title: Case T-303/09: Order of the General Court of 2 April 2014  — CIVR and Others v Commission (State aid — Framework system of activities carried out by agricultural inter-trade organisations recognised in France in favour of the members of the represented agricultural industries — Financing by compulsory voluntary contributions — Decision classifying the aid scheme as compatible with the common market — Withdrawal of the decision — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               24.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/24

         Order of the General Court of 2 April 2014 — CIVR and Others v Commission
   (Case T-303/09) (1)

   ((State aid - Framework system of activities carried out by agricultural inter-trade organisations recognised in France in favour of the members of the represented agricultural industries - Financing by compulsory voluntary contributions - Decision classifying the aid scheme as compatible with the common market - Withdrawal of the decision - No need to adjudicate))
   2014/C 194/31
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Conseil interprofessionnel des vins du Roussillon (CIVR) (Perpignan, France); Comité national des interprofessions des vins à appellation d’origine et à indication géographique (CNIV) (Paris, France); and Interprofession nationale porcine (Inaporc) (Paris) (represented by: H. Calvet, O. Billard and Y. Trifounovitch, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by B. Stromsky and C. Urraca Caviedes, then by B. Stromsky and S. Thomas, and finally by B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 7846 final of 10 December 2008 in respect of State aid No 561/2008 relating to the framework system of activities carried out by agricultural inter-trade organisations recognised in France in favour of the members of the represented agricultural industries.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.

               2.

               The European Commission is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 244, 10. 10. 2009.


title: Case C-126/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbitration Court attached to the Economic Chamber of the Czech Republic and Agricultural Chamber of the Czech Republic (Czech Republic) lodged on 26 February 2007 — Reisebüro Bühler GmbH v Dom.info e.K., Sebastian Dieterle

text:
               26.5.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 117/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbitration Court attached to the Economic Chamber of the Czech Republic and Agricultural Chamber of the Czech Republic (Czech Republic) lodged on 26 February 2007 — Reisebüro Bühler GmbH v Dom.info e.K., Sebastian Dieterle
   (Case C-126/07)
   (2007/C 117/11)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court or tribunal
   Arbitration Court attached to the Economic Chamber of the Czech Republic and Agricultural Chamber of the Czech Republic
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Complainant: Reisebüro Bühler GmbH

      Respondents: Dom.info e.K., Sebastian Dieterle
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is the Arbitration Court for the resolution of .eu domain name disputes attached to the Economic Chamber of the Czech Republic and Agricultural Chamber of the Czech Republic (Czech Arbitration Court), established pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 874/2004 (1), empowered to refer questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling under the second paragraph of Article 234 EC?

               2.

               If the Court's answer to the first question is in the affirmative:
               Does the power in Article 22(5) of Regulation (EC) No 874/2004 permit alternative dispute resolution rules (ADR Rules) to be made, according to which, inter alia, a respondent can not only apply for a complaint to be dismissed but can also seek a declaration that a complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of administrative proceeding (Paragraph B12(h) of the ADR Rules)?

               3.

               If the Court's answer to the second question is in the negative:
               Is an ADR panel of the Arbitration Court entitled to determine the application for a declaration on the basis of any other Community law or on the basis of general legal principles of Community law arising from the constitutional traditions of the Member States?

      (1)  OJ L 162, p. 40.


title: Case C-499/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the De Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg te Brugge (Belgium) lodged on 16 November 2007 — Beleggen, Risicokapitaal, Beheer NV v Belgische Staat

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/29

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the De Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg te Brugge (Belgium) lodged on 16 November 2007 — Beleggen, Risicokapitaal, Beheer NV v Belgische Staat
   (Case C-499/07)
   (2008/C 22/54)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg te Brugge (Belgium)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Beleggen, Risicokapitaal, Beheer NV

      Defendant: Belgische Staat
   Questions referred

               1.

               Must Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States (1), in particular Article 4(1) thereof, be construed as precluding a situation in which a Member State applies the exemption relating to distributed profits which are received by a company of that State from its subsidiary in another Member State, except when the subsidiary is liquidated, by first including in full the distributed profits in the taxable basis and then deducting 95 % of those profits from the taxable basis but limiting the deduction to the amount of profits made in the taxable period in which the distribution of profits took place (after certain statutorily defined deductions) (Article 205(2) WIB 1992 in conjunction with Article 77 KB/WIB 1992), with the result that, if the profits made in the relevant taxable period are smaller than the amount of the aforementioned distributed profits, this does not give rise to a transferable loss?

               2.

               If so, must Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States, in particular Article 4(1) thereof, then be construed as obliging this Member State to make the distribution of profits which a company of this Member State receives from its subsidiary of another Member State deductible in full from the amount of profits made in the taxable period and to make any resulting loss transferable to a later taxable period?

               3.

               If the aforementioned Directive 90/435/EEC must be construed as meaning that the Belgian rule is contrary to Article 4(1) with regard to distributed profits received by the Belgian parent company from a subsidiary established in the EU, must it then be determined that the aforementioned provision of the Directive is also incompatible with the application of the Belgian rule to distributed profits received by a Belgian parent company from a Belgian subsidiary where, as in the present case, the Belgian legislature, in transposing the Directive into Belgian law, has chosen to apply the same treatment to purely internal situations and to those governed by the Directive and has therefore aligned the Belgian legislation with the Directive also for purely internal situations?

               4.

               Does Article 43 EC preclude the application of a legislative rule of a Member State under which, for the purposes of assessment to corporation tax, the exemption of the distributed profits received during a taxable period by a company from its subsidiary established in another Member State is limited in the first Member State to the amount of the profit made in the taxable period during which the profits were distributed (after certain statutorily defined deductions), whereas a full exemption of the distributed profits would be possible if that company had set up a permanent establishment in that other Member State?

      (1)  OJ L 225, p. 6.


title: Case C-145/07: Order of the President of the Court of 8 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/39

         Order of the President of the Court of 8 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden
   (Case C-145/07) (1)

   (2008/C 22/70)

      Language of the case: Swedish

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

      (1)  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.


title: Case C-638/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil du contentieux des étrangers (Belgium) lodged on 12 December 2016 — X, X v État belge

text:
               6.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/18

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil du contentieux des étrangers (Belgium) lodged on 12 December 2016 — X, X v État belge
   (Case C-638/16)
   (2017/C 038/24)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil du contentieux des étrangers

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: X, X

      Defendant: État belge

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do the ‘international obligations’, referred to in Article 25(1)(a) of Regulation No 810/2009 (1) of 13 July 2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas cover all the rights guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, including, in particular, those guaranteed by Articles 4 and 18, and do they also cover obligations which bind the Member States, in the light of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 33 of the Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees?

               2.

                           A.

