission Decision C(2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (case COMP/38344 — Prestressing Steel), amended by Commission Decision C(2010) 6676 final of 30 September 2010, and by Commission Decision C(2011) 2269 final of 4 April 2011.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Emesa-Trefilería, SA and Industrias Galycas, SA to bear their own costs and to pay those of the European Commission and the Council of the European Union;

               3.

               Orders the Commission to pay the General Court the sum of EUR 1  500 under Article 139(a) of its Rules of Procedure, in order to refund part of the costs which the Court had to incur.

      (1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.


title: Case T-82/03: Action brought on 3 March 2003 by Mast-Jägermeister AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
10.5.2003              EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 112/37
Action brought on 3 March 2003 by Mast-Jägermeister                      Decision of the Oppo-         Registration refused
AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                  sition Division:
              Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                         Decision of the Board of      Rejection of the applicant’s oppo-
                          (Case T-81/03)                                 Appeal:                       sition
                                                                         Pleas in law:                 —     Infringement of Article 73 of
                         (2003/C 112/71)
                                                                                Regulation (EC) No 40/94;
                                                                                —     Misapplication             of
(Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
                                                                                Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation
of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was
                                                                                (EC) No 40/94;
                        submitted: German)
                                                                                —     Incorrect assessment of the
                                                                                similarity of the marks.
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
on 3 March 2003 by Mast-Jägermeister AG, Wolfenbüttel
(Germany), represented by Chr. Drzymalla, lawyer. Licorera
Zacapaneca S.A., Zacapa (Guatemala) was also a party to the
proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Action brought on 3 March 2003 by Mast-Jägermeister
                                                                         AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
—     annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the                           Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
      Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
      Marks and Designs) of 19 December 2002 (Case R 412/
      2002-1);                                                                                (Case T-82/03)
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                                (2003/C 112/72)
                                                                         (Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was
                                                                                submitted: German)
Applicant for Com-             Licorera Zacapaneca S.A.
munity trade mark:
Community trade mark           Figurative mark ‘VENADO’ —
sought:                        Application No 986455 lodged in           An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the
                               respect of goods in Classes 32 and        Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before
                               33 (inter alia mineral and aerated        the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                               waters and other non-alcoholic            on 3 March 2003 by Mast-Jägermeister AG, Wolfenbüttel
                               drinks, rum, rum-based liqueurs,          (Germany), represented by Chr. Drzymalla, lawyer. Licorera
                               brandy)                                   Zacapaneca S.A., Zacapa (Guatemala) was also a party to the
                                                                         proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
Proprietor of mark or          The applicant
sign cited in the oppo-
sition proceedings:
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
Mark or sign cited in          Figurative mark consisting of a
opposition:                    stag’s head with a cross, registered      —     annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the
                               in respect of goods in Classes 18,              Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
                               25, 32 and 33 (inter alia                       Marks and Designs) of 19 December 2002 (Case R 382/
                               umbrellas,      clothing,      non-             2002-1);
                               alcoholic beverages in so far as
                               included in Class 32, wines and
                               spirits) — Trade mark No 337337           —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 112/38               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                           10.5.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
Applicant for Com-            Licorera Zacapaneca S.A.                     —      annul the decision of the defendant refusing the applicant
munity trade mark:                                                                access to certain legislative proposals containing the
                                                                                identity of Member States’ positions, and to a legal
Community trade mark          Figurative mark ‘VENADO’ —                          opinion drawn up by the Council’s Legal Service.
sought:                       Application No 986000 lodged in
                              respect of goods in Classes 32 and
                              33 (inter alia mineral and aerated           —      order the Council to pay the applicant’s costs.
                              waters and other non-alcoholic
                              drinks, rum, rum-based liqueurs,
                              brandy)
Proprietor of mark or         The applicant                                Pleas in law and main arguments
sign cited in the oppo-
sition proceedings:
Mark or sign cited in         Figurative mark consisting of a              The applicant is an Italian Member of the European Parliament.
opposition:                   stag’s head with a cross, registered         On 22 October 2002 the applicant submitted a request to the
                              in respect of goods in Classes 18,           defendant requesting access to the documents appearing on
                              25, 32 and 33 (inter alia                    the agenda of the 2455th meeting of the Council (Justice and
                              umbrellas,        clothing,      non-        Home Affairs) which took place in Luxembourg on 14 and
                              alcoholic beverages in so far as             15 October 2002. In its reply, dated 5 November 2002, the
                              included in Class 32, wines and              defendant indicated that full access could be granted to most
                              spirits) — Trade mark No 337337              of the documents requested by the applicant. However, with
                                                                           regard to three legislative proposals, the defendant indicated
Decision of the Oppo-         Registration refused                         that the applicant could be granted only partial access, and in
sition Division:                                                           particular that access could not be granted to those parts of
                                                                           the proposals identifying the positions taken by the national
Decision of the Board of      Rejection of the applicant’s oppo-           delegations on the subject matters under discussion. The
Appeal:                       sition                                       defendant further refused to grant access to a fourth document
                                                                           which contained a legal opinion of the defendant’s legal
Pleas in law:                 —      Infringement of Article 73 of         service.
                                     Regulation (EC) No 40/94;
                              —      Misapplication              of
                                     Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation         In support of his application the applicant submits the
                                     (EC) No 40/94;                        following contentions:
                              —      Incorrect assessment of the
                                     similarity of the marks.              —      By refusing access to the documents mentioned above,
                                                                                the defendant violated Articles 4, paragraphs 2 and 3 of
                                                                                Regulation EC/1049/2001 (1) as well as the principle of
                                                                                proportionality.
                                                                           —      the defendant violated Article 253 EC and Article 7,
                                                                                paragraphs 1 and 2 of Regulation EC/1049/2001 in that
Action brought on 28 February 2003 by Maurizio Turco                              it failed to provide sufficient reasons for its Decision
          against the Council of the European Union
                                                                           —      the defendant violated citizens’ fundamental political and
                         (Case T-84/03)                                           civil rights as guaranteed by international and European
                                                                                conventions and the European Union treaties, in particu-
                        (2003/C 112/73)                                           lar Article 6 EU, by censoring Member States’ positions
                                                                                when acting as a legislator.
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                           (1 ) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and
                                                                                of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to
An action against the Council of the European Union was                         European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European                      L 145 of 31.5.2001, p. 43).
Communities on 28 February 2003 by Maurizio Turco,
Pulsano, Italy, represented by Mr O. W. Brouwer and Mr
Thomas Janssens, Lawyers.


