title: Action brought on 24 June 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic (Case C-229/97)

text:
16 . 8 . 97             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 252/ 17
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
— Failure to fulfil the obligations resulting from                         The appellant complains that Community law has been
     Articles 1 (2 ), 2 ( 1 ) (c ) and 2 ( 5 ) of the Directive: Law       infringed and, in particular, that, in reaching its decision,
     No 93/1416 does not guarantee that the penalty will                   the Court of First Instance disregarded its obligation to
     have a genuinely dissuasive effect. It establishes, by                extrapolate the law.
     way of derogation, a specific interlocutory procedure
     which is less restrictive than that provided for under
     national civil law.                                                   (') OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 , p . 26 .
                                                                           ( 2 ) OJ No C 181 , 4 . 6 . 1997, p. 13 .
— Failure to fulfil the obligations resulting from
     Chapter 2 of the Directive: the fact that recourse to
     the attestation procedure is optional for the
     contracting entities does not in any way mean that the
     attestation system is optional for the Member States,
     which are obliged to organize a system complying                      Action brought on 24 June 1997 by the Commission of
     with the provisions of Chapter 2 of the Directive .                   the European Communities against the Portuguese
                                                                                Republic
— Failure to fulfil the obligations resulting from                                                     ( Case C-229/97)
     Chapter 4 of the Directive: France has failed to specify
     the detailed rules governing intervention by the                                                    ( 97/C 252/34 )
     national authorities called upon to forward requests
     for conciliation to the Commission (Article 9 ( 2 ) of
     the Directive ). Lastly, Chapter 4 should have been                   An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
     transposed in its entirety, if only for the purposes of               before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
     informing the persons concerned, as defined in                        on 24 June 1997 by the Commission of the European
     Article 9 ( 1 ), of the possibility open to them of having             Communities, represented by Francisco de Sousa Fialho,
     recourse to conciliation .                                             of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for
                                                                            service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la
(') OJ No L 76 , 23 . 3 . 1992, p . 14 .
                                                                            Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                            — declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
                                                                                period the laws, regulations or administrative
Appeal brought on 20 June 1997 by Hedwig Kuchlenz                                provisions necessary to comply fully and correctly
Winter against the judgment delivered on 16 April 1997                            with Council Directive 79/869/EEC H of 9 October
by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                        1979 concerning the methods of measurement and
European Communities in Case T-66/95 between Hedwig                               frequencies of sampling and analysis of surface water
Kuchlenz-Winter and the Commission of the European                                intended for the abstraction of drinking water in the
                              Communities
                                                                                Member States, the Portuguese Republic has failed to
                         ( Case C-228/97 P)                                       fulfil its obligations under the third paragraph of
                             ( 97/C 252/33 )                                      Article 189 of the EC Treaty and Article 13 of
                                                                                Directive 79/869/EEC in combination with Article 395
                                                                                and Annex XXXVI of the Act of Accession ( 2 ),
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 16 April
 1997 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities in Case T-66/95 between                         — declare, in the alternative, that, by failing to inform
Hedwig Kuchlenz-Winter and the Commission of the                                  the Commission forthwith of such measures, the
 European Communities was brought before the Court of                             Portuguese Republic failed to fulfil its obligations
Justice of the European Communities on 20 June 1997 by                            under those provisions,
 Hedwig Kuchlenz-Winter, represented by Dieter Rogalla,
 Rechtsanwalt, with an address for service in Luxembourg                    — order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs .
 at the Chambers of Decker, Braun & Wagner, 16 Avenue
 Marie-Therese .
                                                                             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                             Under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty,
 — uphold all four heads of claim ( l ) advanced by the                      a directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved,
      applicant and set aside the judgment (2 ) of the Court                 upon each Member State to which it is addressed. In the
      of First Instance,                                                     present case, under Article 13 of Directive 79/869/EEC,
                                                                             the Member States are to bring into force the necessary
 — order the respondent to pay all the costs, including                      provisions within two years of its notification. That period
      those of the proceedings before the Court of First                     expired on 1 January 1989 without Portugal having
      Instance .                                                             adopted the provisions necessary to comply with, firstly,
 ---pagebreak--- No C 252/ 18            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       16 . 8 . 97
Article 3 ( 3 ) and Columns C, D and E of Annex I to the                      national driving licence issued by a Member State or a
Directive and, secondly, Article 4 (2 ), Article 5 or footnote                Community model driving licence and who could have
No 10 to Annex I to the Directive .                                           obtained a licence from the host State in exchange for
                                                                              that licence, but on 27 July 1993 had not made that
                                                                              exchange within the prescribed period, from being
(>) OJ No L 271 , 29 . 10 . 1979, p . 44 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 302, 15 . 11 . 1985 .
                                                                             treated as driving without a licence and thus rendered
                                                                             punishable by imprisonment or a fine ?
                                                                       (') OJ No L 375 , 31 . 12 . 1980, p . 1 .
                                                                       ( 2 ) OJ No L 237, 24 . 8 . 1991 , p. 1 .
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hof van Cassatie
van Belgie by order of that court of 17 June 1997 in the
     case of Awoyemi Ibiyinka against Openbaar Ministerie
                           Case C-230/97 )                             Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van
                            ( 97/C 252/35 )                            Staat, Netherlands, by judgment of that court of 17 June
                                                                       1997 in the case of A. M. L. Van Rooij v. Dagelijks
                                                                                Bestuur van het Waterschap de Dommel
                                                                                Case C-231 /97 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Hof van Cassatie                                              ( 97/C 252/36 )
van Belgie ( Belgian Court of Cassation ) of 17 June 1997,
which was received at the Court Registry on 24 June
1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Awoyemi
Ibiyinka against Openbaar Ministerie on the following                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
questions :
                                                                       European Communities by a judgment of the Raad van
                                                                       State ( Council of State ), Netherlands, of 17 June 1997,
                                                                       which was received at the Court Registry on 25 June
                                                                       1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of A. M. L. Van
1 . Do the provisions of the first Council Directive 80/               Rooij v. Dagelijks Bestuur van het Waterschap de Dommel
       1263/EEC (*) of 4 December 1980 on the introduction
                                                                       ( Management Committee of the Dommel Water Board ) on
       of a Community driving licence, in particular Article 8         the following questions :
       thereof, preclude the driving of a motor vehicle by a
       person who is not a citizen of the European Union but
       who holds a national driving licence issued by a                1 . Must the term 'discharge' in Article 1 ( 2 ) ( d ) of
       Member State or a Community model driving licence                      Council Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on
       and who could have obtained a licence from the host
                                                                             pollution caused by certain dangerous substances
       State in exchange for it, but who did not do so within                 discharged into the aquatic environment of the
       the prescribed period, from being treated as driving                   Community ( OJ No L 129, 18 . 5 . 1976, p. 23 ) be
       without a licence and thus rendered punishable by                      interpreted to include the precipitation of
       imprisonment or a fine ?                                              contaminated water on to surface water ? In that
                                                                             connection does the distance from which the steam in
                                                                              question is precipitated onto the surface water have
2 . Do Article 1 (2 ) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC ( 2 )                   any relevance ?
       of 29 July 1991 on driving licences, providing for
       mutual recognition for driving licences issued by the
       Member States, and the right provided for in                    2 . Does the term 'discharge' cover steam first precipitated
       Article 8 ( 1 ) of that Directive to exchange licences                 onto land and roofs and, then reaching the surface
       mean that a person who is not a citizen of the                        water, by way of storm water drains, whether
       European Union, but who holds a national driving                       belonging to the establishment concerned or to
       licence issued by a Member State or a Community                       residential or other buildings ? Is it relevant to the
       model driving licence and has his normal residence in                  reply to be given to this question whether the
       the territory of another Member State, has the right,                 contaminated steam reaches the surface water by way
       even where there are no national rules in this regard,                 of the    storm   water      drains  of the establishment
       to rely on the application of those provisions in court               concerned or via those belonging to third parties ?
       proceedings as from 1 July 1996 ?
                                                                       3 . If Questions 1 and/or 2 are answered in the negative,
3 . If the answer to Question 2 is in the affirmative, do                     is it permissible for national legislation to assign a
       Articles 1 (2 ) and 8 ( 1 ) of Council Directive 91/439/               different, more wide-ranging meaning to the term
       EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences have                           'discharge' than that contained in the Directive ?
       retroactive effect in the sense that they preclude the
       driving of a motor vehicle by a person who is not a
       citizen of the European Union but who holds a