                           In view of the answer given to the first question, must Article 25(1)(a) of Regulation No 810/2009 of 13 July 2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas be interpreted as meaning that, subject to its discretion with regard to the circumstances of the case, a Member State to which an application for a visa with limited territorial validity has been made is required to issue the visa applied for, where a risk of infringement of Article 4 and/or Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union or another international obligation by which it is bound is detected?

                           B.

                           Does the existence of links between the applicant and the Member State to which the visa application has been made (for example, family connections, host families, guarantors and sponsors) affect the answer to that question?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas (Visa Code) (OJ 2009 L 243, p. 1).


title: Case F-97/10: Action brought on 4 October 2010 — Kerstens v Commission

text:
               15.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/41

         Action brought on 4 October 2010 — Kerstens v Commission
   (Case F-97/10)
   ()
   2011/C 13/82
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Petrus Kerstens (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi and S. Rodrigues, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application to maintain the effects of contested salary slips pending the adoption of a regulation replacing, with retroactive effect, Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1296/2009 of 23 December 2009 and for payment of damages for the material and non-material damage suffered by the applicant.

      Form of order sought

               —

               the maintenance of the effects of contested salary slips pending the adoption of a regulation replacing, with retroactive effect, Regulation No 1296/2009;

               —

               order the Commission to compensate the applicant for the financial loss he suffered by the payment of a sum to the amount equivalent to the loss of earnings resulting from the application of the manifestly illegal Regulation No 1296/2009, plus the repayment of the part of the special levy applied monthly since January 2010 in accordance with Article 66 of the Staff Regulations, the rate of which was erroneously fixed taking account of that regulation: that amount is estimated, without prejudice to the interpretation of the Tribunal, at between EUR 40 000 and EUR 50 000, excluding default interest which was also applied for by the applicant;

               —

               order the Commission to pay symbolic damages of one euro to the applicant for the non-material damage he suffered;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-206/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the First Chamber of the First Division of the Tribunal Tributário de 1a Instância do Porto, by order of that court of 16 April 1999 in the case of SONAE - Tecnologia de Informação S.A. v Direcção Geral dos Registos e Notariado

text:
C 226/20               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       7.8.1999
Question 3:                                                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         1. Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
Does Community law impose requirements as to how Member                      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
States should define the expressions ‘damage caused by death                 European Parliament and Council Directive 95/26/EC of
or by personal injuries’ and ‘damage to, or destruction of, any              29 June 1995 amending Directives 77/780/EEC and
item of property’ in Article 9 of Council Directive 85/374/EEC               89/646/EEC in the field of credit institutions, Directives
of 25 July 1985, or are individual Member States free to decide              73/239/EEC and 92/49/EEC in the field of non-life
what meaning is to be attached to those expressions?                         insurance, Directives 79/267/EEC and 92/96/EEC in the
                                                                             field of life assurance, Directive 93/22/EEC in the field of
                                                                             investment firms and Directive 85/611/EEC in the field of
                                                                             undertakings for collective investment in transferable
Question 4:                                                                  securities (Ucits), with a view to reinforcing prudential
                                                                             supervision, (1) the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed
                                                                             to fulfil its obligations under that directive; and
Must Article 9(a) of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July
1985 be construed as meaning that damage to a human organ                2. Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
which, at the time when the damage occurred, had been
removed from a donor’s body for immediate transplant into a
certain other person’s body is covered by the expression                 Pleas in law and main arguments
‘damage caused by ... personal injuries’ in relation to the
intended recipient of the organ?                                         The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
                                                                         submitted in Case C-168/99 (2) the period prescribed in Article
                                                                         6 of the directive expired on 18 July 1996.
Question 5:
                                                                         (1) OJ 1995 L 168, p. 7.
                                                                         (2) OJ C 264, p. 28.
Must Article 9(b) of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July
1985 be construed as meaning that damage to a human organ
which, at the time when the damage was occasioned, had been
removed from a donor’s body for immediate transplant into a
certain other person’s body is covered by the expression
‘damage to, or destruction of, any item of property’ in relation
to the intended recipient of the organ?                                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the First Chamber
                                                                         of the First Division of the Tribunal Tributário de 1a
                                                                         Instância do Porto, by order of that court of 16 April
                                                                         1999 in the case of SONAE — Tecnologia de Informação
(1) On the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative            S.A. v Direcção Geral dos Registos e Notariado
    provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective
    products (OJ 1985 L 210, p. 29).
                                                                                (Case C-206/99)
                                                                                (1999/C 226/33)
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by order of the First Chamber of the
                                                                         First Division of the Tribunal Tributário de 1a Instância do
                                                                         Porto (Tax Court of First Instance, Oporto) of 16 April 1999,
                                                                         which was received at the Court Registry on 31 May 1999, for
                                                                         a preliminary ruling in the case of SONAE — Tecnologia de
Action brought on 27 May 1999 by the Commission of                       Informação S.A. v Direcção Geral dos Registos e Notariado
the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of                      (Directorate General of Registries and of the Notariat), on the
                          Luxembourg                                     following questions:
                        (Case C-204/99)                                  1. May the fees paid for the services of the Directorate General
                                                                             of Registries and of the Notariat be calculated and collected
                                                                             by reference to the amount to which the document relates?
                        (1999/C 226/32)
                                                                             (a) May that amount be unlimited?
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was                          (b) May that amount be calculated in the manner to which
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-                      Question 1relates if there is an upper limit?
ties on 27 May 1999 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Christina Tufvesson, Legal                   2. In compliance with Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969
Adviser, and Bernard Mongin, of its Legal Service, acting as                 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital,(1) must
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office              the court of the Member State reduce the amount payable
of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner                    in accordance with the upper limit laid down in national
Centre, Kirchberg.                                                           legislation after the action was taken?
 ---pagebreak--- 7.8.1999                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 226/21
3. Must the fees paid for such services be calculated in the                    — C(1999)544, which withdraws the assistance granted
     light of the cost involved in providing the service?                            to Floreurop - Productos Florestais Lda by Commission
                                                                                Decision C(96)2211 of 13 September 1996 concern-
4. Are such costs those incurred in taking the action and in                         ing the grant of an EAGGF, Guarantee Section, contri-
     maintaining the facilities necessary for taking it?                             bution under Council Regulation (EEC) No 4256/88
                                                                                for project No 94.PT.06.015, entitled ‘Demonstration
                                                                                Project to accelerate agricultural diversification in
5. May the criterion of the economic benefit which the user                          Madeira by introducing products intended for the
     obtains from the action taken be applied in calculating the                     uharmaceutical industry (tea tree oil)’
     amount payable for such action?
                                                                                to the extent to which they are addressed to the Portuguese
                                                                                Republic;
(1) OJ, English Special Edition, 1969 (II), p. 412.
                                                                            — Order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                            Pleas and principal arguments
                                                                            — Breach of the obligation to state reasons (Article 253 EC);
                                                                            — Infringement of Article 23(1) third indent and Article 24
Action brought on 1 June 1999 by the Portuguese                                 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 (2) in that, on a correct
Republic against the Commission of the European Com-                            interpretation and application of those provisions to the
                              munities                                          projects in question, only the beneficiary undertakings
                                                                                should be responsible for repaying the amounts received:
                                                                                the assistance in question was granted and controlled
                          (Case C-208/99)                                       directly and solely by the European Commission without
                                                                                any involvement of the national management and moni-
                                                                                toring bodies. Nor can the fact that the national authorities
                          (1999/C 226/34)                                       simply accompanied the Commission inspectors be regard-
                                                                                ed as participation in the control process. The Member
                                                                                State cannot be held responsible for irregularities arising
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                       in the implementation of such projects nor can it be the
ties was brought before the Court of Justice on 1 June 1999                     addressee of decisions requiring the recovery of funds used
by the Portuguese Republic, represented by Luı́s Fernandes,                     improperly.
Angelo Seiça Neves and Paula Fragão, acting as Agents, with
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Portuguese
Embassy, 33 Allée Scheffer, Luxembourg.                                     (1) OJ L 374 of 31.12.1988, p. 25.
                                                                            (2) OJ L 394 of 31.12.1988, p. 14.
The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:
— Uphold this application and therefore annul the following
     decisions:
     — C(1999)543, which withdraws the assistance granted
         to Belgravia Lda b, Commission Decision C(93)3403
         of 26 November 1993 concerning the grant of an
         EAGGF, Guarantee Section, contribution under                       Action brought on 4 June 1999 by the Commission of the
         Council Regulation (EEC) No 4256/88 (1) for project                    European Communities against the Italian Republic
         No 93.PT.06.023, entitled ‘Demonstration Project for
         introduction of the cultivation of sea kale’,                                              (Case C-212/99)
     — C(1999)545, which withdraws the assistance granted                                           (1999/C 226/35)
         to Ordinal-Gestão de Investimentos Lda by Com-
         mission Decision C(93)1606 of 21 June 1993 concern-
         ing the grant of an EAGGF, Guarantee Section, contri-              An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
         bution under Council Regulation (EEC) No 4256/88                   Court of Justice of the European Communities on 4 June 1999
         for project No 93.PT.06.002, entitled ‘Pilot and Dem-              by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
         onstration Project for turning to account three Mediter-           by Pieter Jan Kuijper and Enrico Traversa, Legal Advisers acting
         ranean plants (fennel, balm and parsley) through the               as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
         extraction of essential oils for the agro-food industry’,          office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.