title: Case C-503/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 20 October 2010 — Evroetil AD v Direktor na Agentsia Mitnitsi

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/35

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 20 October 2010 — Evroetil AD v Direktor na Agentsia ‘Mitnitsi’
   (Case C-503/10)
   ()
   2010/C 346/62
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Varhoven administrativen sad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Evroetil AD

      Defendant: Direktor na Agentsia ‘Mitnitsi’

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2003/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 May 2003 on the promotion of the use of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the definition of bioethanol refers to products such as that in question (covers products such as that in question), which has the following characteristics and qualities:

                           —

                           it is produced from biomass,

                           —

                           the production takes place by means of a special technology, which is described in the technical specifications for the production of bioethanol drafted by the appellant Evroetil AD, and which differs from the technology for the production of agricultural ethyl alcohol according to the technical specifications drafted by that producer,

                           —

                           it contains more than 98.5 % alcohol and the following substances, which render it unsuitable for consumption: higher alcohols — 714.49 to 8 311 mg/dm3; aldehyde — 238.16 to 411 mg/dm3; ester (ethyl acetate) — 1 014 to 8 929 mg/dm3,

                           —

                           it complies with the requirements of the European standard prEN 15376 for biothanol as fuel,

                           —

                           it is intended for use as fuel and is, by its addition to A95-petrol, actually used as fuel and sold at petrol stations,

                           —

                           it is not denatured in a special denaturing procedure.

               2.

               Is Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2003/30 to be interpreted as meaning that the product in question can be classified as bioethanol only where it is actually used as biofuel, or is it sufficient that it is intended for use as biofuel and/or is actually suitable for use as biofuel?

               3.

               If, on the basis of the answers to questions 1 and 2, it is to be assumed that the product in question or a corresponding part thereof is bioethanol, under which heading of the Combined Nomenclature (CN) 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 (2), is the product in question then to be classified:

                           3.1

                           Are the provisions of Chapter 22 of the CN and specifically heading 2207 to be interpreted as meaning that they cover bioethanol?

                           3.2

                           If the answer to question 3.1 is in the affirmative, should then the classification of bioethanol and specifically the product in question take account of whether the product has been denatured (in accordance with the procedure set out in Commission Regulation (EC) No 3199/93 of 22 November 1993 on the mutual recognition of procedures for the complete denaturing of alcohol for the purposes of exemption from excise duty or in accordance with other admissible procedures) (3)?

                           3.3

                           If the answer to question 3.2 is in the affirmative, are then the provisions of the CN concerning heading 2207 to be interpreted as meaning that only denatured bioethanol is to be classified under code 2207 20 000 of the CN?

                           3.4

                           If the answer to question 3.3 is in the affirmative, are then the provisions of the CN concerning heading 2207 to be interpreted as meaning that bioethanol that has not been denatured is to be classified under code 2207 10 000 of the CN?

                           3.5

                           If the answer to question 3.1 is in the affirmative and the answer to question 3.2 is in the negative, under which of the two subheadings — 2207 10 000 or 2207 20 000 — is then the product in question to be classified?

                           3.6

                           If the answer to question 3.1 is in the negative, is bioethanol then to be classified under one of the CN codes stated in Article 2(1) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (4), and under which one?

               4.

               If, on the basis of the answers to questions 1 and 2, it is to be assumed that the product in question or a corresponding part thereof is not bioethanol, is then the product in question, which has the characteristics and qualities stated in question 1, to be classified as ethyl alcohol within the meaning of the first indent of Article 20(1) of Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages (5)?

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 123, p. 42

      (2)  OJ 1992 L 328, p. 50

      (3)  OJ 1993 L 288, p. 12

      (4)  OJ 2003 L 283, p. 51

      (5)  OJ 1992 L 316, p. 21


title: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 1 March 2005 in Case C- 281/02 reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) Civil Division (United Kingdom): Andrew Owusu v N.B. Jackson, trading as ‘Villa Holidays Bal-Inn Villas’ and Others (Brussels Convention — Territorial scope of the Brussels Convention — Article 2 — Jurisdiction — Accident which occurred in a non–Contracting State — Personal injury — Action brought in a Contracting State against a person domiciled in that State and other defendants domiciled in a non–Contracting State — Forum non conveniens — Incompatibility with the Brussels Convention)

text:
               30.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/2

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Grand Chamber)
   of 1 March 2005
   in Case C- 281/02 reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) Civil Division (United Kingdom): Andrew Owusu v N.B. Jackson, trading as ‘Villa Holidays Bal-Inn Villas’ and Others (1)

   (Brussels Convention - Territorial scope of the Brussels Convention - Article 2 - Jurisdiction - Accident which occurred in a non–Contracting State - Personal injury - Action brought in a Contracting State against a person domiciled in that State and other defendants domiciled in a non–Contracting State - Forum non conveniens - Incompatibility with the Brussels Convention)
   (2005/C 106/02)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case C-281/02, Reference for a preliminary ruling under the Protocol of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters by the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) Civil Division (United Kingdom), by decision of 5 July 2002, received at the Court on 31 July 2002, in the proceedings Andrew Owusu v N.B. Jackson, trading as ‘Villa Holidays Bal-Inn Villas’, Mammee Bay Resorts Ltd, Mammee Bay Club Ltd, The Enchanted Garden Resorts & Spa Ltd, Consulting Services Ltd, Town & Country Resorts Ltd — the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the First Chamber, acting for the President, C.W.A. Timmermans and A. Rosas, Presidents of Chambers, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 1 March 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               The Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic and by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic, precludes a court of a Contracting State from declining the jurisdiction conferred on it by Article 2 of that convention on the ground that a court of a non-Contracting State would be a more appropriate forum for the trial of the action even if the jurisdiction of no other Contracting State is in issue or the proceedings have no connecting factors to any other Contracting State.