title: Case C-364/13: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 28 June 2013 — International Stem Cell Corporation v Comptroller General of Patents

text:
               7.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/30

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 28 June 2013 — International Stem Cell Corporation v Comptroller General of Patents
   (Case C-364/13)
   2013/C 260/54
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)(United Kingdom)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: International Stem Cell Corporation

      Defendant: Comptroller General of Patents

      Question referred

   Are unfertilised human ova whose division and further development have been stimulated by parthenogenesis, and which, in contrast to fertilised ova, contain only pluripotent cells and are incapable of developing into human beings included in the term ‘human embryos’ in Article 6(2)(c) of Directive 98/44/EC (1) on the Legal Protection of Biotechnological Inventions?

      (1)  Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions
   OJ L 213, p. 13


title: Case T-507/10: Order of the General Court of 3 August 2011 — Uspaskich v Parliament

text:
               29.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/27

         Order of the General Court of 3 August 2011 — Uspaskich v Parliament
   (Case T-507/10) (1)

   2011/C 319/57
   Language of the case: Lithuanian
   The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2011, Corrigendum OJ C 72, 5.3.2011.


title: Case C-313/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Szczecinie (Poland) lodged on 1 July 2014  — ASPROD sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Celnej w Szczecinie

text:
               9.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 81/2

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Szczecinie (Poland) lodged on 1 July 2014 — ASPROD sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Celnej w Szczecinie
   (Case C-313/14)
   (2015/C 081/03)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Szczecinie

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: ASPROD sp. z o.o.

      Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Celnej w Szczecinie
   By order of 3 December 2014, the Court of Justice (Second Chamber) ruled that Article 27(1)(f) of Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages (1) must be interpreted as precluding national rules, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which make the application of the exemption from the harmonised excise duty provided for under that provision subject to the condition that the trader concerned must hold a decision from the tax administration fixing the maximum limits for use of the products exempted under that provision.

      (1)  OJ 1992 L 316, p. 21.


title: Case C-131/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Länsrätten i Norrbottens Län of 28 March 2000 in the case of Ingemar Nilsson against Länsstyrelsen Norrbottens Län

text:
C 163/20                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      10.6.2000
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Employment
                                                                          Appeal Tribunal, United Kingdom, by order of that court
                                                                          of 7 April 2000, in the case of Mrs J.R. Bowden, Mrs J.L.
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                    Chapman and Mrs J.J. Doyle against Tuffnells Parcels
Case C-105/00 (2); the period for implementation expired on                                          Express Ltd
13 October 1998.
                                                                                (Case C-133/00)
(1) OJ L 328 of 28 November 1997, p. 1.
(2) See p. 10 of this Official Journal.                                                            (2000/C 163/37)
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          European Communities by an order of the Employment
                                                                          Appeal Tribunal, United Kingdom, of 7 April 2000, which
                                                                          was received at the Court Registry on 10 April 2000, for a
                                                                          preliminary ruling in the case of Mrs J.R. Bowden, Mrs J.L.
                                                                          Chapman and Mrs J.J. Doyle against Tuffnells Parcels Express
                                                                          Ltd, on the following questions:
                                                                          1. Given that the informed view of responsible bodies that
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Länsrätten i                        amendment is needed if a legislative provision is to achieve
Norrbottens Län of 28 March 2000 in the case of Ingemar                       a certain effect is likely to be consistent only with a view
        Nilsson against Länsstyrelsen Norrbottens Län                         that the provision, before amendment, does not have that
                                                                              effect, and given also the previously expressed views of the
                                                                              ESC, the European Parliament, the Commission and the
                           (Case C-131/00)                                    Council’s Common Position Paper on the subject of the
                                                                              exceptions to Article 1.3 of Directive 93/104/EEC(1)
                                                                              suggesting that, as yet, there is an exception from the
                           (2000/C 163/36)                                    benefits of the Directive of all who work in the road
                                                                              transport sector of activity but that such an exception has
                                                                              been and is entirely unjustified, how far, if at all, are we
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        enabled to infer from such non-legislative materials either
European Communities by order of the Länsrätten i Norrbot-                    that:
tens Län of 28 March 2000, received at the Court Registry on
6 April 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ingemar
                                                                              (a) as yet the proper construction of the wording of Article
Nilsson against Länsstyrelsen i Norrbottens Län on the follow-
                                                                                1.3 is one which excludes all such persons, or
ing question:
                                                                              (b) that such a reading would not represent a just and
With reference to Article 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No                        purposive construction of the Article?
3508/92 (1), the Court of Justice is requested to give a
preliminary ruling on the question whether that article is to be
understood as meaning that entitlement to aid is excluded                 2. Whatever the conclusion is to Question 1, if, in the course
where notes have not been made in the animal keeper’s register                of our task of interpreting our national laws in the light of
(stall journal) (2).                                                          the wording and purpose of the Directive, we encounter
                                                                              what we take to be a broad purpose (‘every worker in the
                                                                              European Community will have a right to … annual paid
                                                                              leave’) but also, given no less prominence in the very same
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 of 27 November 1992                   provision, a wording (‘shall apply to all sectors of activity
    establishing an integrated administration and control system for          ... with the exception of .... road .... transport’) which
    certain Community aid schemes (OJ 1992 L 355, p. 1).                      appears to be significantly destructive of that broad
(2) Kept in accordance with Article 7 of Council Regulation (EC)              purpose, at all events on the facts before us, are we entitled
    No 820/97 of 21 April 1997, establishing a system for the                 (and if so, by reference to what principles) to apply our
    identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding           national laws to the facts of the particular case before us
    the labelling of beef products (OJ 1997 L 117, p. 1) and the State        so as to give effect to that broad purpose notwithstanding
    Agricultural Board’s rules (SJVFS 1994:190) on the marking and
                                                                              the clarity of the wording appearing to exclude that
    registration of animals.
                                                                              purpose on such facts?
                                                                          3. To raise similar issues in a less abstract way, are all workers
                                                                              employed in the road transport sector of activity referred
                                                                              to in Article 1.3 necessarily excluded from the scope of
                                                                              Directive 93/104?