title: Case C-211/08: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 June 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 49 EC — Social security — Hospital care needed during a temporary stay in another Member State — Lack of right to assistance from the competent institution to supplement that of the institution of the Member State of stay)

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 June 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-211/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 49 EC - Social security - Hospital care needed during a temporary stay in another Member State - Lack of right to assistance from the competent institution to supplement that of the institution of the Member State of stay)
   2010/C 221/03
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Traversa and R. Vidal Puig, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: J.M. Rodríguez Cárcamo, Agent)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by M. Jacobs and L. Van den Broeck, Agents), Kingdom of Denmark (represented by J. Bering Liisberg and R. Holdgaard, Agents), Republic of Finland (represented by A. Guimaraes-Purokoski, Agent), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by H. Walker, Agent and M. Hoskins, Barrister)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 49 EC and Article 22(1)(a)(i) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2) — Non-reimbursement of hospital costs incurred abroad — Exceptional circumstances

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Republic of Finland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 197, 2.8.2008.


title: Case T-237/02: Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 14 December 2006 — Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Procedure for controlling State aid — Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits — Implied refusal — Obligation to carry out a concrete, individual examination — Intervention — Intervener's claims, pleas and arguments)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/29

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 14 December 2006 — Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau v Commission
   (Case T-237/02) (1)

   (Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Procedure for controlling State aid - Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits - Implied refusal - Obligation to carry out a concrete, individual examination - Intervention - Intervener's claims, pleas and arguments)
   (2006/C 331/64)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH (Ilmenau, Germany) (represented by: initially G. Schohe and C. Arhold, and subsequently C. Arhold and N. Wimmer, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Kreuschitz, V. Di Bucci and P. Aalto, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Kruse and K. Wistrand, Agents) and Republic of Finland (represented by: T. Pynnä, Agent)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Schott Glas (Mainz, Germany) (represented by: U. Soltész, lawyer)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of the Commission's decision of 28 May 2002 refusing the applicant access to documents relating to procedures for controlling State aid.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the Commission Decision of 28 May 2002 in so far as it refuses access to the documents relating to the investigation procedures in respect of aid granted to Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay three quarters of the costs incurred by Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau. The latter is to bear a quarter of its own costs;

               4.

               Orders Schott Glas, the Kingdom of Sweden and the Republic of Finland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 233, 28.9.2002.


title: Case T-380/12: Judgment of the General Court of 13 February 2014 — Demon International v OHIM — Big Line (DEMON) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Figurative Community trade mark DEMON — Prior international word mark DEMON — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the goods — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               29.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 February 2014 — Demon International v OHIM — Big Line (DEMON)
   (Case T-380/12) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Figurative Community trade mark DEMON - Prior international word mark DEMON - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the goods - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2014/C 93/38
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Demon International (Orem, Utah, United States) (represented by: T. Krüger, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by: F. Mattina, and subsequently by: L. Rampini, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Big Line Sas di Graziani Lorenzo (Thiene, Italy) (represented by: B. Osti, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 June 2012 (Case R 1845/2011-4) concerning invalidity proceedings between Demon International, LC and Big Line Sas di Graziani Lorenzo.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 20 June 2012 (Case R 1845/2001-4) insofar as it annulled in part the decision of the Cancellation Division and rejected the application for a declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark No 6 375 398 concerning ‘ski masks’ and ‘snowboard masks’;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders Demon International, LC and Big Line Sas di Graziani Lorenzo to bear their own costs, including those incurred before the Board of Appeal;

               4.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 331, 27.10.2012.


title: Case T-598/15: Action brought on 21 October 2015 — Stichting Accolade v Commission

text:
               7.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 406/42

         Action brought on 21 October 2015 — Stichting Accolade v Commission
   (Case T-598/15)
   (2015/C 406/44)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Stichting Accolade (Drachten, Netherlands) (represented by: H. de Boer and J. Abma, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission of 30 June 2015, reference C(2015) 4411 final, State Aid SA.34676 (2015/NN) — The Netherlands (Alleged sale of land at below market price by the municipality of Harlingen);