      (1)  OJ C 233 of 28.09.2002.


title: Case T-187/15: Action brought on 17 April 2015 — Compagnia Trasporti Pubblici and Others v Commission

text:
               8.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/29

         Action brought on 17 April 2015 — Compagnia Trasporti Pubblici and Others v Commission
   (Case T-187/15)
   (2015/C 190/33)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicants: Compagnia Trasporti Pubblici SpA (Arzano, Italy); Atap — Azienda Trasporti Automobilistici Pubblici delle Province di Biella e Vercelli SpA (Biella, Italy); Actv SpA (Venice, Italy); Ferrovie Appulo Lucane Srl (Bari, Italy); Asstra Associazione Trasporti (Rome, Italy); and Associazione Nazionale Autotrasporto Viaggiatori (ANAV) (Rome) (represented by: M. Malena, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should annul those chapters and parts of the contested decision which are subject to appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-185/15 Buonotourist v Commission and Case T-186/15 CSTP Azienda della Mobilità v Commission.
   In particular, the applicants allege infringement of Articles 93, 94, 107 and 108 TFEU, infringement of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 of 26 June 1969 on action by Member States concerning the obligations inherent in the concept of a public service in transport by rail, road and inland waterway (OJ 1969 L 156, p. 1), infringement of Regulation No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70 (OJ 2007 L 315, p. 1), lack of competence on the part of the Commission, infringement of Regulation (EC) No 1191/69, a misuse of powers, and infringement of the Communication from the Commission on interpretative guidelines concerning Regulation No 1370/2007.


title: Case C-143/12: Action brought on 23 March 2012 — European Commission v French Republic

text:
               9.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/12

         Action brought on 23 March 2012 — European Commission v French Republic
   (Case C-143/12)
   2012/C 165/20
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Wilms and S. Petrova, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: French Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to issue permits in accordance with Articles 6 and 8, to reconsider and, if appropriate, to update the existing permits and to ensure that all the existing installations are operated in accordance with the requirements laid down in Articles 3, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14(a) and 9b) and 15(2) of the IPPC Directive, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC Directive) (1);

               —

               order French Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Pursuant to Article 5(1) of the IPPC Directive, Member States are to take the necessary measures to ensure that the competent authorities see to it, by means of permits in accordance with Articles 6 and 8 or, as appropriate, by reconsidering and, where necessary, by updating the conditions, that existing installations operate in accordance with the requirements of Articles 3, 7, 9, 10 and 13, Article 14(a) and (b) and Article 15(2) not later than 30 October 2007.
   On 3 November 2009, the Commission sent a letter before action, taking the view that the defendant permitted the operation of a large number of existing installations (1647 installations) which did not have a permit complying with the requirements of Article 5(1) of the IPPC Directive. At the time the reasoned opinion was sent, 784 existing installations were still without a permit in accordance with Article 5(1) of the directive.
   Although the situation has since improved, at the time the present application was lodged, four installations continue to be operated in the French Republic without a permit in accordance with the directive.
   Therefore, the Commission takes the view that the French Republic has not yet put an end to the infringement of Article 5(1) of the IPPC Directive.

      (1)  OJ 2008 L 24, p. 8.


title: Case T-544/14: Action brought on 18 July 2014  — Société des Produits Nestlé v OHIM — Terapia (ALETE)

text:
               29.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 339/22

         Action brought on 18 July 2014 — Société des Produits Nestlé v OHIM — Terapia (ALETE)
   (Case T-544/14)
   2014/C 339/27
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Société des Produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Jaeger-Lenz, A. Lambrecht and S. Cobet-Nüse, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Terapia SA (Cluj Napoca, Romania)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Alter the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 May 2014 in Case R 1128/2013-4 in such a way that the opposition is rejected;

               —

               In the alternative, annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 May 2014 in Case R 1128/2013-4;

               —

               Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Société des Produits Nestlé SA

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ALETE’ for goods in Classes 5, 29, 30 and 32 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 3 88  379

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Terapia SA

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The national word mark ‘ALETA’ for goods and services in Classes 5 and 35

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law:

               —

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

               —

               Infringement of Article 63 in conjunction with Rule 20(7)(c) of Regulation No 2868/95

               —

               Infringement of Articles 63(2), 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case C-324/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht by order of that court of 24 June 1999 in the case of DaimlerChrysler AG against Land Baden-Württemberg

text:
C 352/20                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      4.12.1999
— annul the Decision of the Commission of 11 January 1996                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwal-
     addressed to the Portuguese Government;                             tungsgericht by order of that court of 24 June 1999 in the
                                                                         case of DaimlerChrysler AG against Land Baden-
     or, in the alternative, refer the case back to the Court of                                    Württemberg
     First Instance in accordance with Article 54 of the Statute
     of the Court of Justice;
                                                                                (Case C-324/99)
— order the Commission to pay the costs of both instances.
                                                                                (1999/C 352/29)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by order of the Bundesverwaltungsge-
The Court of First Instance has erred in law in that it has              richt (Federal Administrative Court) of 24 June 1999, received
decided that the Commission decision of 3 July 1991 addressed            at the Court Registry on 30 August 1999, for a preliminary
to the Portuguese government ensures compliance with the                 ruling in the case of DaimlerChrysler AG v Land Baden-
rules applicable to the sugar sector.                                    Württemberg, represented by the Baden-Württemberg Ministry
                                                                         of Traffic and the Environment, on the following questions:
The Court of First Instance has erred in law when it decided that
the Commission was not entitled to examine the application of            1. Is the expression ‘in accordance with the Treaty’ in
Decree-law no. 95/90 to DAI — Sociedade de Desenvolvimen-                    Article 4(3)(a)(i) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 (1)
to Agro-Industrial, SA directly in relation to Article 87 (ex 92)            to be construed as meaning that, in the case of a general
EC.                                                                          prohibition on the export of hazardous waste for disposal,
                                                                             which is warranted by the principles of proximity, priority
                                                                             for recovery and self-sufficiency, a further issue to be
The Court of First Instance has erred in law where it found                  examined is whether the export ban is compatible with
that the individual application of Decree-law no. 95/90 to the               primary EC law, in particular with the ban on quantitative
sugar industry (the state aid to DAI) is not incompatible with               restrictions on trace between the Member States under
aims of the common agricultural policy, as implemented by                    Article 28 of the EC Treaty, in its new version?
the relevant rules.
                                                                         2. If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, in the case of
As far as it is correct that the different types of aid examined             an export ban imposed by legislation and restricted as to
in the contested decision and by the Court of First Instance are             quantity, is review of the legislative provision as such
covered by different sets of legal provisions and therefore must             sufficient or must there be a review of each individual case
be examined individually in the light of those rules and the                 in which an intended export is prohibited under the
aims which they pursue, the Court of First Instance has erred                legislative provision? In that connection is it permissible to
in law by not taking into account in the framework of its                    impose for a fifteen-year period an export ban operated by
review of the legality of the contested decision and the way the             means of a requirement to ship waste to a domestic facility,
Commission has made use of its discretionary power, the                      when at the time that such requirement was imposed, the
effect of the different aid measures taken together (the                     requisite security in the treatment of waste could be
combined effect).                                                            obtained only by a tie of that duration to the operator of
                                                                             that facility?
Articles 87 (ex 92) and 88 (ex 93) EC apply to aid to which
Regulation 866/90 (2) is applicable. The Court of First Instance         3. May the Member States, under Article 4(3) of Regulation
has erred in law when it decided that aid eligible for Com-                  (EEC) No 259/93, apply a rule in the context of delivery
munity co-financing under Regulation 866/90 is not subject                   requirements making the shipment to other Member States
to the application of Articles 87 (ex 92) and 88 (ex 93).                    of hazardous waste for disposal subject to the condition
                                                                             that the intended disposal meet the environmental-law
                                                                             requirements of the state of dispatch?
The Court of First Instance has erred in law in deciding that
the aid is not incompatible with Regulation 866/90. The
judgment of the Court of First Instance is not properly                  4. Is it reconcilable with Articles 3 et seq. of Regulation (EEC)
motivated in this respect, as the Court of First Instance has not            No 259/93 for a Member State to make provision, in the
taken into account the different pleas submitted by the                      case of an intended transborder shipment of waste for
applicants as to the inapplicability of Regulation 866/90.                   disposal, for the notification procedure to be preceded by
                                                                             a procedure of its own at national level concerning the
                                                                             delivery and allocation of such waste?
(1) OJ C 233 of 10.08.1996, p. 15.
(2) Council Regulation (EEC) no. 866/90 of 29 March 1990 on
    improving the processing and marketing conditions for agricul-       (1) OJ 1993 L 30, p. 1.
    tural products (OJ L 91, 6.4.1990, p. 1).