title: Case T-95/17: Order of the General Court of 5 May 2017 — King.com v EUIPO — TeamLava (Onscreen displays and icons)

text:
               17.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 231/54

         Order of the General Court of 5 May 2017 — King.com v EUIPO — TeamLava (Onscreen displays and icons)
   (Case T-95/17) (1)

   (2017/C 231/71)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 112, 10.4.2017.


title: Case C-113/05 P: Order of the Court of  30 March 2006  — European Federation for Cosmetic Ingredients (EFfCI) v European Parliament and Council of the European Union (Appeal — Directive 2003/15/EC — Action for annulment — Cosmetic products — Protection of public health — Experiments on animals — Prohibition of substances which are carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic for reproduction — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

text:
               29.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/13

         Order of the Court of 30 March 2006 — European Federation for Cosmetic Ingredients (EFfCI) v European Parliament and Council of the European Union
   (Case C-113/05 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Directive 2003/15/EC - Action for annulment - Cosmetic products - Protection of public health - Experiments on animals - Prohibition of substances which are carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic for reproduction - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
   (2006/C 178/21)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: European Federation for Cosmetic Ingredients (EFfCI) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and C. Mereu, lawyers)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: K. Bradley and M. Moore, Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by E. Karlson and C. Giorgi Fort, Agents)
   Re:
   Appeal brought against the Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 10 December 2004 in Case T-196/03 EFfCI v Parliament and Council — Admissibility of an action for partial annulment of Article 1 of Directive 2003/15/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 February 2003 amending Council Directive 76/768/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products (OJ L 2003 66, p. 26) — Person directly and individually concerned within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed;

               2.

               The European Federation for Cosmetic Ingredients is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 115, 14.5.2005.


title: Case T-45/16: Action brought on 1 February 2016 — Alfonso Egüed v EUIPO — Jackson Family Farms (BYRON)

text:
               29.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 111/33

         Action brought on 1 February 2016 — Alfonso Egüed v EUIPO — Jackson Family Farms (BYRON)
   (Case T-45/16)
   (2016/C 111/39)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Nelson Alfonso Egüed (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Jackson Family Farms LLC (Santa Rosa, United States)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘BYRON’ — Application for registration No 10 581 619

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings/Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 November 2015 in Case R 822/2015-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the contested decision;

               —

               grant the application for registration of the EU trademark No 10581619 ‘BYRON’ for all goods covered in classes 18, 25 and 33 (being the latter the contested class in the present proceedings);

               —

               order the intervener to bear the costs of the procedure.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 with respect to the common law tort of passing off.


title: Case C-224/06: Action brought on  16 May 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               15.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/21

         Action brought on 16 May 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-224/06)
   (2006/C 165/38)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Braun and J.R. Vidal Puig, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that the Kingdom of Spain, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2004/72/EC (1) of 29 April 2004 implementing Directive 2003/6/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards accepted market practices, the definition of inside information in relation to derivatives on commodities, the drawing up of lists of insiders, the notification of managers' transactions and the notification of suspicious transactions and, in any event, by failing to inform the Commission thereof, has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The time-limit prescribed for the implementation in national law of Directive 2004/72/EC expired on 12 October 2004.

      (1)  OJ L 162, 30.4.2004, p. 70.

      (2)  OJ L 96, 12.4.2003, p. 16.


title: Case C-163/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof, by order of that Court of 22 January 2004 in the case of Franz Werner against Finanzamt Cloppenburg

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/33

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof, by order of that Court of 22 January 2004 in the case of Franz Werner against Finanzamt Cloppenburg
   (Case C-163/04)
   (2004/C 118/63)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) of 22 January 2004, received at the Court Registry on 31 March 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Franz Werner v Finanzamt Cloppenburg on the following question:
   May the owner of an agricultural undertaking assign, by means of a lease, land which he has previously used for transactions subject to the flat-rate scheme for farmers (Article 25 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes (1)) to an activity which is taxable under the normal value added tax system and deduct input tax in respect of a poultry-fattening house erected on the land?

      (1)  OJ L 145, p. 1.


title: Case F-133/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 1 August 2016 — Poniskaitis v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Pensions — Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Transfer to the EU pension scheme of pension rights acquired under other schemes — Decision on recognition of additional pensionable years applying the new GIP relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure — Action manifestly unfounded)

text:
               3.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 364/53

      Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 1 August 2016 — Poniskaitis v Commission
      (Case F-133/14) (1)

      ((Civil Service - Officials - Pensions - Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Transfer to the EU pension scheme of pension rights acquired under other schemes - Decision on recognition of additional pensionable years applying the new GIP relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure - Action manifestly unfounded))
      (2016/C 364/68)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Jonas Poniskaitis (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J.-N. Louis, R. Metz and D. Verbeke, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents, and subsequently by G. Gattinara, acting as Agent)

         Re:

      Application for annulment of the decision concerning the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights to the EU Pension scheme which applies the new GIP relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed as being manifestly unfounded.

                  2.

                  Each party shall bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 16, 19.1.2015, p. 50.


title: Case T-375/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 18 November 2009 — Scheucher-Fleisch and Others v Commission (State aid — Agriculture — State aid for quality programmes in the agricultural foodstuffs sector in Austria — Decision not to raise objections — Action for annulment — Standing as party concerned — Safeguarding procedural rights — Admissibility — Serious difficulties — Guidelines for State aid for advertising)

text:
               16.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 11/21

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 18 November 2009 — Scheucher-Fleisch and Others v Commission
   (Case T-375/04) (1)

   (State aid - Agriculture - State aid for quality programmes in the agricultural foodstuffs sector in Austria - Decision not to raise objections - Action for annulment - Standing as party concerned - Safeguarding procedural rights - Admissibility - Serious difficulties - Guidelines for State aid for advertising)
   2010/C 11/38
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Scheucher-Fleisch GmbH (Ungerdorf, Austria); Tauernfleisch Vertriebs GmbH (Flattach, Austria); Wech-Kärntner Truthahnverarbeitung GmbH (Glanegg, Austria); Wech-Geflügel GmbH (Sankt Andrä, Austria) and Johann Zsifkovics (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: J. Hofer and T. Humer, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Kreuschitz and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2004) 2037 final of 30 June 2004 on State aid NN 34A/2000 concerning the quality programmes and labels AMA-Biozeichen and AMA-Gütesiegel in Austria

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision C (2004) 2037 final of 30 June 2004 on State aid NN 34A/2000 concerning the quality programmes and labels AMA Biozeichen and AMA Gütesiegel in Austria;

               2.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Scheucher-Fleisch GmbH, Tauernfleisch Vertriebs GmbH, Wech-Kärntner Truthahnverarbeitung GmbH, Wech-Geflügel GmbH and Johann Zsifkovics.