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission wrongly limited the applicant’s objection to a small section of the total land transaction between the municipality of Harlingen and Ludinga VG.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to apply, or wrongly applied, the private-investor test. The Commission, it is submitted, wrongly used a range of EUR 14 to EUR 24 in assessing the land transaction.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the information and assumptions underlying the prices which formed the range used by the Commission are incompatible with one another. As a result, the applicant contends, the transactions used as a reference are not comparable to the contested transaction.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that an erroneous price was applied to the range.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment of the alleged facts concerning the indirect advantages.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission drew an inaccurate conclusion with regard to the measure contested by the applicant.


title: Case C-446/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands), lodged on 3 October 2012 — W.P. Willems; other party: Burgemeester van Nuth

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/16

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands), lodged on 3 October 2012 — W.P. Willems; other party: Burgemeester van Nuth
   (Case C-446/12)
   2013/C 26/28
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: W.P. Willems

      Other party: Burgemeester van Nuth

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 1(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 of 13 December 2004 on standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States (OJ 2004 L 385, p. 1), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 444/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 May 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 (OJ 2009 L 142, p. 1), valid in the light of Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is to the effect that Article 1(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 of 13 December 2004 on standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States (OJ 2004 L 385, p. 1), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 444/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 May 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 (OJ 2009 L 142, p. 1), is valid, must Article 4(3) of the Regulation, in the light of Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 8(2) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 7(f) of the Privacy Directive, (1) read in conjunction with Article 6(1)(b) of the Privacy Directive, be interpreted to mean that, when the Member States give effect to Regulation No 2252/2004, there should be a statutory guarantee that the biometric data collected and stored pursuant to that Regulation may not be collected, processed and used for any purposes other than the issuing of the document?

      (1)  Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31).


title: Case C-370/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 2 July 2013 — Henryk Teisseyre, Jan Teisseyre v Minister Skarbu Państwa

text:
               5.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 291/2

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 2 July 2013 — Henryk Teisseyre, Jan Teisseyre v Minister Skarbu Państwa
   (Case C-370/13)
   2013/C 291/02
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Henryk Teisseyre, Jan Teisseyre

      Defendant: Minister Skarbu Państwa

      Question referred

   Must Article 18 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which prohibits any discrimination on grounds of nationality, be interpreted as prohibiting the exclusion — as in Article 3(2) read in conjunction with Article 2(2) of the Law of 8 July 2005 on the right to compensation for property left beyond the present borders of the Republic of Poland (Dz. U. No 169, item 1418; Dz. U. 2006 No 195, item 1437; Dz. U. 2008 No 197, item 1223 and Dz. U. 2010 No 257, item 1726) — from the group of persons entitled to receive compensation of an heir of the owner of property left beyond the present borders of the Polish State who does not hold Polish citizenship?


C 7/18                  EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   11.1.2003
Since the United Kingdom has not informed the Commission                         Removal from the register of Case C-367/01 ( 1)
of the provisions adopted to comply fully with the Directive,
and since the Commission is in possession of no other                                              (2003/C 7/35)
information enabling it to conclude that the United Kingdom
has adopted the necessary provisions, it is compelled to assume
that the United Kingdom has not yet adopted such provisions              By order of 16 October 2002 the President of the Court of
and has thus failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive.       Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                         from the register of Case C-367/01: Commission of the
( 1) OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5                                                  European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
                                                                         (1 ) OJ C 331 of 24.11.2001.
        Removal from the register of Case C-374/00 ( 1)
                           (2003/C 7/33)                                         Removal from the register of Case C-371/01 ( 1)
                                                                                (2003/C 7/36)
By order of 23 October 2002 the President of the Sixth
Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities
ordered the removal from the register of Case C-374/00:                  By order of 23 October 2002 the President of the Third
Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic                        Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities
Republic.                                                                ordered the removal from the register of Case C-371/01:
                                                                         Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic
                                                                         Republic.
( 1) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2000.
                                                                         (1 ) OJ C 348 of 08.12.2001.
      Removal from the register of Case C-448/00 P (1)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-158/02 ( 1)
                           (2003/C 7/34)
                                                                                (2003/C 7/37)
By order of 4 November 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                  By order of 25 October 2002 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-448/00 P: Commission of the                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
European Communities v BP Chemicals Ltd.                                 from the register of Case C-158/02 (Referral for a preliminary
                                                                         ruling by the Tribunale di Roma): Lidia Marcaletti v Istituto
                                                                         nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS).
( 1) OJ C 28 of 27.01.2001.
                                                                         (1 ) OJ C 144 of 15.06.2002.


title: Case C-134/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 14 March 2017 — Costel Nicușor Mucea v SC Industria Sârmei SA Câmpia Turzii, acting through the receiver SMDA Mureș Insolvency SRL

text:
               26.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 202/9

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 14 March 2017 — Costel Nicușor Mucea v SC Industria Sârmei SA Câmpia Turzii, acting through the receiver SMDA Mureș Insolvency SRL
   (Case C-134/17)
   (2017/C 202/15)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Cluj

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Costel Nicușor Mucea

      Respondant: SC Industria Sârmei SA Câmpia Turzii, acting through the receiver SMDA Mureș Insolvency SRL

      Question referred

   Are Articles 114(3) TFEU, 151 TFEU and 153 TFEU and the provisions of Framework Directive 89/391/EEC (1) and the subsequent specific directives to be interpreted as precluding a Member State of the European Union from laying down time-limits and procedures which restrict access to judicial remedies for the purpose of the classification of work places as places characterised by particular or special conditions, with the result that workers’ rights to safety and health at work deriving from the assessment of those conditions, in accordance with the national provisions described in the request for a preliminary ruling, are not recognised?

      (1)  Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (OJ 1989 L 183, p. 1).


title: Case T-57/15: Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2016 — Trajektna luka Split v Commission (State aid — Port services — Alleged aid to the public ferry operator of Jadrolinija — Setting of fees by the Croatian authorities for port services in the Port of Split in respect of domestic traffic at an allegedly lower level than that of the fees applied in other Croatian ports and those applied for international traffic — Private operator holding an allegedly exclusive concession for the operation of the passenger terminal at the Port of Split — Decision finding no State aid — Definition of aid — State resources)

text:
               24.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/32

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2016 — Trajektna luka Split v Commission
   (Case T-57/15) (1)

   ((State aid - Port services - Alleged aid to the public ferry operator of Jadrolinija - Setting of fees by the Croatian authorities for port services in the Port of Split in respect of domestic traffic at an allegedly lower level than that of the fees applied in other Croatian ports and those applied for international traffic - Private operator holding an allegedly exclusive concession for the operation of the passenger terminal at the Port of Split - Decision finding no State aid - Definition of aid - State resources))
   (2016/C 392/40)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Trajektna luka Split d.d. (Split, Croatia) (represented by: M. Bauer, H.-J. Freund and S. Hankiewicz, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouchagiar and P.-J. Loewenthal, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2013) 7285 final of 15 October 2014 on State Aid SA.37265 (2014/NN) — Croatia — Alleged aid to Jadrolinija.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Trajektna luka Split d.d. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 118, 13.4.2015.