title: Case F-12/14: Action brought on 7 February 2014 — ZZ v CdT

text:
               16.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/40

         Action brought on 7 February 2014 — ZZ v CdT
   (Case F-12/14)
   2014/C 184/65
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: N. Cambonie, D. Ciolino and E. Macchi, lawyers)

      Defendant: Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (CdT)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union rejecting the request made by the applicant on the basis of Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations to adopt a decision apologising to him and granting him compensation for the damage suffered.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the CdT’s implied rejection, or otherwise annul the rejection in the letter produced by the lawyer representing the CdT containing the decision of 10 April 2013 and, so far as necessary, the confirmatory decision of the CdT of 8 November 2013 rejecting the applicant’s request for it to take a decision;

               —

               declare the CdT liable for the damage suffered by the applicant, and consequently grant the applicant damages amounting to EUR 306 733,60 in respect of material loss and EUR 130 000 in respect of non-material loss, or any other, possibly greater, sum to be determined by the Tribunal, or else by expert evidence;

               —

               order the CdT to pay the costs.


title: Case T-410/09: Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 12 December 2012 — Almamet v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for calcium carbide and magnesium for the steel and gas industries in the EEA, with the exception of Ireland, Spain, Portugal and the United Kingdom — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Price-fixing and market-sharing — Rights of the defence — Commission’s powers in inspections — Single and continuous infringement — Fines — Cooperation during the administrative procedure — Proportionality — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines)

text:
               2.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/17

         Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 12 December 2012 — Almamet v Commission
   (Case T-410/09) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for calcium carbide and magnesium for the steel and gas industries in the EEA, with the exception of Ireland, Spain, Portugal and the United Kingdom - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price-fixing and market-sharing - Rights of the defence - Commission’s powers in inspections - Single and continuous infringement - Fines - Cooperation during the administrative procedure - Proportionality - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines)
   2013/C 32/25
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Almamet GmbH Handel mit Spänen und Pulvern aus Metall (Ainring, Germany) (represented by: S. Hautbourg and C. Renner, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: N. Khan, V. Bottka and N. von Lingen, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 5791 final of 22 July 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.396 — Calcium carbide and magnesium based reagents for the steel and gas industries), in so far as it concerns the applicant, and, in the alternative, a reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant by that decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Almamet GmbH Handel mit Spänen und Pulvern aus Metall to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.


title: Case C-397/05: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 May 2007 — (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Palermo (Italy)) — Criminal proceedings against Maria Grazia di Maggio, Salvatore Buccola (First paragraph of Article 104(3)of the Rules of Procedure — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Interpretation of Articles 43 EC and 49 EC — Games of chance — Collection of bets on sporting events — Licensing requirement — Exclusion of certain operators by reason of their type of corporate form — Requirement of police authorisation — Criminal penalties)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/20

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 May 2007 — (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Palermo (Italy)) — Criminal proceedings against Maria Grazia di Maggio, Salvatore Buccola
   (Case C-397/05) (1)

   (First paragraph of Article 104(3)of the Rules of Procedure - Freedom of establishment - Freedom to provide services - Interpretation of Articles 43 EC and 49 EC - Games of chance - Collection of bets on sporting events - Licensing requirement - Exclusion of certain operators by reason of their type of corporate form - Requirement of police authorisation - Criminal penalties)
   (2007/C 96/35)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Tribunale di Palermo (Italy)
   Criminal proceedings against
   Maria Grazia di Maggio, Salvatore Buccola
   Action
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Palermo — Interpretation of Articles 31, 43, 49 and 81 to 89 EC — National legislation making the collection of bets subject to a licensing requirement
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               National legislation which prohibits the pursuit of the activities of collecting, taking, booking and forwarding offers of bets, in particular bets on sporting events, without a licence or a police authorisation issued by the Member State concerned, constitutes a restriction on the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services, provided for in Articles 43 EC and 49 EC respectively.

               2.

               It is for the national courts to determine whether, in so far as national legislation limits the number of operators active in the betting and gaming sector, it genuinely contributes to the objective of preventing the exploitation of activities in that sector for criminal or fraudulent purposes.

               3.