      (1)  OJ C 300, 4.12.2004.


title: Case T-148/07: Action brought on 7 May 2007 — ThyssenKrupp Ascenseurs Luxembourg v Commission

text:
               7.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/32

         Action brought on 7 May 2007 — ThyssenKrupp Ascenseurs Luxembourg v Commission
   (Case T-148/07)
   (2007/C 155/59)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: ThyssenKrupp Ascenseurs Luxembourg Sàrl (Howald, Luxembourg) (represented by: K. Beckmann, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the contested decision in so far as it relates to the applicant;

               —

               in the alternative, reduce as appropriate the amount of the fine imposed jointly and severally on the applicant in the contested decision;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant is challenging Commission Decision C(2007) 512 final of 21 February 2007 in Case COMP/E-1/38.823 — PO/Elevators and Escalators. In the contested decision, fines were imposed on the applicant and other undertakings on the ground of their participation in a cartel relating to the installation and maintenance of lifts and escalators in Luxembourg. In the view of the Commission, the undertakings concerned acted in breach of Article 81 EC.
   In support of its action, the applicant puts forward the following pleas in law:

               —

               Lack of competence on the part of the Commission in the absence of any significance at inter-State level of the local infringement of which the applicant is accused;

               —

               Infringement of the ne bis in idem principle inasmuch as the Commission failed to take into account the amnesty decision which the Luxembourg cartel authority adopted in the applicant's favour before the present proceedings were instituted;

               —

               Absence of the conditions required to establish that the applicant bears joint and several liability with the companies hierarchically above it, inasmuch as it is legally and economically independent;

               —

               Disproportionate nature of the amount of the fine as set when considered in the light of the applicant's de facto market significance;

               —

               Illegality of the deterrent multiplication factor as the applicant's turnover was the only relevant factor for the purpose of calculating the fine and that turnover did not justify application of that multiplication factor;

               —

               Lack of justification for the repeat offender surcharge in the context of the fine calculation by reasons of errors of law in the inclusion of previous fines and errors of appraisal;

               —

               Breach of Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1), inasmuch as, with regard to the upper fine limit of 10 % of the undertaking's turnover, the Commission based itself on the turnover of the concern and not on that of the applicant;

               —

               Legally defective application of the Notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines (2) inasmuch as insufficient account was taken of the added value represented by the applicant's cooperation;

               —

               Failure to take adequate account of the applicant's cooperation outside the context of the Notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (OJ 2002 C 45, p. 3).


title: Case C-132/10: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Leuven (Belgium)) — Olivier Halley, Julie Halley, Marie Halley v Belgische Staat (Direct taxation — Free movement of capital — Article 63 TFEU — Inheritance tax on registered shares — Limitation period for the valuation of shares in non-resident companies longer than that applicable for resident companies — Restriction — Justification)

text:
               29.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/6

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Leuven (Belgium)) — Olivier Halley, Julie Halley, Marie Halley v Belgische Staat
   (Case C-132/10) (1)

   (Direct taxation - Free movement of capital - Article 63 TFEU - Inheritance tax on registered shares - Limitation period for the valuation of shares in non-resident companies longer than that applicable for resident companies - Restriction - Justification)
   2011/C 319/09
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Leuven

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Olivier Halley, Julie Halley, Marie Halley

      Defendant: Belgische Staat

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Leuven — Interpretation of Articles 26 TFEU, 49 TFEU, 63 TFEU and 65 TFEU — National legislation providing, in respect of inheritance tax on registered shares, for a limitation period of two years where the centre of effective management of the company issuing the shares is in the Member State concerned, and for a limitation period of 10 years in other cases

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 63 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State such as that at issue in the main proceedings which provides, as regards inheritance tax, for a limitation period of 10 years for the valuation of registered shares in a company whose centre of effective management is established in another Member State, while the same limitation period is two years when the company’s centre of effective management is in the first Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 134, 22.5.2010.


6.9.2003               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                      C 213/43
        Removal from the register of Case T-52/98 (1)                    European Communities ordered the removal from the register
                                                                         of Case T-292/99: Bouw- en Handelsonderneming J. Peeters
                                                                         B.V. v Commission of the European Communities.
                        (2003/C 213/83)
                   (Language of the Case: Dutch)                         (1 ) OJ C 63 of 04.03.2000.
By order of 11 June 2003 the President of the Third Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
ordered the removal from the register of Case T-52/98:
De Nederlands Antillen v Commission of the European
Communities.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-295/99 (1)
( 1) OJ C 151 of 16.05.1998.
                                                                                (2003/C 213/86)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: Dutch)
                                                                         By order of 11 June 2003 the President of the Second Chamber
        Removal from the register of Case T-53/98 (1)                    (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities ordered the removal from the register
                        (2003/C 213/84)                                  of Case T-295/99: Diesel Oil Company B.V. v Commission of
                                                                         the European Communities.
                   (Language of the Case: Dutch)
                                                                         (1 ) OJ C 63 of 04.03.2000.
By order of 11 June 2003 the President of the Third Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
ordered the removal from the register of Case T-53/98:
De Nederlands Antillen v Commission of the European
Communities.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-303/99 (1)
( 1) OJ C 166 of 30.05.1998.
                                                                                (2003/C 213/87)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: Dutch)
        Removal from the register of Case T-292/99 (1)
                                                                         By order of 11 June 2003 the President of the Second Chamber
                                                                         (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the
                        (2003/C 213/85)                                  European Communities ordered the removal from the register
                                                                         of Case T-303/99: Hoogendijk ATW B.V. v Commission of the
                                                                         European Communities.
                   (Language of the Case: Dutch)
                                                                         (1 ) OJ C 63 of 04.03.2000.
By order of 11 June 2003 the President of the Second Chamber
(Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the


title: Case C-304/12 P: Appeal brought on 7 June 2012 by Petrus Kerstens against the order of the General Court (Appeal Chamber) delivered on 23 March 2012 in Case T-498/09 P-DEP Petrus Kerstens v European Commission

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/11

         Appeal brought on 7 June 2012 by Petrus Kerstens against the order of the General Court (Appeal Chamber) delivered on 23 March 2012 in Case T-498/09 P-DEP Petrus Kerstens v European Commission
   (Case C-304/12 P)
   2013/C 108/22
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Petrus Kerstens (represented by: C. Mourato, avocat)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
   By order of 7 February 2013 the Court (Seventh Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered Mr Kerstens to bear his own costs.


title: Case T-402/07: Action brought on 6 November 2007 — Kaul v OHIM — Bayer (ARCOL)

text:
               12.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 8/19

         Action brought on 6 November 2007 — Kaul v OHIM — Bayer (ARCOL)
   (Case T-402/07)
   (2008/C 8/34)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Kaul GmbH (Elmshorn, Germany) (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bayer AG (Leverkusen, Germany)
   Form of order sought

               —

               The decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 1 August 2007 in Case R 782/2000-2, pertaining to the opposition based on Community trade mark registration No 49 106 ‘CAPOL’ against Community trade mark application No 195 370 ‘ARCOL’, be annulled;

               —

               the opposition against Community trade mark application No 195 370 ‘ARCOL’, be granted;

               —

               the defendant pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: Bayer AG

      Community trade mark concerned: The Community word mark ‘ARCOL’ for goods in Classes 1, 17 and 20 — application No 195 370

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

      Mark or sign cited: The Community word mark ‘CAPOL’ for goods in classes 1

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b), 63(6), 73, and 74 of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94(‘the CTMR’).
   According to the applicant, the Board of Appeal failed to take into account the obligations laid down in Articles 63(6) and 73 of the CTMR by disregarding the guidance provided by the Court of Justice in Case C-29/05 P and by refusing to exercise any discretion under Article 74(2) of the CTMR. Furthermore, the applicant contends that the Board failed to state reasons on which it based its decision.


title: Case F-5/09: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 25 November 2009 — Soerensen Ferraresi v Commission (Staff cases — Officials — Action for damages — Admissibility — Complaint — Act causing adverse effect)

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/78

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 25 November 2009 — Soerensen Ferraresi v Commission
   (Case F-5/09) (1)

   (Staff cases - Officials - Action for damages - Admissibility - Complaint - Act causing adverse effect)
   2010/C 24/148
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Ayo Soerensen Ferraresi (Milan, Italy) (represented by: C. Di Vuolo, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and J. Baquero Cruz, Agents)

      Re:

   Officials — Application for compensation for the damage suffered by the applicant as a result of the decision of 1 February 2003 to retire the applicant on the ground of invalidity.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible;

               2.