title: Case C-61/05: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 July 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 92/100/EEC — Copyright — Exclusive right to authorise or prohibit rental and lending — Incorrect transposition)

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/10

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 July 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-61/05) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 92/100/EEC - Copyright - Exclusive right to authorise or prohibit rental and lending - Incorrect transposition)
   (2006/C 224/18)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Guerra e Andrade and W. Wils, Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Fernandes and N. Gonçalves, Agents)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 2 and 4 of Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property (OJ 1992 L 346, p. 61)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               Declares that:

                           —

                           by creating in national law a rental right also in favour of producers of videograms, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) of Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property, as last amended by Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society;

                           —

                           by creating in national legislation some doubt as to who is responsible for paying the remuneration owed to perfomers on assignment of the rental right, the Portuguese Republic has failed to comply with Article 4 of Directive 92/100, as amended by Directive 2001/29/EC, in conjunction with Article 2(5) and (7) thereof;

               2.

               Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 2.4.2005.


title: Case C-318/05: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 11 September 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Articles 18 EC, 39 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC — Income tax legislation — School fees — Tax deductibility limited to school fees paid to national private establishments)

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/8

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 11 September 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-318/05) (1)

   (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Articles 18 EC, 39 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC - Income tax legislation - School fees - Tax deductibility limited to school fees paid to national private establishments)
   (2007/C 269/15)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: K. Gross and R. Lyal, Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and U. Forsthoff, Agents)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 18, 39, 43 and 49 EC — National income tax legislation which excludes without exception the possibility to deduct tax in respect of school fees of children who are receiving education abroad.
   Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               By generally excluding school fees for attending a school situated in another Member State from the tax deduction for special expenses under Article 10(1)(9) of the Law on Income Tax (Einkommensteuergesetz) in the version published on 19 October 2002, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 18 EC, 39 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC.

               2)

               The remainder of the action is dismissed.

               3)

               The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 257, 15.10.2005.


title: Action brought on 1 July 1997 by Weyl Beef Products BV (previously Exportslagerij Weyl BV) against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-197/97)

text:
No C 252/40           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     16 . 8 . 97
Action brought on 30 June 1997 by KIA Nederland BV                         exported and they have not undergone any operation
and Broekman Motorships BV against the Commission of                       beyond that necessary to preserve them in good
                  the European Communities                                 condition while in that country'.
                        ( Case T-195/97 )
                          ( 97/C 252/83 )                                  Since the import duties paid by the applicant were not
                                                                           due in law, the applicants are entitled to repayment
                                                                           under Article 236 ( 1 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2913/
                (Language of the case: Dutch)                              92 .
An action against the Commission of the European                       Alternative claim
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 30 June 1997
by KIA Nederland BV, established in Vianen, and                        D. General reasonableness clause
Broekman Motorships BV, established in Rotterdam, both
represented by A. T. Ottow, of Houthoff Advocaten &
Notarissen, Amsterdam, with an address for service in                      If the Court finds that the import duties were due in
Luxembourg at the chambers of C. Medernach, of the                         law, the applicants are entitled to repayment of the
Luxembourg Bar, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt.                                    duties under the 'general reasonableness clause'
                                                                           contained in Article 239 of Regulation ( EEC) No 2913/
                                                                           92 and Article 905 ( 1 ) and the first paragraph of
The applicants claim that the Court should:                                Article 907 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2454/93 .
— annul the Commission decision of 8 April 1997,
    addressed to the Netherlands, ( Ref: REM 23/96 )
    according to which the repayment of import duties is
    not justified in particular circumstances,
                                                                       Action brought on 1 July 1997 by Weyl Beef Products
                                                                       BV (previously Exportslagerij Weyl BV) against the
— order the defendant to pay the costs.                                         Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-197/97 )
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                ( 97/C 252/84 )
A. Inconsistency in grounds of reasoning
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
    The decision is based entirely on the position that the
    requirements of Article 75 of Regulation ( EEC )                   An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities was brought before the Court of First
    No 2454/93 , specifying the products which may be
    considered as 'transported direct', are not fulfilled.             Instance of the European Communities on 1 July 1997 by
    Moreover, by failing to consider whether there were                Weyl Beef Products BV (previously Exportslagerij Weyl
                                                                       BV), represented by E. H. Pijnacker Hordijk, of the
    exceptional circumstances within the meaning of
                                                                       Amsterdam Bar, and S. B. Noe, of the Rotterdam Bar,
    Article 239 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2913/92, such as
    to justify a repayment, the Commission failed to fulfil            with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                       Chambers of L. Frieden, 6 Avenue Guillaume .
    its duty of investigation.
    The Commission decision is therefore based on an                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
    incorrect legal premise and is thus flawed or, at least,
    fails to state in sufficient detail the reasoning on which         — declare void the decision of the Commission of the
    it was based .
                                                                           European Communities contained in the Commission's
                                                                           letter to the applicant dated 23 April 1997 in Case
                                                                           No IV/35.591 /F-3 Weyl / PW+SSR,
B. In this case, the requirement of 'transported direct'
    within the meaning of Article 75 of Regulation ( EEC )
    No 2454/93 is fulfilled. Since there is no question of             — find that the rules and agreements for the
    the products being 'transported through the territory                  reorganization of the Netherlands' cattle slaughtering
    of any other country', under Article 75 ( 1 ) ( a ) of                 sector infringe Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty,
    Regulation ( EEC ) No 2454/93 they must therefore be
    considered to be 'transported direct from                 the
    exporting beneficiary country to the Community'.                   — order all other measures considered to be necessary,
C. Article 76 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2454/93 is satisfied            — order the Commission of the European Communities
    since 'the goods returned are the same goods as those                  to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 16 . 8 . 97           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 252/41
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    — order the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                              to pay the costs.
The applicant contests the abovementioned decision of the
Commission in which it decides against acting upon the                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
applicant's request under Article 3 of Regulation No 17
for a finding of infringements of the Community rules on               The pleas in law and main arguments are identical to
competition in the EC Treaty and the EEA agreement                     those in Case T-197/97 (').
relating to reorganization rules and a levy to finance
those rules . The levy is imposed by regulation of the
                                                                       f 1 ) See p. 40 of this Official Journal .
Productschap Veen en Vlees ( PW) and the arrangements
are made and administered by the Stichting
Saneringsfonds Runderslachterijen ( SSR).
The applicant claims that the reorganization measures
concern decisions of associations of undertakings or                   Action brought on 4 July 1997 by Manuel Francisco
agreements between undertakings which restrict                         Caballero Montoya against Commission of the European
competition and ( may) adversely affect trade beteween                                                Communities
Member States. Those measures and primarily the
                                                                                ( Case T-201 /97 )
financing are made possible and safeguarded by the
authorities .                                                                                ( 97/C 252/86 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities was brought before the Court of Justice on
Action brought on 1 July 1997 by Exportslachterij Chris                4 July by Manuel Francisco Caballero Montoya, residing
Hogeslag BV and Groninger Vleeshandel BV against the                   in Brussels, represented by Juan Ramon Iturriagoitia
          Commission of the European Communities                       Basses, of the Madrid Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                       Brussels at the Chambers of Mr Iturriagoitia Basses, 93
                       ( Case T-198/97 )
                                                                       Rue de la Corrége .
                         ( 97/C 252/ 85 )
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance
                                                                       should :
                 (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                       — annul the Commission decisions of 10 September 1996
An action against the Commission of the European                              and 15 October 1996 in so far as they withhold the
Communities was brought before the Court of First                             award of an allowance for a person treated as a
Instance of the European Communities on 1 July 1997 by                        dependent child, such decisions lacking an adequate
Exportslachterij Chris Hogeslag BV, established in Holten,                    statement of the reasons of which they are based, as
and Groninger Vleeshandel BV, established in Groningen,                       required by the provisions in force,
represented by A. P. J. M. de Bruyn, of the Zutphen Bar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                       — declare         that   the     annulment    of an administrative
Chambers of L. Frieden, 6 Avenue Guillaume .
                                                                              measure renders void any subsequent measure deriving
                                                                              from an earlier measure that has been annulled; and
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                       — order the European Commission to pay the costs,
                                                                              pursuant to Article 87 ( 2 ) or if appropriate Article 88
— declare void the decision of the Commission of the                          of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First
     European Communities contained in the Commission 's                       Instance of the European Communities, and to
     letter to the applicant dated 23 April 1997 in Case                       reimburse the costs borne by the applicant in
     No IV/35.634/F3 Hogeslag — Groninger / PW+SSR,                           connection with these proceedings, such as the costs of
                                                                              travel , accommodation in Luxembourg and lawyer's
                                                                               fees, as provided for by Article 91 of those rules .
— find that the rules and agreements for the
     reorganization of the Netherlands' cattle slaughtering
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     sector infringe Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty,
                                                                        The applicant in these proceedings is the same as in Case
— order all other measures considered to be necessary,                  T-573/93 , which was determined by judgment of 19 June