               Articles 43 EC and 49 EC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which excludes — and, moreover, continues to exclude — from the betting and gaming sector operators in the form of companies whose shares are quoted on the regulated markets.

               4.

               Articles 43 EC and 49 EC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes a criminal penalty on persons such as the defendants in the main proceedings for pursuing the organised activity of collecting bets without a licence or a police authorisation as required under the national legislation, where those persons were unable to obtain licences or authorisations because that Member State, in breach of Community law, refused to grant licences or authorisations to such persons.

      (1)  OJ C 10 of 14.1.2006.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 7 March 1996 in Case C-192/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 10 de Sevilla): El Corte Inglés SA v. Cristina Blázquez Rivero (Direct effect of unimplemented Directive - Council Directive 87/102/EEC concerning consumer credit)

text:
 No C 180/2            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      22 . 6 . 96
 meaning that it authorizes the Member States to derogate             2 . Article 3 (1 ) of Directive 77/1 87/EEC does not preclude
 from the general prohibition on hunting protected species                 an employee employed by the transferor at the date of
 laid down by Articles 5 and 7 of the Directive only by                    the transfer of an undertaking from objecting to the
 measures which refer in sufficient detail to the factors                  transfer to the transferee of the contract of employment
 mentioned in Article 9 ( 1 ) and (2).                                     or the emplyoment relationship. In such a case, it is for
                                                                           the Member States to determine what the fate of the
                                                                           contract of employment or employment relationship
 (') OJ No C 174 , 25 . 6 . 1994 .
                                                                           with the transferor should be. However, where the
                                                                           contract ofemployment or the employment relationship
                                                                           is terminated on account of a change in the level of
                                                                           remuneration awarded to the employee, Article 4 (2) of
                                                                           the Directive requires the Member States to provide that
                                                                           the employer is to be regarded as having been
                                                                           responsible for the termination.
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        ( Sixth Chamber )                             (•) OJ No C 233 , 20 . 8 . 1994 .
                        of 7 March 1996
in Joined Cases C-171/94 and C-172/94 ( references for a
preliminary ruling from the Cour du Travail, Brussels ):
Albert Merckx and Patrick Neuhuys v. Ford Motor
                    Company Belgium SA (')
 (Safeguarding of employees ' rights in the event of transfers
 of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses —                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      Concept of a transfer — Transfer of a dealership)                                       ( Sixth Chamber)
                           ( 96/C 180/03 )                                                   of 7 March 1996
                                                                      in Case C-192/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
                 (Language of the case: French)                       the Juzgado de Primera Instancia N° 10 de Sevilla ): El Corte
                                                                                Inglés SA v. Cristina Blázquez Rivero ( ] )
                                                                      (Direct effect of unimplemented Directive — Council
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be             Directive 87/102/EEC concerning consumer credit)
           published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                ( 96/C 180/04 )
In Joined Cases C-171 /94 and C-172/94 : references to the
Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Cour du                             (Language of the case: Spanish)
Travail ( Higher Labour Court ), Brussels, for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Albert Merckx ( C-171 /94 ), Patrick Neuhuys ( C-172/94 )                      published in the European Court Reports)
and Ford Motor Company Belgium SA — on the
interpretation of Council Directive 77/ 1 87/EEC of
 14 February 1977 on the approximation of the laws of the            In Case C- 1 92/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees'             of the EC Treaty from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia
rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or      N° 10 ( Court of First Instance No 10 ), Seville ( Spain ), for a
parts of businesses ( OJ No L 61 , 1977, p . 26 ) — the Court        preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
( Sixth Chamber ), composed of C. N. Kakouris, President of          court between El Corte Inglés SA and Cristina Blâzquez
the Chamber, G. F. Mancini ( Rapporteur ), F. A.                     Rivero — on the interpretation of Article 129a of the EC
Schockweiler, P. J. G. Kapteyn and H. Ragnemalm, Judges;             Treaty and Article 11 of Council Directive 87/ 102/EEC of
C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General; D. Louterman-Hubeau ,                  22 December 1986 for the approximation of the laws,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a              regulations and administrative provisions of the Member
judgment on 7 March 1996 , in which it rules :                       States concerning consumer credit ( OJ No L 42 , 1987, p . 48 )
                                                                     — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of C. N. Kakouris,
                                                                     President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch ( Rapporteur ), P. J. G.
1 . Article 1 ( 1 ) of Council Directive 77/187/EEC of               Kapteyn, J. L. Murray and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; C. O.
      7 4 February 1977 on the approximation of the laws of          Lenz, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
     the Member States relating to the safeguarding of               judgment on 7 March 1996 , in which it rules :
     employees ' rights in the event of transfers of
     undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses must be
     interpreted as applying where an undertaking holding a          In the absence of measures implementing Council Directive
     motor vehicle dealership for a particular territory             87/102/EEC of 22 December 1986 for the approximation
     discontinues its activities and the dealership is then          of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the
     transferred to another undertaking which takes on part          Member States concerning consumer credit within the
     of the staff and is recommended to customers, without           prescribed period, a consumer may not, even in view of
     any transfer of assets.                                         Article 129a of the EC Treaty, base a right of action on the
 ---pagebreak--- 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 F-18/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 7 July 2011 — Zaffino v Commission (Civil service — Persons claiming the status of official or servant of the European Union — Action — Manifestly inadmissible — Failure to comply with the preliminary procedure)

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/31

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 7 July 2011 — Zaffino v Commission
   (Case F-18/11)
   (Civil service - Persons claiming the status of official or servant of the European Union - Action - Manifestly inadmissible - Failure to comply with the preliminary procedure)
   2012/C 138/68
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Pasqualino Zaffino (Gallarate, Italy) (represented by: S. Costantino, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Re:

   The applicant’s request to be granted the status of servant of the European Union.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Mr Zaffino shall bear his own costs.