               Ms Soerensen Ferraresi is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 16.05.2009, p. 45


title: Case T-133/03: Order of the Court of First Instance of 5 December 2007 — Schering-Plough Ltd v Commission and EMEA (Action for annulment — Partial inadmissibility — Interest in bringing proceedings — Application devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               9.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/22

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 5 December 2007 — Schering-Plough Ltd v Commission and EMEA
   (Case T-133/03) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Partial inadmissibility - Interest in bringing proceedings - Application devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)
   (2008/C 37/32)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Schering-Plough Ltd (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: G. Berrisch and P. Bogaert, lawyers)

      Defendants: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Støvlbæk and M. Shotter, acting as Agents) European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA), (Geneva, Switzerland) (represented by: initially by N. Khan, acting as Agent, and C. Sherliker, solicitor, and subsequently by C. Sherliker, solicitor, and T. Eicke, Barrister)
   Intervener in support of the applicant: European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA), established in Geneva (Switzerland), (represented by: N. Rampal, U. Zinsmeister and D. Waelbroeck, lawyers)
   Re:
   Action for the annulment of the EMEA measure of 14 February 2003 refusing a ‘Type 1’ variation of the name of the pharmaceutical form ‘oral lyophilisat’ from ‘Allex 5 mg oral lyophilisate’ to ‘Allex Reditabs 5 mg oral lyophilisate’.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible in so far as it is directed against the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA).

               2.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action in so far as it is directed against the Commission.

               3.

               The EMEA shall bear its own costs.

               4.

               Schering-Plough Ltd shall pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 19.7.2003.


title: Case T-348/00: Action brought on 14 November 2000 by A. Barth against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 45/20               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     10.2.2001
Action brought on 13 November 2000 by Pharmacia &                       Pleas in law and main arguments
Upjohn S.A. against the Commission of the European
                          Communities                                   The pleas in law and main arguments are those put forward in
                                                                        Case T-344/00 (1) CECA v Commission.
                        (Case T-345/00)
                                                                        (1) See p. 19 of this Official Journal.
                         (2001/C 45/43)
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                        Action brought on 14 November 2000 by A. Barth against
                                                                               the Commission of the European Communities
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                                         (Case T-348/00)
European Communities on 13 November 2000 by Pharmacia
& Upjohn S.A., represented by Denis Waelbroeck and Dirk                                             (2001/C 45/44)
Brinckman, of Liedekerke Siméon Wessing Houthoff, Brussels.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
—    declare pursuant to Article 232 EC that the Commission             European Communities on 14 November 2000 by A. Barth,
     has failed to comply with its obligations under Com-               residing at Lenzkirch (Germany), represented by E.J.H. Moons,
     munity law by failing to take the necessary measures for           of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
     the inclusion of progesterone in Annex II to Regulation            at the Chambers of C. Turk, 13a Avenue Guillaume.
     No 2377/90 following the issuing of the positive opinion
     of the CVMP and in particular to draw up a draft                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
     regulation including progesterone in Annex II and sub-
     mitting it to the Standing Committee for approval;                 —     declare the application admissible and well founded;
                                                                        —     rule that there exists no basis on which recovery may be
—    order the Community, as represented here by the Com-                     sought from the applicant pursuant to Article 85 of the
     mission, to repair the damage suffered by the applicant                  Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communi-
     as a result of the Commission’s unlawful failure to act                  ties;
     and to set the amount of this compensation for the
     damage suffered so far at EURO 271,170, or any other               —     rule that special circumstances have existed as regards the
     amount reflecting the damage suffered by the applicant                   applicant since 24 September 1998 and that he therefore
     as further established by it in the course of these                      continues to be entitled to receive the household allow-
     proceedings, especially taking due account of future                     ance pursuant to Article 1(c) of Annex VII to the Staff
     damage;                                                                  Regulations;
                                                                        —     consequently, order the European Commission to:
—    in the alternative, order the parties to produce to the
     Court within a reasonable period from the date of the                    (1) repay the sum of EUR 2 543,20 which has been
     judgment figures as to the amount of the compensation                          deducted, together with interest from the dates on
     agreed between the parties or, in the absence of agree-                        which the deductions were respectively made;
     ment, order the parties to produce to the Court within
     the same period their submissions with detailed figures in               (2) repay the sum of DEM 1 053,18 which has been
     support;                                                                       deducted, likewise with interest from the dates on
                                                                                which the deductions were respectively made;
—    order that interest at the annual rate of 8 %, or any other              (3) continue to pay the household allowance to the
     appropriate rate to be determined by the Court, shall be                       applicant with effect from March 2000, together
     paid on the amount payable as from the date of the                             with compensatory interest from the payment dates
     Court’s judgment until actual payment of that amount;                          which have passed since then;
                                                                        —     order the Commission to pay statutory interest on all the
—    order the Commission to pay the costs of the present                     sums in question and to pay the costs, including the
     proceedings.                                                             procedural costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 10.2.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 45/21
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          (4) order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceed-
                                                                               ings.
The applicant contests the decision of the Commission of
17 August 2000 to stop paying the household allowance and
to deduct from the applicant’s monthly pension for the period            Pleas in law and main arguments
from April 2000 to January 2001 the household allowance
alleged by the Commission to have been unduly paid since                 Free Trade Foods NV (‘FTF’) owns a sugar factory on Curaçao.
24 September 1998, the date of the death of the applicant’s              In 2000 it intended to process approximately 50 000 tonnes.
spouse.
                                                                         FTF is entirely dependent on the processing of C-sugar
The applicant claims that, since the death of his wife, he has           originating in the Community, which, as a result of EC/OCT
been in a situation of the type referred to in Article 1(c) of           cumulation, obtains an OCT origin and can thus be imported
Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, and that he therefore                into the Community free from duty.
continues to be entitled to receive the household allowance.
                                                                         As a result of the third safeguard measure a very limited quota
                                                                         of 4 848 tonnes now applies.
                                                                         FTF sets out the following four pleas in law in support of
                                                                         annulment of the third safeguard measure and payment of
Action brought on 17 November 2000 by Free Trade                         compensation:
Foods NV against the Commission of the European
                           Communities                                   1.    Infringement of Article 109 of the OCT Decision;
                         (Case T-350/00)                                 2.    Infringement of the order of priority established in the
                                                                               EC Treaty in favour of OCT goods;
                          (2001/C 45/45)
                                                                         3.    Infringement of Article 7(5) of the Agreement on Safe-
                                                                               guard Measures (concluded within the framework of the
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                              WTO), together with infringement of Article 300(7) EC;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                4.    Illegality of Regulation No 2553/97.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 17 November 2000 by Free Trade
Foods NV, having its registered office in Curaçao (Netherlands           (1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2081/2000 of 29 September
                                                                             2000 providing for the continued application of safeguard
Antilles), represented by M. Slotboom and N.J. Helder, of the
                                                                             measures for imports from the overseas countries and territories
Trenité Van Doorne Chambers, Rotterdam and Brussels, with                    of sugar sector products with EC/OCT cumulation of origin (OJ
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of De                   2000 L 246 of 30.9.2000, p. 64).
Bandt, Van Hecke, Lagae & Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
(1) declare the action brought by Free Trade Foods to be
      admissible;
(2) annul Regulation No 2081/2000 of 29 September 2000                   Action brought on 24 November 2000 by Organización
      introducing safeguard measures for imports from the                de Productores Asociados de Grandes Atuneros Congela-
      overseas countries and territories of sugar sector products        dores (OPAGAC) against Commission of the European
      with EC/OCT cumulation of origin (hereinafter ‘the third                                      Communities
      safeguard measure’) (1);
                                                                                (Case T-359/00)
(3) rule that the Community is liable for the damage incurred
      by Free Trade Foods as a result of the third safeguard
      measure, that the parties reach agreement on the extent                                      (2001/C 45/46)
      of the damage incurred by Free Trade Foods, and, in the
      absence of agreement on that matter, that the procedure
      be continued, within a period to be set by the Court, to                               (Language of the case: Spanish)
      determine the extent of that damage, and order the
      Community to pay compensation for the damage as                    An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      provisionally estimated and still to be estimated; in the          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      alternative, it should order the Community to pay such             European Communities on 24 November 2000 by the Orga-
      compensation as the Court may reasonably determine,                nización de Productores Asociados de Grandes Atuneros
      plus applicable interest from the date of the document             Congeladores (OPAGAC), whose registered office is at Madrid,
      instituting these proceedings until the date of full pay-          represented by Jesús Casas Robla and Vanessa Arrastia de la
      ment;                                                              Sierra.