title: Case C-101/13: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 2 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg — Germany) — U v Stadt Karlsruhe (Area of freedom, security and justice — Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 — Document 9303 of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), Part 1 — Minimum security standards for passports and travel documents issued by the Member States — Machine readable passport — Inclusion of the birth name on the personal data page of the passport — Name to appear in a form not liable to give rise to confusion)

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/9

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 2 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg — Germany) — U v Stadt Karlsruhe
   (Case C-101/13) (1)

   ((Area of freedom, security and justice - Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 - Document 9303 of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), Part 1 - Minimum security standards for passports and travel documents issued by the Member States - Machine readable passport - Inclusion of the birth name on the personal data page of the passport - Name to appear in a form not liable to give rise to confusion))
   2014/C 421/11
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: U

      Defendant: Stadt Karlsruhe

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The Annex to Council Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 of 13 December 2004 on standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 444/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 must be interpreted as requiring the machine readable personal data page of passports issued by the Member States to satisfy all the compulsory specifications provided for by Part 1 of Document 9303 of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO).

               2.

               The Annex to Regulation No 2252/2004, as amended by Regulation No 444/2009, read in conjunction with International Civil Aviation Organisation Document 9303, Part 1, must be interpreted, where the law of a Member State provides that a person’s name comprises his forenames and surname, as not precluding that State from being entitled nevertheless to enter the birth name either as a primary identifier in Field 06 of the machine readable personal data page of the passport or as a secondary identifier in Field 07 of that page or in a single field composed of Fields 06 and 07.

               3.

               The Annex to Regulation No 2252/2004, as amended by Regulation No 444/2009, read in conjunction with the provisions of International Civil Aviation Organisation Document 9303, Part 1, Section IV, point 8.6, must be interpreted, where the law of a Member State provides that a person’s name comprises his forenames and surname, as precluding that State from being entitled to enter the birth name as an optional item of personal date in Field 13 of the machine readable personal data page of the passport.

               4.

               The Annex to Regulation No 2252/2004, as amended by Regulation No 444/2009, read in conjunction with International Civil Aviation Organisation Document 9303, Part 1, must be interpreted, in the light of Article 7 of the Charter, as meaning that, where a Member State whose law provides that a person’s name comprises his forenames and surname chooses nevertheless to include the birth name of the passport holder in Fields 06 and/or 07 of the machine readable personal data page of the passport, that State is required to state clearly in the caption of those fields that the birth name is entered there.

      (1)  OJ C 156, 1.6.2013.


title: Case C-598/16 P: Appeal brought on 23 November 2016 by Viktor Fedorovych Yanukovych against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 15 September 2016 in Case T-346/14: Yanukovych v Council

text:
               30.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/26

         Appeal brought on 23 November 2016 by Viktor Fedorovych Yanukovych against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 15 September 2016 in Case T-346/14: Yanukovych v Council
   (Case C-598/16 P)
   (2017/C 030/31)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Viktor Fedorovych Yanukovych (represented by: T. Beazley QC)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission, Republic of Poland

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, extended composition) of 15 September 2016 in Case T-346/14 to the extent particularised in the Appeal, namely paragraphs 2 and 4 of the operative part of that Judgment;

               —

               grant the relief sought by the Appellant in the proceedings before the General Court to the extent particularised below namely:

                           —

                           to annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/143 of 29 January 2015 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP (1) (‘the Second Amending Decision’);

                           —

                           to annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/364 of 5 March 2015 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP (2), and

                           —

                           to annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/357 of 5 March 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 (3);

                     in so far as those measures concern the Appellant; and

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the appeal and the application for annulment in the statement of modification.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred in law in concluding that the listing criterion in Article 1(1) of Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP, as amended by the Second Amending Decision, is compatible with the objectives of the Common Foreign and Security Policy as stated in Article 21 of the Treaty on European Union. The General Court failed to recognise that the alleged acts of misappropriation of state funds must, at the very least, be the subject of an ongoing prosecution or other judicial proceedings in the country concerned, in circumstances where, as in this case, there is credible evidence that the country concerned does not have a consistent and adequate record of respect for fundamental principles of human rights or compliance with the rule of law.

               2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred in law in (1) failing to conclude that there was credible evidence that Ukraine does not have a consistent and adequate record of human rights compliance or compliance with the rule of law and (2) describing certain Ukrainian authorities upon whose evidence the Council of the European Union relied as being a ‘high judicial authority’. The General Court further erred by not providing any reasons for its views regarding (1) and (2).