title: Case T-390/02: Action brought on 24 December 2002 by Antonio Cagnato against the Court of Justice of the European Communities

text:
C 44/42                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                        22.2.2003
Action brought on 24 December 2002 by Antonio Cagna-                      Action brought on 24 December 2002 by the Bundesver-
to against the Court of Justice of the European Communi-                  band der Nahrungsmittel- und Speiseresteverwertung e.V.
                               ties                                       and Josef Kloh against the European Parliament and the
                                                                                Council of the European Union
                        (Case T-390/02)
                                                                                (Case T-391/02)
                         (2003/C 44/78)
                                                                                (2003/C 44/79)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
An action against the Court of Justice of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities on 24 December 2002 by                        An action against the European Parliament and the Council of
Antonio Cagnato, residing in Dippach-Gare (Luxembourg),
                                                                          the European Union was brought before the Court of First
represented by Juan Ramon Iturriagagoitia and Karine Delvol-              Insurance of the European Communities on 24 December
vé, lawyers.                                                              2002 by the Bundesverband der Nahrungsmittel- und Speisere-
                                                                          steverwertung e.V., Bochum (Germany), and Josef Kloh, Eich-
                                                                          enried (Germany), represented by R. Steiling and S. von
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               Zimmermann-Wienhues.
—     annul the decision of the Court of Justice given on
      24 September 2002 and concerning the complaint lodged               The applicants claim that the Court should:
      by the applicant on 25 January 2002 against the decision
      of 25 October 2001;
                                                                          —     annul Article 32(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of
                                                                                the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 October
—     order the defendant to pay the applicant compensation
                                                                                2002 laying down health rules concerning animal by-
      for the damage and non-material damage of every kind
                                                                                products not intended for human consumption ( 1) in so
      that he has suffered as a result of his being exposed to
                                                                                far as transitional measures under Article 32(1) of the
      asbestos when carrying out his duties at the Palais de
                                                                                regulation are permitted for no more than four years
      Justice of the Court of First Instance and the Court of
                                                                                from 1 November 2002;
      Justice of the European Communities, estimated at a sum
      of EUR 350 000, subject to all necessary reservations;
                                                                          —     order the defendants to pay the costs.
—     order the defendant to pay all the costs.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant, an official of the Court of Justice, challenges            The action challenges the time-limit on transitional measures
that institution’s refusal to compensate him for the damage               which may be adopted under Article 32 of the contested
suffered as a result of his occupational disease, which has               regulation in the case of Member States with a secure system
already been recognised by decision of the appointing auth-               for processing food and kitchen waste [catering waste].
ority of 31 May 2001, adopted under Article 73 of the Staff
Regulations, and on the basis of which a sum was paid to him.
                                                                          1.    The imposition of a time-limit exceeds the bounds of the
                                                                                Parliament’s and the Council’s discretion; it runs counter
The pleas relied on in support of this application are similar to               to the principle of subsidiarity (Article 5(2) EC) and the
those in Case T 255/02 H v Court of Justice (OJ C 274 of                        principle of proportionality (Article 5(3) EC).
9.11.2002, p. 26).
                                                                                In matters of Community health and hygiene law the
                                                                                institutions do not enjoy wide political discretion:
                                                                                decisions must be based on scientific evidence. There is


title: Case T-213/03: Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Francesco Contesso against Commission of the European Communities

text:
23.8.2003               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 200/29
As a result of these breaches, the applicant claims to have                 Action brought on 13 June 2003 by SIGLA, S.A. against
suffered loss. This loss consists firstly of the profits generated          the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
by First Choice as reported in its audited accounts and that                                             (OHIM)
would have accrued to the applicant if the acquisition had not
been prohibited by the Commission. Secondly, the applicant
                                                                                (Case T-215/03)
claims the loss of synergy costs savings that would have been
obtained in consequence of the merger and, thirdly, the costs of
the abortive bid for First Choice which were wasted as a result                                      (2003/C 200/53)
of the Decision of the Commission.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
 1
( ) 2000/276/EC: Commission Decision of 22 September 1999
    declaring a concentration to be incompatible with the common
    market and the EEA Agreement (Case IV/M.1524 — Airtours/First
    Choice) (notified under document number C(1999) 3022) (Text             An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
    with EEA relevance) (OJ L 93 of 2000, p. 1).                            Market (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance
(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on              of the European Communities on 13 June 2003 by SIGLA,
    the control of concentrations between undertakings (text repub-         S.A., with offices in Madrid, represented by E. Armijo Chávarri.
    lished in OJ L 257 of 1990, p. 13).
(3) Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 June 2002, Airtours/
    Commission, T-342/99, ECR II-2585.                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                            —     annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM
                                                                                no. R 1127/2000-3 of 1 April 2003 on the ground that
                                                                                it is inconsistent with Article 8(5) of Regulation No 40/
                                                                                94;
Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Francesco Contesso                        —     in the alternative, annul the contested decision on the
      against Commission of the European Communities                              ground that it prejudices SIGLA's rights of defence and
                                                                                the principle underlying Article 74 of Regulation No 40/
                           (Case T-213/03)                                        94; and
                           (2003/C 200/52)                                  —     order OHIM to pay the costs.
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 13 June 2003 by Francesco                           Applicant for Community          ELLENI HOLDING BV
Contesso, residing in Paris, represented by Sebastien Orlandi,              trade mark:
Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 Community       trade    mark    Word mark ‘VIPS’ Application
                                                                            sought:                          No 459.875 sought for pro-
—      annul the decision drawing up the definitive staff report                                             ducts and services within
       for the period from 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2001;                                                      classes 9, 35 and 42 and, sub-
                                                                                sequently, only for services
—      order the Commission to pay the applicant a token one                                                 within class 42 (computer pro-
       euro for compensation for the non-material damage                                                     gramming services for hotels,
       sustained;                                                                                restaurants and cafes)
—      order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                            Proprietor of mark or sign       The applicant
Pleas in law and main arguments                                             cited in the opposition pro-
                                                                            ceedings:
In support of his application, the applicant pleads infringement
of the assessor's prior duty to consult senior assessors before
finalising the staff report, infringement of the assessor's duty to
require them to initial each of the pages and to sign the                   Mark or sign cited in op-        Spanish word mark ‘VIPS’ (re-
definitive staff report, infringement of the duty to give reasons,          position:                        gistration No 551.436) for pro-
in so far as the appeal assessor did not state why he did not                                                ducts of class 42 (supplying
take account of the opinions of the hierarchical superiors                                                   prepared food and drink for
consulted.                                                                                consumption, restaurants, ser-
                                                                                vice stations, canteens, bars and
                                                                                cafeterias and hotel services)


title: Case T-425/05: Action brought on  5 December 2005  — Mediocurso — Estabelecimento de Ensino Particular SA v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               25.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/37