title: Case C-165/06: Order of the President of the Court of 29 November 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Roma — Italie) — Leasys SpA v Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Roma 7

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/26

         Order of the President of the Court of 29 November 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Roma — Italie) — Leasys SpA v Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Roma 7
   (Case C-165/06) (1)

   (2006/C 331/54)

      Language of the case: Italian

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

      (1)  OJ C 154, 1.7.2006.


title: Case T-205/07: Action brought on 4 June 2007 — Italy v Commission

text:
               21.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 170/41

         Action brought on 4 June 2007 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-205/07)
   (2007/C 170/78)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

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

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Call for expressions of interest to constitute a database of candidates to be recruited as contracts agents carrying out various activities within the European institutions and agencies, EPSO/CAST/EU/27/07, published only in English, French and German on the EPSO website http://europe.eu.epso/cast27/call on 27 March 2007.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-156/07 Spain v Commission.


title: Case C-393/09: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — Bezpečnostní softwarová asociace — Svaz softwarové ochrany v Ministerstvo kultury (Intellectual property — Directive 91/250/EEC — Legal protection of computer programs — Notion of ‘expression in any form of a computer program’ — Inclusion or non-inclusion of a program’s graphic user interface — Copyright — Directive 2001/29/EC — Copyrights and related rights in the information society — Television broadcasting of a graphic user interface — Communication of a work to the public)

text:
               26.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/8

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — Bezpečnostní softwarová asociace — Svaz softwarové ochrany v Ministerstvo kultury
   (Case C-393/09) (1)

   (Intellectual property - Directive 91/250/EEC - Legal protection of computer programs - Notion of ‘expression in any form of a computer program’ - Inclusion or non-inclusion of a program’s graphic user interface - Copyright - Directive 2001/29/EC - Copyrights and related rights in the information society - Television broadcasting of a graphic user interface - Communication of a work to the public)
   2011/C 63/14
   Language of the case: Czech

      Referring court

   Nejvyšší správní soud

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Bezpečnostní softwarová asociace — Svaz softwarové ochrany

      Defendant: Ministerstvo kultury

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Nejvyšší správní soud — Interpretation of Article 1(2) of Council Directive 91/250/EEC of 14 May 1991 on the legal protection of computer programs (OJ 1991 L 122, p. 42) and Article 3(1), of European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/29/EC of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10) — Whether or not the graphic user interface included in the expression ‘the expression in any form of a computer program’ contained in Article 1(2) of Directive 91/250

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               A graphic user interface is not a form of expression of a computer program within the meaning of Article 1(2) of Council Directive 91/250/EEC of 14 May 1991 on the legal protection of computer programs and cannot be protected by copyright as a computer program under that directive. Nevertheless, such an interface can be protected by copyright as a work 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 if that interface is its author’s own intellectual creation.

               2.

               Television broadcasting of a graphic user interface does not constitute communication to the public of a work protected by copyright within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29.

      (1)  OJ C 11, 16.1.2010.


title: Case F-104/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 20 July 2016 — U (*) v Commission (Civil service — Survivor’s pension — Articles 18 and 20 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Surviving spouse of a former official — Eligibility — Second marriage — Equal treatment of officials)

text:
                  3.10.2016

                  EN

                  Official Journal of the European Union

                  C 364/33

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 20 July 2016 —  U (*1) v Commission
         (Case F-104/15) (1)

         ((Civil service - Survivor’s pension - Articles 18 and 20 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Surviving spouse of a former official - Eligibility - Second marriage - Equal treatment of officials))
         (2016/C 364/39)
         Language of the case: French

            Parties

            Applicant: U (*1) (represented by: F.Moyse, lawyer)

            Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara, A.-C. Simon and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents)

            Intervener in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Ecker and E. Tavena, acting as Agents)

            Re:

         Application for annulment of the decision not to grant a survivor’s pension to the applicant.

            Operative part of the judgment

         The Tribunal:

                     1.

                     Annuls the decision of 24 September 2014 by which the European Commission refused the application of  U (*1) for a survivor’s pension in respect of her late husband, a former official entitled to a retirement pension.

                     2.

                     Declares that the European Commission is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay the costs incurred by Mrs  U (*1).

                     3.

                     Declares that the European Parliament is to bear its own costs.

            (*1)  Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality.