               3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred in law (1) in concluding that the inclusion of the Appellant’s name in the list, on the basis of a letter dated 10 October 2014 from the Ukrainian authorities, complies with the listing criterion and (2) in concluding that there was no manifest error of assessment by the Council regarding the Appellant’s inclusion in the list.

      (1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/143 of 29 January 2015 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2015, L 24, p. 16).

      (2)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/364 of 5 March 2015 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2015, L 62, p. 25).

      (3)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/357 of 5 March 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2015, L 62, p. 1).


title: Case C-523/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Puglia (Italy) lodged on 19 November 2012 — Dirextra Alta Formazione Srl v Regione Puglia

text:
               2.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/5

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Puglia (Italy) lodged on 19 November 2012 — Dirextra Alta Formazione Srl v Regione Puglia
   (Case C-523/12)
   2013/C 32/07
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Puglia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Dirextra Alta Formazione Srl

      Defendant: Regione Puglia

      Question referred

   Is a provision of law — such as Article 2(3) of Puglia Regional Law No 12/2009, in force at regional level — which regulates in a restrictive manner access to the market for the provision of certain specific services designed to enhance the level of education locally (post-graduate Masters degree courses), making such access conditional upon meeting a single requirement which, in relation to the purpose of the Community measure (enhancement of the quality of education and, accordingly, selection of individuals with suitable qualifications) is arbitrarily chosen and expressed (a number of hours spread over an unnecessarily long period) and not differentiated according to the actual duration of the specific service, compatible with Article 56 et seq. and Article 101 et seq. (formerly Article 49 et seq. and Article 81 et seq. of the EC Treaty) and Article 107 et seq. of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (in the version in force from 1 December 2009) and with the principles of competition, proportionality, non-discrimination and equal treatment which may be inferred from those rules, and with Articles 9 and 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 2 of the Additional Protocol thereto and Articles 11 and 14 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights?


title: Case T-104/08: Action brought on 23 February 2008 — ars Parfum Creation & Consulting v OHIM (shape of a perfume bottle)

text:
               26.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/38

         Action brought on 23 February 2008 — ars Parfum Creation & Consulting v OHIM (shape of a perfume bottle)
   (Case T-104/08)
   (2008/C 107/65)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: ars Parfum Creation & Consulting GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: A. Späth and G. Hasselblatt, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 November 2007 (Case No R 1656/2006-1);

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: the three-dimensional trade mark in the shape of a perfume bottle for goods in class 3 (Application No 4 995 361).

      Decision of the Examiner: Dismissal of the application.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejection of the appeal.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), because the trade mark applied for has a distinctive character.

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


title: Case C-385/16 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 April 2017 — Sharif University of Technology v Council of the European Union (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran — List of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Criterion relating to the material, logistical or financial support to the Government of Iran — Cooperation in research and technological development in military or military-related fields)

text:
               26.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 202/8

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 April 2017 — Sharif University of Technology v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-385/16 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran - List of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Criterion relating to the material, logistical or financial support to the Government of Iran - Cooperation in research and technological development in military or military-related fields))
   (2017/C 202/11)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Sharif University of Technology (represented by: M. Happold, Barrister)

      Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux and M. Bishop, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Sharif University of Technology shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

      (1)  OJ C 335, 12.9.2016.


title: Case T-205/02: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  25 October 2005  — Salvador García v Commission (Officials — Remuneration — Expatriation allowance — Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Work done for another State or for an international organisation — Meaning of  habitually reside  — Statement of reasons)

text:
               24.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 330/16

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 October 2005 — Salvador García v Commission
   (Case T-205/02) (1)

   (Officials - Remuneration - Expatriation allowance - Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Work done for another State or for an international organisation - Meaning of ‘habitually reside’ - Statement of reasons)
   (2005/C 330/41)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Beatriz Salvador García (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J. García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier, J. Guillem Carrau, D. Domínguez Pérez and A. Sayagués Torres, lawyers)

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall, Agent, assisted by J. Rivas Andrés and J. Gutiérrez Gisbert, lawyers)
   Application for
   Annulment of the Commission's decision of 27 March 2002 refusing to grant the applicant entitlement to the expatriation allowance provided for in Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities and the allowances associated therewith.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 219, 14.9.2002


title: Case C-81/11 P: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 March 2012 — Longevity Health Products Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Application for Community word mark RESVEROL — Opposition by the proprietor of the earlier international word mark LESTEROL — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Rights of the defence)

text:
               4.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/3

         Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 March 2012 — Longevity Health Products Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-81/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Application for Community word mark RESVEROL - Opposition by the proprietor of the earlier international word mark LESTEROL - Assessment of the likelihood of confusion - Rights of the defence)
   2012/C 235/03
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Longevity Health Products Inc. (represented by: J. Korab, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis, Agent)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 December 2010 in Case T-363/09 Longevity Health Products v OHIM — Gruppo Lepetit, by which that court dismissed an action brought by the applicant for word mark ‘RESVEROL’, for goods and services in Classes 3, 5 and 35, against decision R 1204/2008-2 of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 9 July 2009, dismissing the appeal lodged against the Opposition Division’s decision which refused in part registration of that mark in the context of the opposition brought by the proprietor of the national word marks ‘LESTEROL’, for goods in Class 5

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Longevity Health Products Inc. shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 139, 7.5.2011.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 June 2002 in Case C-401/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Oberverwaltungsgericht): Peter Heinrich Thomsen v Amt für ländliche Räume Husum (Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 — Additional levy in the milk and milk products sector — Reference quantities — Conditions of transfer to lessor in the event of the surrender of leased lands — Notion of "producer")