         Action brought on 5 December 2005 — Mediocurso — Estabelecimento de Ensino Particular SA v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-425/05)
   (2006/C 48/73)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Mediocurso — Estabelecimento de Ensino Particular, SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: Carlos Botelho Moniz and Eduardo Maia Cadete, lawyers)

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

               —

               order joined to this case the administrative proceedings relating to Dossier FSE 890588/P1 under way in the Commission of the European Communities and the Department for European Social Fund Affairs, part of the Ministério para a Qulificação e o Emprego (Ministry for Qualifications and Employment) of the Portuguese Republic, which department is situated at 72 Av. Almirante Reis (3rd floor), P-1100, Lisbon, Portugal;

               —

               annul the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 13 September 2005‘Reducing the amount of assistance granted by the European Social Fund to the entity “Mediocurso — Estabelecimento de Ensino particular, Lda”, in accordance with Commission Decision C (89) 0570 of 22 March 1989 in connection with Project No 890588 P1’, with the reference ‘C(2005) 3557’;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant is a commercial company with the object, according to its memorandum and articles of association, of ‘providing training and technical specialisation courses and drawing up projects, studies, advice on matters of company economics, tax, accountancy and management and operation’. In 1988 it presented to the European Social Fund, through the Department for European Social Fund Affairs, various applications for assistance relating to training projects that it said it would carry out during 1989, including the application for assistance at issue in these proceedings which gave rise to File 890588 P1. The application for assistance in that file was approved and the vocational training programmes to which it related were implemented, with the result that the applicant presented the corresponding request for final payment.
   The act challenged by the applicant is the decision adopted by the Commission following the presentation of the claim for final payment and various procedural documents.
   The applicant claims that the Commission has infringed essential procedural requirements, having regard to the inadequacy of the reasons given for the contested decision.
   It also alleges breach of the principles of legal certainty and of the protection of legitimate expectations, in so far as the contested act is incompatible, in a manner disadvantageous to the applicant, with the earlier act certifying the accuracy of the facts and accounts given by the applicant in the final payment application it had submitted. Last, it alleges a manifest error in the assessment of the documentary evidence of expenditure put forward by Mediocurso and breach of the principle of proportionality, in that the contested decision does not deal with the grounds of fact and law relied on in support of the reduction of assistance which is its subject-matter.


title: Case T-39/03: Action brought on 7 February 2003 by DaimlerChrysler AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
C 101/38               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         26.4.2003
Finally, the applicant alleges breach of the principle of non-             compensation for the material damage he allegedly suffered in
discrimination in that the contested decisions deprived the                the period between 1 July and 31 December 2001 and has
union of which the applicant is the secretary general of all               made the present application. In support of his arguments, he
manner of human and material resources without taking                      alleges infringement of the abovementioned article of the Staff
account of its representativeness.                                         Regulations.
Action brought on 31 January 2003 by José Pedro                            Action brought on 7 February 2003 by DaimlerChrysler
Pessoa e Costa against Commission of the European                          AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                           Communities                                                   Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                                (Case T-39/03)
                          (Case T-36/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 101/70)
                         (2003/C 101/69)
                                                                           (Language of the case: to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
                    (Language of the case: French)                         of the Rules of Procedure — Language in which the application was
                                                                                submitted: German)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
European Communities on 31 January 2003 by José Pedro                      Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Pessoa e Costa, residing in Brussels, represented by Albert                Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis et Étienne Marchal, lawyers, with an               7 February 2003 by DaimlerChrysler AG, Stuttgart, Germany,
address for service in Luxembourg.                                         represented by M. Trimborn, lawyer. AXON Leasing GmbH,
                                                                           Grasbrunn, Germany, was also a party to the proceedings
                                                                           before the Board of Appeal.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     declare that the Commission commited an administrative               The applicant claims that the Court should:
      fault by not reinstating the applicant to the first vacancy
      at Grade A 5 commensurate with his abilities;                        —     annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of
                                                                                4 November 2002 in appeal No R 329/2001-4 and
—     order the Commission to reconstitute his career and, in                    dismiss the appeal;
      particular, to pay him the remuneration to which he is
      entitled in respect of the period from 1 August to                   —     order the defendant Office to pay the costs.
      31 December 2001 together with default interest calcu-
      lated at the rate of 1.5 % per annum;
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                                Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           Applicant for Com-             The applicant
                                                                           munity trade mark:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           Community trade mark           The word mark ‘AXOR’ for goods
                                                                           sought:                        and services in Classes 12 and 37
The applicant, an official working for the defendant, on leave                                            (automobiles and parts therefor
on personal grounds until 30 June 2001, requested his                                                     (included in Class 12) and motor
reinstatement, in accordance with Article 40(4)(d) of the Staff                                           vehicle maintenance and repair)
Regulations of officials of the European Communities. On                                                  — application No 1111061
30 May 2002, the applicant lodged a complaint claiming that
the defendant had failed to reinstate him to the first vacancy             Proprietor of mark or          AXON Leasing GmbH
corresponding to his grade and abilities. The applicant claims             sign cited in the oppo-
that that complaint was partially rejected so far as concerns              sition proceedings:
 ---pagebreak--- 26.4.2003              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 101/39
Mark or sign cited in          The German word/figurative                  Pleas in law and main arguments
opposition:                    mark ‘AXON’ (No 1108589) for
                               goods and services in classes 10,           Applicant for Com-           Applicant
                               12, 35 and 36                               munity trade mark:
Decision of the Oppo-          Rejection of the opposition                 Community trade mark         Figurative mark ‘Julián Murúa
sition Division:                                                           sought:                      Entrena’        —       Application
                                                                                No 62.588 for products in
Decision of the Board of       Annulment of the decision of the                                         Class 33 (wines).
Appeal:                        Opposition Division and referral
                               of the case back to the Opposition          Proprietor of mark or        Bodegas Murúa S.A.
                               Division                                    sign cited in the oppo-
                                                                           sition proceedings:
Pleas in law:                  —     There is no similarity
                                     between the marks opposed,            Mark or sign cited in        Spanish trade mark ‘MURUA’
                                     within the meaning of                 opposition:                  and international registration
                                     Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation                                      No 482.779 having effect in Ger-
                                     (EC) No 40/94 (1).                                                 many, France, Austria, Switzer-
                                                                                land and Benelux for products in
                               —     There is no likelihood of                                          Class 33.
                                     confusion.
                                                                           Decision of the Oppo-        Opposition accepted.
                                                                           sition Division:
( 1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
     Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).                            Decision of the Board of     Appeal dismissed.
                                                                           Appeal:
                                                                           Pleas in law:                Incorrect        application      of
                                                                                Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)
                                                                                No 40/94 (likelihood of con-
                                                                                fusion).
Action brought on 10 February 2003 by Julián Murúa
Entrena against the Office for Harmonisation in the
     Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
                          (Case T-40/03)                                   Action brought on 10 February 2003 by La Maison de
                                                                           l’Europe Avignon-Méditerranée against Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities
                         (2003/C 101/71)
                                                                                (Case T-43/03)
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                                (2003/C 101/72)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                               (Language of the case: French)
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
10 February 2003 by Julián Murúa Entrena, residing in El
Ciego, Álava (Spain), represented by Ignacio Temiño Ceniceros,             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
lawyer.                                                                    ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 10 February 2003 by La Maison
                                                                           de l’Europe Avignon-Méditerranée, established in Avignon
                                                                           (France), represented by François Martineau, lawyer.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—      annul the contested decision refusing the Community                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
       trade-mark application No 62.588 in Class 33;
                                                                           —     order the defendant to pay EUR 100 000 to make good
—      order the parties to bear their own costs and half of the                 the damage suffered by La Maison de l’Europe Avignon-
       common costs.                                                             Méditerranée as a result of the disclosure of deceitful,