            (1)  OJ C 302, 14.9.2015, p. 71.


title: Case C-368/02: Action brought on 14 October 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

text:
7.12.2002             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 305/15
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungs-                        purposes on the qualifying date, within the meaning of
gericht, Halle (Administrative Court, Halle) by order of                      either of the above regulations, and, if so, whether any of
that Court of 30 September 2002 in the administrative                         the aforesaid circumstances might cause it no longer to
proceedings between Mr Gerd Gschoßmann against Auth-                          be so regarded?
ority for Agriculture and the Reorganisation of Land,
                              South
                        (Case C-366/02)
                        (2002/C 305/26)                                 Action brought on 14 October 2002 by the Commission
                                                                        of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                                                                Spain
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                           (Case C-368/02)
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht,
Halle (Administrative Court, Halle) of 30 September 2002,
                                                                                (2002/C 305/27)
received at the Court Registry on 14 Oktober 2002, for a
preliminary ruling in the administrative proceedings between
Mr Gerd Gschoßmann against Authority for Agriculture and
the Reorganisation of Land, South on the following questions:
                                                                        An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
                                                                        the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 Octo-
1.   Does being under permanent crops, within the meaning               ber 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
     Article 9 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1765/92 of                represented by Isabel Martínez del Peral and Miguel França, of
     30 June 1992 establishing a support system for producers           its Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
     of certain arable crops (OJ 1992 L 181, p. 12), or Article 7
     of Council Regulation (EC) No 1251/1999 of 17 May
     1999 (OJ 1999 L 160, p. 1), necessarily require that the           The Commission claims that the Court should:
     crops on the land, in this case apple trees, are being
     cultivated?
                                                                        —     declare that, by failing to adopt or, in the alternative, to
                                                                              notify to the Commission, within the time-limit laid
2.   Is the land still under permanent crops if the owner or                  down, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
     tenant stops using insecticides during the growing season                necessary to comply fully with Directive 98/27/EC of the
     and no longer picks the apples thereafter?                               European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May
                                                                              1998 ( 1) on injunctions for the protection of consumers’
                                                                              interests, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its
3.   If the answer to Question 2 is in the negative, does the                 obligations under Article 8(1) of the directive;
     land cease to be under permanent crops if the owner or
     tenant decides to fell the apple trees on it but does not in
     fact act on that decision before the qualifying date? Is the       —     order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
     answer different if, before the qualifying date, another
     undertaking is contracted to carry out the clearing?
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
4.   If the answer to Question 3 is also in the negative, does
     the land cease to be under permanent crops if the owner
     or tenant has felled the trees, with no intention of
                                                                        The period prescribed for transposition expired on 1 January
     planting new trees? In other words, is the deadline for
     clearing, namely 31 December 1991, also the relevant               2001. Although Spain has already transposed into domestic
                                                                        law Directive 2000/31/EC on electronic commerce, to which
     deadline for the purposes of the support system?
                                                                        Directive 98/27/EC also applies by virtue of the amendment
                                                                        introduced by Article 18 of Directive 2000/31/EC, the infringe-
5.   If the answer to Question 4 is also in the negative, does          ment alleged against Kingdom of Spain continues to exist in
     the land cease to be under permanent crops if it is cleared        its entirety so far as concerns the basic provisions of Directive
     of the felled trees before the qualifying date to prepare it       98/27/EC and its implementation in the sectors initially
     for use as arable land?                                            provided for in the annex thereto.
6.   If any of the above circumstances do result in the land            (1 ) OJ No L 166, 11.6.1998, p. 51.
     ceasing to be under permanent crops the question arises
     whether, once it is no longer under permanent crops, it
     is to be regarded as being used for non-agricultural


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratif, Amiens (Second Chamber) by judgment of that court of 20 April 1995 in the case of Michel Macon, Monique Macon, Philippe Macon, Jacqueline Sauvrezy and Pascal Macon against the Prefect of the Aisne Department (Case C-152/95)

text:
No C 189/ 10              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     22 . 7 . 95
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      6 . If the answer to questions 3 and 5 is in the affirmative, is
                                                                             a widower who does not receive a pension and other
— Time limit for instituting proceedings : the Court of First                survivor's benefits on the basis of that provision (Article
    Instance departed from Community law by finding that,                    9 ( 1 ) ( a) ofLaw No 4491/1966 ) entitled toapension and
    notwithstanding the fact that a decision was notified to                 survivor's benefits under the same conditions as those
    the applicants, the time limit for instituting proceedings               laid down for widows ?
    provided for in Article 173 of the Treaty had begun to
    run for the applicants only from the moment when they
    had '. . . sufficient knowledge of the reasons for the
    Commission's decision'.
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di
                                                                         Genova — Sezione prima civile — by order of that court of
— Infringement of Community law: the Commission                          30 March 1995 in the case of Igino Mazzola SpA v.
    considers that the obligation arising from Article 6 of                               Ministero delle Finanze dello Stato
    Regulation (EEC ) No 2950/83 i 1 ) must be interpreted in
    the specific context of the many and necessarily close                                         (Case C-148/95 )
    contacts between the Commission and the Portuguese                                               ( 95/C 189/18 )
    authorities .
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Cour^ of Justice of the
(M OJ No L 289 , 22 . 10 . 1983 , p . 1 .
                                                                         European Communities by an order of the Tribunale di
                                                                         Genova, Sezione prima civile ( District Court, Genova, First
                                                                         Civil Section ) of 30 March 1995 , which was received at the
                                                                         Court Registry on 12 May 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                         the case of Igino Mazzola SpA v . Ministero delle Finanze
                                                                         dello Stato ( State Finance Minister ) on the same questions as
                                                                         in Case C-92/95 ( M.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Dioikitiko Efetio
( Administrative Court of Appeal), Athens, by a decision of              (M OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 .
that court of 30 March 1995 in the case of Dimosia
       Epicheirisi Ilectrismou ( DEI) v. E. Evrenopoulos
                            ( Case C-147/95 )
                              ( 95/C 189/17                              Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
                                                                         Administratif, Amiens ( Second Chamber) by judgment of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   that court of 20 April 1995 in the case of Michel Macon,
European Communities by a decision of the Administrative                 Monique Macon, Philippe Macon, Jacqueline Sauvrezy
Court of Appeal, Athens, of 30 March 1995 , which was                    and Pascal Macon against the Prefect of the Aisne
received at the Court Registry on 12 May 1995 , for a                                                  Department
preliminary ruling in the case of Dimosia Epicheirisi                                              ( Case C-152/95 )
Ilectrismou ( DEI ) ( Public Electricity Company ) v . E.                                            ( 95/C 189/19
Evrenopoulos on the following questions :
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
1 . Is the DEI insurance scheme as described in paragraph 2              European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal
     of the decision an occupational or a statutory                      Administratif (Administrative Court ), Amiens ( Second
     scheme ?                                                            Chamber) of 20 April 1995, which was received at the Court
                                                                         Registry on 15 May 1995 , for a preliminarty ruling in the
2 . Does Article 1 19 of the EC Treaty or Directive 79/7/EEC             case of Michel Macon, Monique Macon, Philippe Macon,
     apply to the scheme, in particular to the survivors '               Jacqueline Sauvrezy and Pascal Macon against the Prefect of
     benefits for which it provides ?                                    the Aisne Department on the question set out below.
3 . Is Article 9 ( 1 ) ( a ) of Greek Law No 4491 / 1966 contrary        The Tribunal Administratif, Amiens ( Second Chamber) asks
     to Article 119 of the EC Treaty ?                                   the Court of Justice to give a ruling on the following
                                                                         question :
4 . Is its maintenance in force permitted by any other
     Community provision ?                                               Must Article 2 of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1637/91 of
                                                                         13 June 1991 fixing compensation with regard to the
5 . Does Article 119 of the EC Treaty apply to the case in               reduction of the reference quantities referred to in Article 5c
     point in the light of Protocol 2 to the EEC Treaty and the          of Regulation ( EEC ) No 804/68 and compensation for
     fact that the respondent brought his original action                the definitive discontinuation of milk production i 1 ) be
     before 17 May 1990, that is to say on 12 June 1989 , but            interpreted as precluding the grant of compensation for
     that action was, however, dismissed by Decision                     definitive discontinuation of milk production to a farmer
     No 8361 / 1990 of the Administrative Court of First                 who, while not producing milk, none the less at the time the
     Instance , Athens, because no objection had been lodged             application is made possesses milk reference quantities, by
     ( quasi-judicial action) against the decision of the                virtue of direct sales in particular ?
     Director of the Staff Insurance, and in the decision a time
                                                                         (!) OJ No L 150, 15 . 6 . 1991 , p . 30 .
     limit of three months was allowed for lodging such an
     objection ?