text:
10.8.2002               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 191/3
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          of 18 June 2002                                                              (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 20 June 2002
in Case C-314/99: Kingdom of the Netherlands v Com-
           mission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                            in Case C-401/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                            the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Oberverwaltungsgericht):
(Dangerous substances — Marketing and use — Directives                      Peter Heinrich Thomsen v Amt für ländliche Räume
76/769/EEC, 91/338/EEC and 1999/51/EC — Derogation                                                         Husum (1)
— Adaptation to technical progress — Legal basis —
 Limitations on the use of cadmium in Austria and Sweden)
                                                                            (Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 — Additional levy
                                                                            in the milk and milk products sector — Reference quantities
                          (2002/C 191/03)                                   — Conditions of transfer to lessor in the event of the
                                                                                surrender of leased lands — Notion of ‘producer’)
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                                (2002/C 191/04)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-314/99, Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents:
M. A. Fierstra and N. Wijmenga) v Commission of the
European Communities (Agent: H. van Lier and O. Couvert-
                                                                            In Case C-401/99: Reference to the Court under Article 234
Castéra, assisted by J. Stuyck), supported by Kingdom of
                                                                            EC by the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Oberverwaltungsgericht
Sweden (Agent: L. Nordling): Application for annulment of
                                                                            (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
Section 3 of the Annex to Commission Directive 1999/51/EC
                                                                            before that court between Peter Heinrich Thomsen and Amt
of 26 May 1999 adapting to technical progress for the
                                                                            für ländliche Räume Husum, joined parties: Helga Henningsen,
fifth time Annex I to Council Directive 76/769/EEC on the
                                                                            Ute Henningsen and Peter Henningsen, on the interpretation
approximation of the laws, regulations, and administrative
                                                                            of Articles 7(2) and 9(c) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/
provisions of the Member States relating to restrictions on the
                                                                            92, of 28 December 1992, establishing an additional levy in
marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and
                                                                            the milk and milk products sector (OJ 1992 L 405, p. 1), the
preparations (tin, PCP and cadmium) (OJ 1999 L 142, p. 22),
                                                                            Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: N. Colneric, President of
the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President,
                                                                            the Second Chamber, acting for the President of the Sixth
P. Jann, F. Macken and N. Colneric (Presidents of Chambers),
                                                                            Chamber, C. Gulmann and V. Skouris (Rapporteur), Judges;
C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet,
                                                                            P. Léger, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator,
V. Skouris and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; F.G. Jacobs,
                                                                            for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 June 2002, in
Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has
                                                                            which it has ruled:
given a judgment on 18 June 2002, in which it:
                                                                            On a proper construction of Article 7(2) of Council Regulation (EEC)
1.    Annuls Section 3 of the Annex to Commission Directive 1999/           No 3950/92, of 28 December 1992, establishing an additional
      51/EC of 26 May 1999 adapting to technical progress for the           levy in the milk and milk products sector, upon expiry of a rural lease
      fifth time Annex I to Council Directive 76/769/EEC on the             of a dairy holding, the transfer in whole or part to the lessor of the
      approximation of the laws, regulations, and administrative            reference quantity attached to that holding is possible only where the
      provisions of the Member States relating to restrictions on           lessor has the status of a ‘producer’ within the meaning of Article 9(c)
      the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and             of that regulation or, at the date of expiry of the lease, transfers the
      preparations (tin, PCP and cadmium);                                  reference quantity available to a third party who has that status. For
                                                                            the purposes of the attribution of the relevant reference quantities to
2.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay              lessors under Article 7(2) of Regulation No 3950/92, it is sufficient
      the costs;                                                            that, on the abovementioned date, the lessor can show that he is
                                                                            preparing in a definite manner to take up as soon as possible the
3.    Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to bear its own costs.                   activity of a ‘producer’ within the meaning of Article 9(c) of that
                                                                            regulation.
(1) OJ C 299 of 16.10.1999.                                                 (1) OJ C 6 of 8.1.2000.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 September 1999 in Case C-401/98: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 94/47/EC - Non-transposition)

text:
C 352/8                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                             4.12.1999
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       of 14 September 1999                                                            (Fifth Chamber)
in Case C-391/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                         of 14 September 1999
the Finanzgericht Köln): Frans Gschwind v Finanzamt
                       Aachen-Außenstadt (1)
                                                                            in Case C-401/98: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Hellenic Republic (1)
(Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article
39 EC) — Equal treatment — Taxation of non-residents’
         income — Taxation scale for married couples)                       (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                                Directive 94/47/EC — Non-transposition)
                           (1999/C 352/15)
                                                                                (1999/C 352/16)
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-391/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Finanzgericht                   In Case C-401/98: Commission of the European Communities
Köln, Germany, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                  (Agent: Maria Condou-Durande) v Hellenic Republic (Agents:
pending before that court between Frans Gschwind and                        Nana Dafniou and Dimitra Tsagkaraki) — application for a
Finanzamt Aachen-Außenstadt — on the interpretation of                      declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39               administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive
EC) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias,                     94/47/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of
President, P.J.G. Kapteyn, G. Hirsch and P. Jann, Presidents                26 October 1994 on the protection of purchasers in respect
of the Chambers, C. Gulmann, J.L. Murray, D.A.O. Edward,                    of certain aspects of contracts relating to the purchase of the
H. Ragnemalm, L. Sevón, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur) and                       right to use immovable properties on a timeshare basis (OJ
R. Schintgen, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate Gen-                 1994 L 280, p. 83), the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its
eral; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the                 obligations under that directive — the Court (Fifth Chamber),
Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 September 1999, in                    composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,
which it has ruled:                                                         P. Jann, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward and L. Se-
                                                                            vón, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,
                                                                            has given a judgment on 14 September 1999, in which it:
Article 48(2) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39(2)
EC) is to be interpreted as not precluding the application of a Member
                                                                            1. Declared that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period
State’s legislation under which resident married couples are granted             the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
favourable tax treatment such as that under the splitting procedure              comply with Directive 94/47/EC of the European Parliament
whilst the same treatment of non-resident married couples is made                and the Council of 26 October 1994 on the protection of
subject to the condition that at least 90 % of their total income must
                                                                                purchasers in respect of certain aspects of contracts relating to the
be subject to tax in that Member State or, if that percentage is not
                                                                                purchase of the right to use immovable properties on a timeshare
reached, that their income from foreign sources not subject to tax in            basis, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
that State must not be above a certain ceiling, thus maintaining the             under that directive;
possibility for account to be taken of their personal and family
circumstances in the State of residence.
                                                                            2. Ordered the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
(1) OJ No C 7 of 10.1.1998.
                                                                            (1) OJ No C 397 of 19.12.1998.


title: Case T-374/17: Action brought on 13 June 2017 — Cuervo y Sobrinos1882 v EUIPO — A. Salgado Nespereira (Cuervo y Sobrinos LA HABANA 1882)

text:
               7.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/37

         Action brought on 13 June 2017 — Cuervo y Sobrinos1882 v EUIPO — A. Salgado Nespereira (Cuervo y Sobrinos LA HABANA 1882)
   (Case T-374/17)
   (2017/C 256/42)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Cuervo y Sobrinos1882, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: S. Ferrandis González and V. Balaguer Fuentes, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: A. Salgado Nespereira, SA (Ourense, Spain)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Cuervo y Sobrinos LA HABANA 1882’ — EU trade mark No 10 931 087

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 March 2017 in Case R 1141/2016-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul in part the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 March 2017 in Case R 1141/2016-4, specifically, in so far as its confirms the decision of the Cancellation Division of EUIPO of 29 April 2016, in the cancellation proceedings No 10 786 C declaring invalid EU trade mark No 010931087 ‘Cuervo y Sobrinos LA HABANA 1882’ for goods registered for that mark in Classes 14 and 16;

               —

               order the defendant to bear the costs of the present proceedings, as well as all those incurred to date in the earlier proceedings before the Opposition Division and the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO that have led to the present application.

      Plea in law

               —

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