title: Case C-669/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 29 December 2011 — Société ED et F Man Alcohols v Office national interprofessionnel des fruits, des légumes, des vins et de l’horticulture (VINIFLHOR)

text:
               24.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/5

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 29 December 2011 — Société ED et F Man Alcohols v Office national interprofessionnel des fruits, des légumes, des vins et de l’horticulture (VINIFLHOR)
   (Case C-669/11)
   2012/C 89/08
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Société ED et F Man Alcohols

      Defendant: Office national interprofessionnel des fruits, des légumes, des vins et de l’horticulture (VINIFLHOR)

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the forfeiture, at a rate of ECU 12,08 per hectolitre of alcohol not exported within the time limit laid down, of the performance guarantee lodged by the successful tenderer with the intervention agencies holding the alcohol awarded, as provided for in Article 5(5) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 360/95 of 22 February 1995 (1) where the time limit for export is exceeded by the successful tenderer, and the forfeiture at the rate of 15 % in all cases and 0,33 % of the amount remaining per day of delay, of the export security provided for in Article 91(12) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1623/2000 of 25 July 2000 (2) where there is delay of export of the alcohol awarded, administrative penalties or measures of a different kind?

               2.

               Is the mere failure, by an operator to comply with the time limit for export of vinous alcohol held by the intervention agencies which was awarded to it by the Commission in the context of an invitation to tender procedure a failure which has or is likely to have the effect of prejudicing the general budget of the European Communities or budgets managed by them, within the meaning of Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995? (3)

               3.

               As regards the possible combination of the provisions of the cross-sectoral Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 with those of the sectoral Commission Regulation (EC) No 360/95 of 22 February 1995:

                           —

                           In the event of a positive reply to the question referred to in paragraph 2, does the system of forfeiting the guarantee where export is delayed in the sectoral Commission Regulation of 22 February 1995 apply, to the exclusion of any other system of measures or of penalties laid down by European Union law? Or, on the contrary, is the system of measures and of administrative penalties laid down by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995, alone applicable? Or indeed, must the provisions of the two regulations of 22 February 1995 and 18 December 1995 be combined to determine the measures and penalties to be applied and, if so, in what manner?

                           —

                           In the event of a negative reply to the question referred to in paragraph 2, do the provisions of cross-sectoral Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 prohibit forfeiture of the guarantee laid down by Article 5(5) of the sectoral Commission Regulation (EC) No 360/95 of 22 February 1995, on the ground that the cross-sectoral regulation of 18 December 1995, by laying down a condition relating to the existence of a financial prejudice for the Communities, prevents a measure or a penalty imposed by an earlier or subsequent regulation in the agricultural sector from being applied in the absence of such prejudice?

               4.

               If, in view of the reply to the earlier questions, forfeiture of the guarantee constitutes a penalty applicable where the time limit for export is exceeded by the successful tenderer, is it necessary to apply retroactively and, if so, in accordance with what rules — for the purposes of calculating the amount of the guarantee to be forfeited for failure to comply with the time limit for export set for invitations to tender Nos 170/94 EC and 171/94 EC by Commission Regulation (EC) No 360/95 of 22 February 1995 as amended — the provisions of Article 91(12) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1623/2000 of 25 July 2000, even though, first, the latter regulation neither explicitly amended nor repealed the provisions of Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 360/95 which specifically govern invitations to tender Nos 170/94 EC and 171/94 EC, but only those of Commission Regulation (EC) No 377/93 of 12 February 1993 (4) which laid down the ordinary rules for invitations to tender relating to alcohol from distillation operations held by the intervention agencies and referred, as regards the rules for release of the performance guarantees lodged by the successful tenderers, to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2220/85 of 22 July 1985 (5) from which the provisions of Article 5 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 360/95 of 22 February 1995 explicitly derogate, and even though, second, Regulation (EC) No 1623/2000 was drawn up after reform of the common organisation of the markets in wine in 1999, it substantially amended the invitations to tender system and the system of guarantees given in that context, both with regard to their purpose and their amount and the rules for their forfeiture and their release and, finally, it removed Brazil from the list of third countries to which the export, for exclusive use as motor fuel, of the alcohol awarded is authorised?

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 360/95 of 22 February 1995 opening individual sales by invitation to tender for the export of vinous alcohol held by intervention agencies (OJ 1995 L 41, p. 14).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1623/2000 of 25 July 2000 laying down detailed rules for implementing Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine with regard to market mechanisms (OJ 2000 L 194, p. 45).

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1).

      (4)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 377/93 of 12 February 1993 laying down detailed rules for the disposal of alcohol obtained from the distillation operations referred to in Articles 35, 36 and 39 of Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 and held by intervention agencies (OJ 1993 L 43, p. 6).

      (5)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2220/85 of 22 July 1985 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of securities for agricultural products (OJ 1985 L 205, p. 5).