title: Case F-131/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 23 April 2015 — Bensai v Commission (Civil Service — Member of contractual staff — Remuneration — Salary statement — Confirmative in nature — Failure to follow the requirements of the pre-litigation procedure — Reform of the Staff Regulations — Increase in working hours without adjustment of salary — No effect on the confirmative nature of the salary statement — Lack of equality between members of contractual staff and local staff — Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure)

text:
               8.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/33

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 23 April 2015 — Bensai v Commission
   (Case F-131/14) (1)

   ((Civil Service - Member of contractual staff - Remuneration - Salary statement - Confirmative in nature - Failure to follow the requirements of the pre-litigation procedure - Reform of the Staff Regulations - Increase in working hours without adjustment of salary - No effect on the confirmative nature of the salary statement - Lack of equality between members of contractual staff and local staff - Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure))
   (2015/C 190/38)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: David Bensai (Müllendorf, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Salerno, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision not to increase the salary of the applicant, who is a member of the contractual staff, following the increase in working hours to 40 hours a week as a result of the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations on 1 January 2014.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible and, in any event, manifestly unfounded.

               2.

               Mr Bensai shall bear his own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 7, 12.1.2015, p. 61.


title: Case T-126/17: Order of the General Court of 18 May 2017 — Consorzio IB Innovation v Commission

text:
               17.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 231/54

         Order of the General Court of 18 May 2017 — Consorzio IB Innovation v Commission
   (Case T-126/17) (1)

   (2017/C 231/72)
   Language of the case: Italian
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 121, 18.4.2017.


title: Case T-847/14: Action brought on 30 December 2014  — GHC v Commission

text:
               16.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/28

         Action brought on 30 December 2014 — GHC v Commission
   (Case T-847/14)
   (2015/C 056/39)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: GHC Gerling, Holz & Co. Handels GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: D. Lang, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission implementing decision of 31 October 2014 C(2014) 7920 and the quota assigned to the applicant for 2015 for the placing of hydrofluorocarbons on the market, in so far as they establish too low a reference value for the applicant and assign to the applicant too low a quota for 2015;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law: Infringement of Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 (1)

                           —

                           By this plea the applicant submits that the defendant established too low a reference value for the applicant and assigned to it too low a quota for 2015. The applicant complains that, in its calculation, the Commission took into account the development of stocks in the reference years.

                           —

                           The applicant submits that the wording, history, scheme and spirit and purpose of Regulation No 517/2014 do not justify the taking into account of the development of stocks.

                           —

                           Within the context of this plea, the applicant asserts that the annual development of stocks is not suitable for determining the quantity actually placed on the market for importers and exporters which are not producers, and distorts that determination to the applicant’s detriment.

               2.

               Second plea in law: Infringement of the principle of equality stemming from Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

                           —

                           By this plea the applicant submits that, due to the taking into account of the annual development of stocks in the reference years, it is unfairly disadvantaged vis-à-vis importers which sold their stocks over the course of the reference year and did not store them beyond the end of the year.

                           —

                           In addition, the applicant as an importer is also unfairly disadvantaged vis-à-vis producers, since the taking into account of the development of the annual stocks is suitable for producers to accurately reflect the quantity actually placed on the market, whereas it is distorted to the applicant’s detriment.

               3.

               Third plea in law: Infringement of the obligation to state reasons stemming from Article 296 TFEU

                           —

                           By this plea the applicant submits in particular that the contested decision does not comply with the requirements flowing from the obligation to state reasons; in particular it is not evident how the tonnes of CO2 equivalent indicated for the applicant is composed.

      (1)  Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on fluorinated greenhouse gases and repealing Regulation (EC) No 842/2006 (OJ 2014 L 150, p. 195).


title: Case C-301/13 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 February 2014 — El Corte Inglés, SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(1)(b) — Word mark CLUB GOURMET and CLUB DEL GOURMET — Rejection of the opposition — Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Article 181 — Appeal clearly inadmissible in part and clearly unfounded in part)

text:
               10.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/18

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 February 2014 — El Corte Inglés, SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-301/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(1)(b) - Word mark CLUB GOURMET and CLUB DEL GOURMET - Rejection of the opposition - Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Article 181 - Appeal clearly inadmissible in part and clearly unfounded in part))
   2014/C 175/21
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

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

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

      Re:

   Appeal lodged against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 March 2013 in Case T-571/11 El Corte Inglés v Chez Gerard (CLUB GOURMET), by which that court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 July 2011 (Case R 1946/2010-1) concerning opposition proceedings between El Corte Inglés, SA and Groupe Chez Gerard Restaurants Ltd

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               El Corte Inglés SA shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 207, 20.07.2013.


title: Case T-487/09: Action brought on 7 December 2009 — ReValue Immobilienberatung v OHIM (ReValue)

text:
               13.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/41

         Action brought on 7 December 2009 — ReValue Immobilienberatung v OHIM (ReValue)
   (Case T-487/09)
   2010/C 37/58
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

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

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Fourth Board of Appeal) of 7 October 2009 in Case R 531/2009-4;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark ‘ReValue’ for services in classes 35, 36, 42 and 45 (Application No 6 784 292)

      Decision of the Examiner: registration rejected partially

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1), on the grounds that the sign applied for is not descriptive in relation to the services in question and is not devoid of any distinctive character; infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009, on the ground that the contested decision was not sufficiently reasoned in the necessary sections.

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


title: Case T-408/13: Action brought on 30 July 2013 — Mayaleh v Council

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/56

         Action brought on 30 July 2013 — Mayaleh v Council
   (Case T-408/13)
   2013/C 344/102
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Adib Mayaleh (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: G. Karouni and C. Dumont, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul:

                           —

                           Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria in so far as it concerns Mr Adib Mayaleh;

                           —

                           Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 363/2013 of 22 April 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, corrected on 9 May 2013 in so far as it concerns Mr Adib Mayaleh;

                     order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs in accordance with Articles 87 and 91 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to the first, second, third, fifth, sixth and seventh pleas in law relied on in Case T-383/11 Makhlouf v Council.
       (1)

      (1)  OJ 2011 C 282, p.30.


title: Case T-785/16: Action brought on 9 November 2016 — BSH Electrodomesticos España v EUIPO — DKSH International (Ufesa)

text:
               9.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/53

         Action brought on 9 November 2016 — BSH Electrodomesticos España v EUIPO — DKSH International (Ufesa)
   (Case T-785/16)
   (2017/C 006/66)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: BSH Electrodomesticos España, SA (Huarte-Pamplona, Spain) (represented by: M. de Justo Bailey, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: DKSH International Ltd. (Zurich, Switzerland)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Ufesa’ — Application for registration No 10 857 29

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 July 2016 in Case R 1691/2015-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.